To start off on the search for an online deliberation, I Google searched “interesting discussion forums” and stumbled upon a website with an abundance of them. I skimmed through the discussion topics and found a myriad of intriguing comments. Some were a bit offensive while others more thought-provoking. The variety was pretty shocking to me but I eventually found one that really sparked my interest. Found here, this discussion forum “deliberates” the current presidential election. One individual, under the name true1patriot, an telling username if you ask me, stated the “pointless” nature of who becomes president in the upcoming year.  A stream of comments ensued as I expected they would.

The topic of this so-to-speak deliberation was of interest, as can be seen by the 34 comments it received. People responded to the subject with their own ideas. It was not just a statement into the void but a more invitational calling for others to respond. The introduction for this discussion forum, while peculiar, does invite others to comment. Although the statements are not very informational or fact-oriented, they are observational. The individual comments on previous administrations and predicts the outcome for those of the future. This makes for a feasible conversation where others cans express their opinions and choose to agree or disagree. However, while allowing for discussion to take place, there is a fault. I want to make a note of the language used by this true1patriot because it certainly caught my attention. The individual strongly states their opinion, focusing on why he/she believes nothing productive will take place with our next president. However, I had to acknowledge the use of the words “knucklehead” and “wackadoodle” in reference to conservatives. In employing such crass language, the discussion creator created an environment more relative to debate. In deliberations, the overall purpose is to come to an agreement of sorts. By not-so-subtlety name-calling others, this individual loses this quality of deliberation. Rather than creating and inviting, open aura, the creator makes people feel unwelcome due these insults.

The discussion that followed is also a matter of interest. The discussion topic received quite a bit of feedback from readers. While some chose very opinion-oriented paths to explain their beliefs, others took a more deliberative approach. I saw a few individuals making comments with links attached to their thoughts. By providing back up information and supporting their statements with facts they achieve a certain amount of credibility.

The overall nature of the forum was conversational. Despite the bit of name-calling at the beginning, the discussion evolved into something more productive. People, from what I can see, were comfortable enough to have open commenting. Individuals brought interesting information to the table that allowed for further back-and-forth remarks. Articles were referenced and facts were shared, creating a bit of a deliberation. Even though no resolution was made, people agreed and those who did not agreed to disagree. Online deliberations, because of their general nature, do not develop in the same way as verbal ones. People can hide behind a screen and openly speak without many repercussions. However, some insight can be gained and people can learn more in certain scenarios.