Common Ground Meeting Procedures for Charged Topics

🧭 Common Ground Meeting Procedures for Charged Topics

A virtual small-group dialogue format with built-in transparency & mutual respect

🔧 Tools Needed:

Google Meet (or similar platform)
Shared Google Doc or Jamboard for notes
Online Timer (e.g., Online Stopwatch)
Optional: Fact-check tools (AdFontes, AllSides, OpenSecrets)

1. Welcome & Purpose (3–5 min)

Begin by stating the shared intention:

“We’re here not to debate or win, but to listen, learn, and better understand each other’s lived experiences and thought processes—even when we disagree.”

Reaffirm: This is a place for civil dialogue, not echo chambers or attack zones.

2. Ground Rules / Agreements (Read or posted in shared doc)

All participants agree to:

Speak from personal experience (use “I” statements)
Listen without interrupting (even when you disagree)
Stay curious and ask questions to understand, not challenge
Pause before reacting—allow room for processing
Name the impact of what’s said, respectfully
Disclose sources and affiliations when citing facts

📝 Optional: Group adds any agreements together in the shared doc.

3. Introductions & Icebreaker (5–10 min)

Each person shares:

Name and location
A light personal prompt (e.g., “Something I value in a friend is…”)

✅ This helps humanize before discussing polarizing issues.

4. Structured Dialogue Rounds (20–30 min)

Format: Each person has 2–3 minutes per round, with no interruptions.

🔁 Rounds Examples:

“What life experience most shaped how you see this topic?”
“What is one fear or concern you have?”
“What is one thing you hope others will understand about your view?”

💬 Optional prompt in 2nd round:

“If you’re citing a fact, please include the link, source, and any known affiliations or conflicts of interest.”

📄 Participants type sources into the shared doc as they speak:

yaml
FACT: "Immigration has decreased since 2019."  
SOURCE: https://www.pewresearch.org/xyz  
AFFILIATION: Pew Research (nonpartisan think tank)  
COI: No political contributions or lobbying; funded by Pew Charitable Trusts.

5. Open Conversation (Optional – 10–15 min)

If appropriate, open the floor for dialogue—not debate.

Rules remain:

One person at a time
Keep comments brief
Reference shared doc when possible
Correct misinformation with a source, not emotion

🎛️ Facilitator may call for a “reset” or “pause” if tone escalates.

6. Reflection & Closing Round (5–10 min)

Everyone answers:

What’s one takeaway or insight from today?
How are you feeling now?
One hope for the next conversation?

🎉 End with a ritual: thank-you wave, moment of silence, breathwork, or music snippet.

📑 Notes Section Template (Shared Doc Sample)

Person	Fact/Claim	Source Link	Publisher/Affiliation	Conflict of Interest?	Credibility Notes
Dana	Voter ID laws reduce fraud	[Link]	Heritage Foundation	Yes—conservative lobbying group	Rated right-leaning, confirm with neutral source
Alex	Climate consensus 97%	[Link]	NASA.gov	None known	Peer-reviewed, government funded

✅ Optional Add-ons

🧠 Fact Check Moment (one quick neutral review during session)
🎨 Visual summary board (Jamboard or Miro)
🧘 Breathwork check-in before and/or after (30 seconds)

Based on these popular discussion programs

6 of the most popular and effective "talk story" tools used in small group discussions—especially when engaging people with diverse political or cultural perspectives—for fostering civil discourse, empathy, and mutual understanding:

1. Living Room Conversations

What it is: A structured, DIY dialogue method for people with different viewpoints to come together and talk.
How it works: Free online conversation guides cover topics from climate change to gun rights. Conversations have clear agreements and prompts.
Why it works: It emphasizes active listening and shared values, not persuasion.
Website: https://livingroomconversations.org

2. Braver Angels

What it is: A nonprofit focused on depolarizing America through Red/Blue Workshops, debates, and skills training.
How it works: Equal numbers of “reds” (conservatives) and “blues” (progressives) engage in guided conversation using rules to ensure safety and respect.
Why it works: It builds trust by emphasizing common humanity before diving into policy differences.
Website: https://braverangels.org

3. The Circle Process (Restorative Practices)

What it is: A community-based method rooted in Indigenous traditions and restorative justice, used for dialogue and healing.
How it works: Participants sit in a circle, pass a “talking piece,” and speak from the heart. A facilitator guides with prompts.
Why it works: Encourages deep listening, equality, and respect for every voice.
Best for: Schools, healing conversations, intergenerational or cross-cultural discussions.

4. Essential Partners (formerly Public Conversations Project)

What it is: A dialogue method used in places of deep tension (e.g., abortion, race, religion).
How it works: Facilitated dialogue using ground rules, structured turns, and personal storytelling to reduce defensiveness and open up understanding.
Why it works: Backed by decades of research and real-world application.
Website: https://whatisessential.org

5. Fishbowl Dialogue

What it is: A group format where a small group speaks in a circle (the "fishbowl") while the larger group listens.
How it works: Participants rotate in/out of the discussion circle, encouraging reflection and varied perspectives.
Why it works: Builds empathy through observation and active listening, and avoids interruption.

