Should Parlia support local opinions?

Discussing local issues will increase participation

Question: Should Parlia support local opinions?
Position1 of 2›: Parlia should support local controversies
Argument: Discussing local issues will increase participation

People are much more likely to be interested in and become involved in debates that have a personal impact. By encouraging local discussions, more people will turn to Parlia to discuss their opinions and, in the process, familiarize themselves with the larger democratic process of debate.

The argument

Supporters of extending Parlia to local controversies start from the platform's own stated aims: to be an inclusive platform for everyone all over the world, and to host discussion that is constructive and reasonable. Those aims, on this view, set a test that the range of subjects has to meet. A site carrying only large-scale controversies is inclusive in principle and narrow in practice, because it asks people to engage with the questions that national governments and large companies treat as significant while offering them nothing on the questions they encounter where they live. Extending debate to the local level is therefore presented as what the mission already requires. A truly all-encompassing encyclopedia of opinion supports issues on both larger and smaller scales, and treats a dispute over a local development or service as belonging in the record alongside a national one. Choosing between the two is not neutral: to favour one over the other would automatically introduce a bias of governmental or corporate prioritisation, and a platform that sorts controversies that way does not send a message of inclusiveness whatever its stated commitments. Participation follows from the same reasoning, since people are readiest to contribute where they have direct knowledge and a stake in the outcome, which is most often close to home. Proponents add a further benefit. Studies are cited to the effect that providing links to localities within controversies, and to their news sources, will boost local business and commerce, so that covering local disputes carries value beyond the discussion itself and returns something to the places whose arguments are being documented. Since coverage of local issues both widens participation and follows from the inclusiveness the platform already claims, the conclusion drawn is that Parlia should support local controversies.

Premises

[P1]Parlia's mission is an inclusive, worldwide platform for reasoned discussion, so extending debate to local issues makes it a truly all-encompassing encyclopedia of opinion rather than one biased toward large-scale governmental or corporate concerns. [P2] Studies show that linking localities and their news sources within controversies boosts local business and commerce, an added benefit of covering local issues. [C] Therefore, because discussing local issues increases participation and inclusiveness, Parlia should support local controversies.

Counter-arguments

Focusing too heavily on local issues detracts from the concepts and arguments that more universally affect everyone who visits Parlia, not just the small minority of people to which that map would apply. Yes, Parlia should be inclusive, but not all aspects of life and facets of humanity do people find themselves understanding and relating to them. Simply because there are disputes or genuinely intriguing issues on a smaller, personal scale, they do not apply to a site attempting to reach a worldwide market.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Parlia can be inclusive without going down to the local level. The vast majority of people visiting the site search for issues they can relate to, not miscellaneous disputes that have little to do with the wider world network of opinions being built. [Rejecting P3] Parlia should not include local issues.