# Premature thread closure in Great Debates

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/premature-thread-closure-in-great-debates/927901>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [December 12, 2020, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/premature-thread-closure-in-great-debates/927901 "2020-12-12T16:35:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 13

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\
**Post date:** [December 12, 2020, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/premature-thread-closure-in-great-debates/927901/13 "2020-12-12T18:20:47Z")

</div>

There appears to be, if not exactly a new sheriff in town, then a not-very-articulated new standard for what constitutes a Great Debate.

I started [this](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tomato-manifesto/927411/2) in GD and although it didn’t get nuked from orbit, it got booted to MPSIMS. Yet it followed closely on the heels of [Did We Treat Transgenderism Better in the Past](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-we-treat-transgenderism-better-in-the-past/926612/66), and I would have thought its debate-relevance was sufficiently obvious. Maybe the new standard is “nothing that looks likely to become a train wreck”. But what’s immune from that? If it weren’t controversial enough to have the potential for fueling a train wreck it wouldn’t constitute much of a debate either, would it?

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/premature-thread-closure-in-great-debates/927901)._