6. Conversation Café

What it is: A simple, lightly structured method for open dialogue in coffee shops, classrooms, or living rooms.
How it works: Starts with agreements (e.g., listen with respect, speak with intention), followed by rounds of sharing prompted by a single question.
Why it works: No facilitator is required, and it’s ideal for informal settings and community building.
Website: https://conversationcafe.org

🔍 Credibility Check Add-on (Section for Shared Document)

Before accepting a source as trustworthy, group members are encouraged to ask these questions and include answers in the shared doc if a source is contested.

✅ Credibility Checklist for Any Source or Fact

Checkpoint	Yes/No	Notes
Is the source transparent about its authorship and funding?
Does the source have a track record of factual reporting (rated by third parties like AdFontes or MBFC)?
Has the source been accused of censoring or removing inconvenient facts or whistleblowers?
Does the source present multiple viewpoints, especially on contested issues?
Are the headlines emotionally charged or neutral?
Has this source retracted false information when proven wrong?
Is the primary evidence (not secondhand or hearsay) available in the link or report?

🧭 Handling Contested Sources (New Procedure)

When a participant cites a source that others believe may have censored or suppressed relevant info:

Pause the conversation briefly.

“Thanks for that. Before we move on, let’s check the source credibility.”
Group uses a third-party rating site to cross-check bias and track record:
- AdFontesMedia
- Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC)
- OpenSecrets (for funding)

If censorship concerns arise, they may be documented in the Conflict of Interest or Credibility Notes section of the shared doc:

cpp
CENSORSHIP CONCERN: Journalist claims NYT spiked lab leak article (link). Whistleblower was silenced.
CREDIBILITY RATING: Mixed – MBFC notes bias but factual reporting; further verification needed.

Encourage curiosity, not cancellation. Example dialogue:

“That’s an important flag—thank you for raising it. Let’s make a note and continue exploring more angles or sources on this point.”

🛠 Updated Shared Doc Table Sample

Fact or Claim	Source Link	Publisher	Conflict of Interest?	Censorship/Whistleblower Concern?	Credibility Rating (Site)
Vaccine data suppressed	[Link]	FDA / ICAN	Yes – Gov-funded	Yes – whistleblower suit (link)	Mixed (MBFC), High Transparency
Police reform poll	[Link]	Pew Research	No	No	High (AdFontes)

🕊️ Common Ground Session Template
Topic: [Insert Topic Here]
Date: [Insert Date]
Hosted via Google Meet
Participants: [First names only]

1. Welcome & Purpose

"We’re here not to debate, but to explore different perspectives on a charged topic. Our goal is civil, structured conversation with mutual respect—even in disagreement."

2. Ground Rules / Agreements

Listen with curiosity
Speak from your own experience
Avoid interrupting
Be mindful of time
Respect confidentiality if requested
Challenge ideas, not people
Take responsibility for impact (not just intention)

3. Introductions & Icebreaker

Prompt: “Say your name and one value that matters to you when talking about tough topics.”

4. Source Table for Claims

Please paste any sources you cite below during the discussion:

Claim	Source Link	Publisher	Conflict of Interest?	Censorship Concern?	Credibility Rating

Use these tools to check credibility:

5. Conflict of Interest / Transparency Notes

Note here any funding, affiliations, lawsuits, or other relevant data that may affect objectivity of sources.

6. Structured Dialogue Rounds

Each participant has 2–3 minutes to respond to:

"What personal experience has shaped your view on this issue?"

🕒 Use a timer visible to all (e.g., https://www.timeanddate.com/timer/)

7. Open Conversation (Optional)

“Now we’ll open the floor. Please continue to honor our agreements and build on what’s been said.”

Facilitator prompts:

“What are some common values or hopes we heard?”
“Are there any points that could use more clarity or nuance?”

8. Reflection & Closing Round

Prompt: “Share one thing you’re taking away from this conversation—an idea, feeling, or hope.”

Optional Closing Ritual:

Gratitude round
One-word check-out
Deep breath or 10-second silence

Invitation to Common Ground Discussion Series

Dear Participants,

You are invited to join an ongoing series of Common Ground Discussions focused on some of today’s most charged and important topics. Our goal is to bring together people with different perspectives—often from opposing sides—to engage in civil, structured, and respectful conversations.

How it works:

Before each session, participants will vote or reach consensus on the topic(s) they wish to discuss from a curated list of hot-button issues. (examples of topics below)
Discussions will be grounded in a shared commitment to listen deeply, respect differing views, and speak from personal experience.
Topics may be revisited over time as new information emerges, and fresh perspectives are shared.
A fundamental principle of this series is the “Bond of Intelligence”: the willingness and ability to change one’s mind or stance when presented with credible new evidence or compelling arguments.
We will adhere to a civil quorum and discussion guidelines to ensure all voices are heard fairly and respectfully.

