They are really careful to pick topics that are somewhat ironclad in concept; I think one of the topics was "should the government subsidize solar-wind-hydro power, or should the private sector carry the burden, exclusively" They choose really broad spectrum "thesus" type statements that can be supported pro/con based on large amounts of data (sometimes, though, the "data" cited is faulty, so it is up to the opposing debators to catch it and debunk it)
I would really like to see a "should HH be taken out, or should it stay" topic for an Oxford debate; I would pay to attend that one!
I have read some excellent points in this discussion that I otherwise would not have thought of, such as: at what cost of 'dirty' power to replace the hydro lost by dismantling HH. By the way, the Bay Area was way ahead of the game with water meters; they have been in place for decades, and water aint cheap.
