Is a "debate" at Intelligence Squared as dull as it sounds?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7807687/The-House-of-Commons-no-longer-provides-model-debate.html

An "advertorial" by the Telegraph for Intelligence Squared, perhaps.

I don't know anyone who would pay £25 just for the privilege of attending any of these dull debates, do you?

Look at the list of these very dull topics.

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/subjects

The question should not be "Is X Y?" but "Should X be done?"

Why are they not doing what is perfectly obvious to me?

Is it a conspiracy to bore us to death and put us off politics? I really think people would have more fun at a BNP meeting or attending one of Anjem Choudary's sermons.

Please, please, please just let me know if you would consider paying £25 to listen to these people drone on about what they think *is* or *is not* rather than what should or should not be done?

I really need to know.

I don't believe for one moment that Charles Moore, who wrote the advertorial, would for one moment pay £25 to attend a debate hosted by these people. He would only attend if he were speaking or was given a freebie, as would I.

A proper debate would consist of the following elements:

1. A premise (eg The invasion of Iraq took place)

2. An argument (eg It was a good idea, or not, depending on which side of the argument you are on.)

3. A rebuttal (eg "Oh yes it was" or "Oh no, it wasn't".)

4. A conclusion (eg the vote that would take place after all the above 3 have taken place.)

I don't think these people at IQ even know that. Weird.