Your participation will contribute to building understanding, reducing polarization, and fostering constructive dialogue. We hope this series becomes a space where thoughtful conversation leads to common ground—even amid disagreement.

Please come with an open mind and a respectful heart.

Looking forward to our conversations,

Hot-Point Discussion Topics list with your new items included and integrated smoothly:

🔥 Updated Hot-Point Discussion Topics

Donald Trump — Felon, sexual predator, con man, liar OR victim of lawfare, misrepresentation, context manipulation, or even seen as a patriot or saint.
Climate Change — Evidence of human-caused crisis and environmental toxicity OR natural cycles misunderstood, exaggerated risks, and questionable science.
Reproductive Rights — Government regulation vs. bodily autonomy; Pro-life vs. Pro-choice perspectives.
Gun Control — Mental health screenings, licensing, regulation OR uncompromised Second Amendment rights.
Science & Institutions — Conflicts of interest, whistleblowers, censorship, agency credibility, media bias, and the pursuit of truth.
Church & State — Separation issues, religious influence in policy, and whether churches should pay taxes.
Political Privilege — Citizens United, lawmaker immunity, insider benefits, campaign finance.
Environmental Accountability — Holding polluters financially and legally responsible for environmental and health damages.
Billionaires & Corporate Taxes — Fair taxation, wealth inequality, corporate loopholes, and social responsibility.
Food Safety & Additives — Use of pesticides, herbicides, preservatives in the US vs. other countries; labeling transparency and consumer safety.
Green Energy & Transportation — Adoption of renewable energy, protected bike lanes, and cycling infrastructure; comparisons with countries like Denmark and the Netherlands.
Drug Use & Abuse — Criminalization vs. decriminalization models worldwide; impact on society and individuals.
Victims’ Rights & Criminal Accountability — Victims’ compensation, criminals’ responsibility to society beyond punishment, counseling, rehabilitation, and monitored reintegration as productive members.

➕ Additional Topics for Reference

Vaccines & Public Health — Informed consent vs. mandates; trust vs. skepticism toward pharmaceutical companies.
Immigration — National security, resource strain OR humanitarian duty, diversity as strength.
Free Speech — Harmful misinformation vs. censorship and cancel culture.
Education Curriculum — Parental rights vs. inclusive education; CRT, LGBTQ+ inclusion, historical accuracy.
Police Reform — Public safety vs. systemic abuse and reform needs.
Welfare & Universal Income — Safety nets vs. dependency debates.
Media Bias — Echo chambers, propaganda, trust in mainstream media.
Healthcare System — For-profit vs. universal healthcare models.
AI & Automation — Job loss, ethics, and future workforce implications.
Cultural Appropriation — Respect vs. restriction of artistic and cultural expression.
LGBTQ+ Rights — Gender identity, youth care, and religious objections.
Economic Inequality — Taxation, billionaire influence, corporate loopholes.
Election Integrity — Voter suppression vs. voter fraud concerns.
Abortion Access in Rural Areas — Healthcare deserts, travel burdens, local bans.
Digital Surveillance — Security vs. privacy in a connected world.
Foreign Policy & War — Interventionism vs. isolationism; military aid and defense budgets.
Student Debt — Loan forgiveness, value of college, and economic implications.
Housing Crisis — Affordability, zoning laws, homelessness.
Food Systems — GMOs, monoculture, food deserts, and local agriculture.
Trans Rights in Sports — Fairness vs. inclusion.
Prison System — Punitive vs. rehabilitative models, private prisons.
Mental Health Crisis — Access, stigma, overmedication vs. under-treatment.
Citizens United: Immunity to criminality, voting rights, and special privileges among politicians
Polluters: Full responsibility for cleanup and medical damages
.Billionaires and corporate taxes: Fairness, accountability, and wealth distribution.Food additives and safety:
Pesticides, herbicides, labeling standards, and comparisons to other countries.
Green energy and transportation: Bicycling, protected lanes, and what other countries like Denmark have done.
Drug use and abuse: Criminalization vs. decriminalization models from other countries.Victims’ rights and criminals’ responsibilities: Paying society back, counseling, reeducation, reintegration, accountability.
Military expenditures and use: Domestic protection vs. international policing, prioritization compared to healthcare and education.Military bases and repurposing: Serving communities and local needs
.The Democratic Party: What’s happened in the last four years? Political climate shifts, status quo disruptors ousted, bernie, rfk jr., leadership challenges, self-funding, military spending abroad, censorship.
The Republican Party: Criminalization, distrust, and party evolution.
Political distrust: Is there a need for a third party fully accountable, transparent, and planet-focused?
The president’s role: Chief Operations Officer or king? Policy-making power vs. executing Congressional dictates.Executive branch overreach: Legislative and judicial boundaries.Political immunity:
Should politicians be immune to criminal activity or fully transparent and accountable?

Healthy Uprising - Dr O

Wednesday, May 14, 2025