by T. Scott Randolph

Created on: October 15, 2009   Last Updated: March 18, 2010

The idea of rating an article that you disagree with the side of the debate the author picked is a great way to broaden you horizons and give creative criticism. I think that is should not be a cut and dry decision though. I think when you are rating the articles you should have the opportunity to read and therefore rate both sides. This would be a touchy situation because members may be tempted to give a low rating just because they disagree with the opinion stated. That is not the point of the rating system.

If you are only reading the articles that are written in favor of what you believe then you will be have a narrow view because you already agree with what the author is saying. The whole purpose of a debate is to argue a point. Or, if you want to put it in a nicer way you are discussing an issue.

If you have the opportunity to rate the articles that are written by authors that are in favor of the other side of the question, you will be given a unique opportunity. This is an opportunity for both people, the author that is doing the rating as well as the writer that has written the article. If you believe what you are writing, then you have the opportunity to educate a fellow peer as to why you believe the way that you do. If you have done a good job with your writing, you may even create a convert to your side of the fence.

Telling people what they already know doesn't really serve any purpose. It is a technique that politicians are known for. It is called lip service. If I write an article that explains why I feel a certain way about a topic, I would rather have a skeptic read it. This gives me the chance to prove my point. If I have written it well enough to prove my point, then maybe, just maybe I can change someones view on the topic. Even if they don't change their minds, they will naturally be a little bit more critical. This can be a good thing. You can get feedback that is a little more honest.

I am not out to change the world. I don't think that is the goal of any of my fellow writers at Helium. Why keep our opinions locked into a group of peers that already agree with us. Let's take a leap of faith and use our skills to articulate the argument that we have for whichever side, and try to bring the "enemy" over to our side. I use the term enemy in a good natured way. I don't think that any of us actually think that someone that writes on the other side of the debate is an enemy.

Without competition you will become lazy. You will begin to rest on your laurels. Criticism is the way that you become a better writer. Of course it needs to be of the constructive type. Feedback, be it positive, or negative will make you take a second or third look at your work. Helium has even set up a place for people that cannot be professional about the debates between people. The back lot in the community forum (which if you are bored, it is very entertaining to read).

I believe that the level of professionalism that I have encountered on Helium shows that their would be no problem with having someone rate one of my articles just because they disagree with me and my opinion. The rating process shouldn't be based on what your answer to the question is, it is your writing skill and how well you make your opinion known. I for one would not give an author a bad rating score because they have chosen a different side of a debate. I can only hope that my fellow peers would feel the same about this point.

Learn more about this author, T. Scott Randolph.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.