The strongest case on each side of every major political topic, stated as its own advocates would state it — then rebutted directly by the other side. Each topic runs as a pair: the progressive case on the left, the conservative case on the right, each closing with an answer to the other. Beneath every topic, an open floor: any reader can submit a better version of either case, capped at the length of the longer column so no one wins by volume.
On method. Each case is built from what that side's own most prominent advocates actually argue, not from how opponents characterise them. Where a movement is split, the split is reported rather than smoothed over. Word counts are tracked and kept within a few percent of each other, because length is itself a form of advantage.
How reader arguments are ranked. Not by raw votes. An argument's score is driven overwhelmingly by how people on the opposing side rate it — whether they concede it makes the case stronger. Same-side approval is worth roughly a fifth as much, and an argument that its own side loves while the other side rejects is explicitly demoted as tribal applause.
Three consequences worth stating plainly. Recruiting like-minded friends to upvote does almost nothing, because their votes barely count. Credibility accrues only from opposing-side approval, so reputation cannot be farmed inside your own camp. And both columns display the same number of reader arguments no matter how lopsided the site's population becomes.
The gate. Before submitting an argument for your own side, you must first rate several from the other. That is the whole ethic of the site in one rule: earn the right to be heard by demonstrating you have listened.
Who carries each case. These are the writers and broadcasters whose actual arguments the two columns are built from.