Many issues are contested in public life, and some are deeply polarised.  But whatever side of any issue we may find ourselves on, we probably agree about the way that conversations ought to happen.  We see ourselves, and the best of the people on our side, as reasonable and respectful.  We are able to face the truth, and to persuade the great majority of ‘normal people’ about our cause.  We think the problem lies with our opponents, who cannot speak so civilly and honestly, but only make their case by deflecting or avoiding our important questions.  And they think the same way, but about us.  So shouldn’t we be open to speaking together in public, if we can just be persuaded that the other side will be held to the old-fashioned standards of reason and decency that we ourselves espouse?

The benefits of speaking in this way are obvious to anyone who has seen it done.  Hearing different sides talking together about big issues can help us all to understand them better.  Talking back and forth corrects misunderstandings quickly – and more so in public.  It puts a human face on people we might otherwise dismiss as enemies or problems.  At the same time, it subjects their ideas to all the scrutiny their opponents can muster.  Speaking at length can cover issues thoroughly, rather than in a piecemeal, one-sided, occasional, or purely partisan manner, more like a drive-by-shooting than a conversation.

While in-person debates are typically limited to two hours and two sides, debates in print have more flexibility in length and format.  Third-party commentators can contribute, as it were, from the sidelines, offering expertise and giving a voice to minority views.  While conflicted issues can be fractious, debates can set terms of discussion that require courtesy.  Moderators or adjudicators can be chosen who are agreed by both sides to be capable of objectivity.  They can keep the talks rational and stop anybody deflecting questions or talking over others.  Openly rational and respectful conversations undermine the kinds of deception and aggression that polarisation relies upon.

In this article I suggest how a series of long talks might be run, and that this is a format especially suited to a mostly-online newspaper with a respected editorial staff – the sort of papers and magazines that already produce ‘Long Reads’ for in-depth writing on important issues.  ‘Long Talks’ could rebuild norms of reason and civility, and the expectation that discussions in the public square should serve the common good.  If talks like these were published online they could become a permanent public resource and, in themselves, a kind of common ground.  A public exposed to their benefits will be increasingly critical of merely partisan advocacy, and conscious of being ill-served by it.

In a discussion of this sort two writers argue the major sides of some significant issue.  There will be four main roles in the discussion:

The editor will arrange the cast of participants, and the writers will agree to the opponents, commentators, and adjudicators at the start.  A prior announcement of upcoming series’ might lead to helpful nominations of participants.

A discussion series will contain an introduction by the editor, (optionally) an orientation by the adjudicators, opening statements, articles, responses, closing statements, reflections from participants, correspondence from the public, and a summary review by the adjudicators.

From this point on a fairly normal debate structure will follow:

1. Some kind of humorous introductory remarks, e.g. a joke we tell about the people on our own side.
2. Who I am, who I represent, and where I stand among the views on my side; perhaps also how I came to the position I now hold.
3. The best article-length and book-length treatments of my position.  (One each; recommendations specific to particular areas may be added in those articles.)
4. I will argue and defend these points in my articles…
5. But will not argue or defend these other points…
6. I agree to the terms of discussion, and the selected commentators and adjudictators.
7. Why I’m looking forward to this discussion.

For the body of the debate, notes may be added at the end of any piece by the adjudicators, and if time allows, the writer may adjust their article to take account of these.  These notes will be restricted to fact checks, or to overseeing the debate itself, such as pointing when the other side’s arguments have not been addressed.  At the end of the series there will be some concluding articles:

Some standards for participation will be needed; to be judged by the adjudicators.  At minimum, we should require:

• Summarise in one paragraph, at the start, the claims you intend to argue in each article, or the arguments to which you are replying.
• The arguments of the opponent may be attacked, but not the opponent themselves.
• Write clearly, for a reading age of sixteen, by any widely-used readability metric.
• Introduce and summarise your evidence conversationally.  Do not use footnotes.
• Prove beyond reasonable doubt any claim you choose to argue, or leave it out.  Especially, you must justify any generalisations about your opponents.

A topic should be a public controversy that resolves to two or three major points of view, with other positions being represented from the sidelines by commentators.  It should be expected that hearing opposing views might improve public understanding and empathy on this issue.  (The examples I offer here are specific to Australia.)

• Is Australian multiculturalism a success or a problem?
• Should Australians be economically right-wing or left-wing?
• Should Australians be socially progressive or conservative?
• Should Australians be populist or elitist?
• Is Australia still racist?  (or: sexist?)
• Should there be reparations for British colonisation?
• Is government in Australia sufficiently resistant to corruption?
• Will our children have better lives than we do?
• Does the news media serve the interests of the Australian people?
• Is Australia doing enough to preserve the natural environment?
• Are transmen men, and transwomen women?
• Should education mainly prepare people for work?
• Is free speech threatened in Australia?
• Is Australia a good global citizen?  (or: Are we good ancestors?)

The discussion might proceed as follows.  A six week structure would allow for at least seven quite substantial discussions over the course of a year.  This assumes two writers, and a normal unit length of 2,000 words, and produces 40,000 words of discussion in total.

I’m not aware of any exact precedent for this kind of discussion.  If we compare it to current formats, we see a possible gap in the market, which online news publishing could fill.