To be honest, I wasn’t too sure rational debate on the internet was possible – it usually quickly devolves into ad hominems and every other kind of fallacious argument. However, a new site looks like it may be possible. Opposing Views presents arguments from both sides, from people generally accepted as experts in their field. (On global warming, arguments are presented by someone from the Sierra Club and the National Center for Policy Analysis. On whether we should keep animals in zoos, it’s Jack Hanna vs. someone from PETA.) There’s an area for users to comment and vote.
One question in the Religion section is “Is the U.S. a Christian Nation?” This is a bit of a hot button, particularly for conservative Christians, and both arguments are well worth reading. I don’t get involved in those arguments as a rule, but I will admit to be being amused by people who cite Jefferson’s writing as proof that he intended Christianity to prevail – but fail to mention Jefferson’s wholesale rejection of Jesus’ divinity, miracles and resurrection. (What, you never heard of the Jefferson bible?) There’s also a good argument on intelligent design, although for that I usually just check to see what Mark and Henry have to say.
In any event – go take a look at Opposing Views. I think you’ll enjoy it.
When you say that the site provides analysis from “both sides”, it implies that all issues have but two sides. That is a dangerous way to analyze most issues which is damaging to debate but beneficial to the two major U.S. parties. Everybody starts thinking “OK. It’s either this way or that way. It’s the Democrat way or the Republican way.” That’s not how answers are discovered or how truth is arrived at. It would be as though two scientists were put into a room, each with her own theory. Whichever scientist wins the debate gets to write our science book… even if neither scientist had an accurate theory.