The aftermath of the US financial bailout bill is the first topic discussed.

Why the Knols Debates Are Politically Smart

Google is a company that finds itself taking political stands some times. Last week the company took an official stance against a California bill that would ban gay marriage. On the other hand, earlier this year it colluded with Chinese government censors by removing images of Tienanmen Square from its search results, arguing that engagement is the best way to foster change in a repressive regime and legal compliance is required in order to comply. "We have to do business with them in order to encourage change on human rights" is a convenient argument that's been made since at least the days of the South African boycott over apartheid. In some circumstances it might also hold some water as an arguement.

For Google to host a long-form point-counterpoint debate about key issues, using simple software that allows readers to participate through comments, is good for Google and good for the public. Google needs to come across as impartial at every opportunity. Otherwise it's omniscience will become all the more unpalatable.

Most topics do have more than 2 important perspectives from which they should be addressed and we hope that the best comments from readers will be effectively highlighted, as well. Just as a two party political system hampers the intellectual honesty of our engagement with vital public issues, it would be a real loss if the Knols debates were similarly focused on a crude bipartisan analysis of complex topics.

It's a Good Business Move by Google

Speaking of impartiality, there has been a fair amount of evidence since day one that Knol is doing unusually well in Google search results. Who can be surprised? Some people wouldn't object if a relevant Knol was automatically placed at the very top of any search result page that it could be.

The problem with that is that Wikipedia pages are often in that position today due to extensive inbound links. Knol truly is aimed to be a Wikipedia killer and Google would no doubt profit handsomely by making its own content pages the go-to sites for matters of public concern.

What better topics to do that with than hugely popular controversies leading up to the Presidential election? These Knols will probably be read by millions of people and in the process of becoming more educated, they will also be exposed to Google's Knols site.

Last night we wrote about how Google Search and analytics have changed the phenomenon of political debate forever. This giant knowledge conglomerate publishing its own debates as content is likely to be a much more subtle influence on politics, but it could be an important one, none the less.

"We see this as far more than a one day gathering. We'll combine an online discussion with a real-time forum, and using Google's technologies and YouTube's video platform, voters will have the opportunity to learn about the candidates and to raise the issues they think are more important for America's future both before and after the New Orleans forum," said David Drummond, a Senior VP at Google in a video introduction (embedded below).

One thing we would love to see Google do with the second debate, is to allow users to self moderate and decide which questions make it to air. In the previous YouTube debates, a set of moderators at CNN and YouTube chose the final questions from among those submitted.

As TechPresident notes, the Commission on Presidential Debates has also announced a set of presidential debates, the second of which will be held in a "town hall" style format and will solicit questions via the Internet. The Internet has clearly removed a level of separation between candidates and the public and made it easier for people to ask questions directly of those running for president. Despite the occasional silliness that seeped through to the last YouTube debate, that is certainly a good thing.

CreateDebate is the newest debate site to hit the web. It moved from private beta to public late this morning and offers an extremely slick interface for online debate. Debates on CreateDebate can take multiple forms. They can be open ended questions, such as "Who had the best NFL draft?" or they can be head-to-head debates, such as "Is drug abuse a criminal or health problem, Yes or No?"

Users can vote in two-sided debates and add arguments in each. Arguments are voted up or down Reddit-style with the top arguments displayed at the top of the page. Users can also add rebuttals to arguments which can be further voted upon. Debates that are time sensitive (such as "Who will win the Democratic nomination for president?") can be set to expire. CreateDebate can also be used for simple yes/no polling on non-contentious issues.

One unique feature of CreateDebate is that each debate has a "research" page that pulls in news from RSS or Atom feeds. Whoever creates the debate can add new sources to the research page and news stories can be automatically made into the focal point of a new debate.

Riled Up! is a more simple debate site that uses the head-to-head format. Debaters are asked simple yes or no, or X vs. Y questions and asked to support a side. Choose wisely, because once you've picked your side, you can't go back.

Similar to CreateDebate, users vote arguments up and down and can post rebuttals, which can be tagged as supporting, neutral, or opposing.

Wis.dm is really a question and answer site that many have compared to Yahoo! Answers, but because it favors yes/no questions, it is actually more akin to the debate sites here. Wis.dm is set up very simply : Someone asks a yes/no question, users vote, and people debate the answer in an unthreaded discussion forum below the question.

The free form nature of the actual debate makes it a bit harder to follow everyone's position than on more polished debate sites, but Wis.dm is easily the most used of the sites in the round up. Its simplicity makes it very approachable and probably contributes to its mainstream appeal.

outQuib is a social network focused on debate and discussion that we reviewed in January. Debates on the site take the form of a poll with multiple response and forum-style commenting. But the focus of outQuib is really the social aspect -- debates are used as a means of connecting like minded people who can form groups on the site.

Jyte is a product of JanRain, makers of MyOpenID, and I get the idea that it is really more of a proving ground for their OpenID products than it is a serious startup. Jyte allows people to make claims (like, "Tiger Woods is the best pro golfer of all time.") and then people can vote to agree or disagree.

Users can also add comments to the debate (arguments for or against) and give each other "cred" points in areas they think a particular user is especially credible -- though it appears that cred points don't really amount for much other than bragging rights.

Conclusion

With the US presidential election kicking into high gear over the summer and coming to a conclusion next fall (barring any repeat of what happened in 2000), debate sites can probably expect to see a bump in traffic as people head online in search of places to argue their opinions. Which of the sites above is your favorite? Did we miss any? Let us know in the comments below.