The Soho Forum Debates

Yale Law School professor Natasha Sarin and the Cato Institute's Adam Michel debate the resolution, "Billionaires should pay a higher share of federal taxes." Taking the affirmative is Sarin, who is a professor at Yale Law School and the president and co-founder of the Budget Lab at Yale. She is also a former counselor to Secretary Janet Yellen at the U.S. Treasury Department. Arguing against the resolution is Michel, the director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute. He was formerly deputy staff director at the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee. The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. The post Should Billionaires Pay More Taxes? appeared first on Reason.com.

Fordham Law School professor Zephyr Teachout and the Manhattan Institute's John Ketcham debate the resolution, "Mayor Zohran Mamdani is likely to fulfill his campaign pledge to make New York City more affordable for most residents." Taking the affirmative is Teachout, an attorney and professor of law at Fordham Law School. She is the author of two books, Break 'Em Up: Recovering Our Freedom from Big Ag, Big Tech, and Big Money and Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizens United. She's also formerly served as special adviser and senior counsel for economic justice at the New York Attorney General's Office. Arguing the negative is Ketcham, a legal policy fellow and director of Cities at the Manhattan Institute. He's also a contributing editor to City Journal, where he's closely followed Mamdani's governance. The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. The post Can Zohran Mamdani Make NYC Affordable? appeared first on Reason.com.

Harvard professor Jeffrey Flier and historian of science Terence Kealey debate the resolution, "The National Institutes of Health should be abolished." For the affirmative is Kealey, former vice chancellor of the University of Buckingham. He's the author of multiple books, including The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. He is also an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, where he co-authored the white paper "Mission Lost: How NIH Leaders Stole Its Promise to America." For the negative is Flier, the George Higginson professor of physiology and medicine at Harvard Medical School. He is also a former clinical associate at the National Institutes of Health. The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. The post Should the NIH Be Abolished? appeared first on Reason.com.

Technology authors Perry Metzger and Brian Merchant debate the resolution, "Artificial Intelligence will provide enormous net benefits to nearly every member of society." Metzger is taking the affirmative. He is the co-founder and chairman of the board of Alliance for the Future, and the author of science comic Computers: How Digital Hardware Works. Merchant is taking the negative. He is a reporter in residence at the AI Now Institute. He's also the author of two books, The One Device: The Secret History of the iPhone and Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion Against Big Tech. The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. The post Will AI Benefit Everyone? appeared first on Reason.com.

Naomi Schaefer Riley and Martin Guggenheim debate the resolution, "Government-run child protective services should intervene more in the lives of children." For the affirmative is Riley, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and at the Independent Women's Forum. She's the author of seven books, the most recent of which is No Way To Treat a Child: How the Foster Care System, Family Courts, and Racial Activists Are Wrecking Young Lives. Guggenheim is taking the negative. He is the Fiorello LaGuardia Professor of Clinical Law Emeritus at New York University Law School and co-director of the Family Defense Clinic. He's also the author of multiple books, including What's Wrong With Children's Rights. The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. The post Should Child Protective Services Intervene More? appeared first on Reason.com.

Economic researchers Matt Stoller and Geoffrey A. Manne debate the resolution, "The U.S. government should break up large technology companies like Amazon, Meta, and Google to protect workers, suppliers, consumers, and democratic institutions." Arguing in favor of the resolution is Stoller, the director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project and the author of Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy. Taking the negative is Manne, the president and founder of the International Center for Law & Economics. The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. The post Is It Time To Break Up Big Tech? appeared first on Reason.com.

Princeton University professor Paul Frymer and Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley debate the resolution, "The U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 decision to dismantle affirmative action in American higher education marked a significant regression in the pursuit of racial equality." Arguing for the affirmative is Frymer, a professor of politics at Princeton. He's the author of Uneasy Alliances: Race and Party Competition in America and Black and Blue: African Americans, the Labor Movement, and the Decline of the Democratic Party. Arguing against the resolution is Riley, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He's also the author of several relevant titles, including The Affirmative Action Myth: Why Blacks Don't Need Racial Preferences To Succeed and Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed, False Black Power. The debate is moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein. The post Should Affirmative Action End? appeared first on Reason.com.

Drug policy scholar Kevin Sabet and Reason's Zach Weissmueller debate the resolution, "The failure of Oregon's experiment in decriminalizing all drugs is compelling evidence that other attempts at complete decriminalization will fail just as badly." Arguing for the affirmative is Sabet, the director of the Drug Policy Institute at the University of Florida, and the co-founder and president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana. He is the author of Reefer Sanity: Seven Great Myths About Marijuana. Arguing against the resolution is Weissmueller, a senior producer at Reason, who has been covering the drug war for well over a decade. He recently produced a documentary on why Oregon re-criminalized drugs. The debate is moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein. The post Is Oregon Proof That Drug Decriminalization Will Fail? appeared first on Reason.com.

Melanie Thompson of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and Kaytlin Bailey of Old Pros debate the resolution, "Paying for sex should be a crime." Thompson is arguing in favor of the resolution. She is the chief advocacy and outreach officer at the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International, an organization working against the trafficking and sexual exploitation of women and girls. Bailey is arguing against the resolution and is the founder and executive director of Old Pros, a non-profit media organization that uses storytelling to advocate for sex workers' rights. She is also the host of The Oldest Profession Podcast. The debate is moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein. The post Should Paying for Sex Be a Crime? appeared first on Reason.com.

Glenn Greenwald and Anna K. Gorisch debate the resolution, "President Trump's deportation policies generally violate key civil liberties as set forth in the U.S. Constitution." Arguing in favor of the resolution is Greenwald, a journalist and podcaster who won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for the National Security Agency–Edward Snowden revelations. He left The Intercept in 2020 to become independent and is now the host of System Update nightly on Rumble. Opposing the resolution is Gorisch, an immigration attorney at Kendall Immigration Law, PLLC, in Austin, Texas, focusing on employment-based immigration. The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. The post Are Trump's Deportations Constitutional? appeared first on Reason.com.

Jacob Hacker and David Goldhill debate the resolution: "The government should offer to all Americans a health insurance plan that would compete with private insurance plans." Jacob Hacker is arguing for the affirmative. He's a professor of political science at Yale University and codirects the Ludwig Program in Public Sector Leadership at Yale Law School. He is a resident fellow at the Institution for Social and Policy Studies. For the negative is David Goldhill, CEO and cofounder of Sesame, an online marketplace for discounted health services. He is also the author of Catastrophic Care: Why Everything We Think We Know About Health Care Is Wrong. The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. The post Should the U.S. Have a Public Health Insurance Plan? appeared first on Reason.com.

Hal Brands and Gareth Porter debate the resolution, "The Cold War was a necessary response by the United States to a Soviet and Chinese threat to the global balance of power." Hal Brands, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, defends the resolution. He has authored multiple books on the Cold War, including The Twilight Struggle: What the Cold War Teaches Us About Great-Power Rivalry Today. Arguing against the resolution is Gareth Porter, an award-winning journalist and historian who authored The CIA Insider's Guide to the Iran Crisis: From CIA Coup to the Brink of War. The debate is moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein. The post Was the Cold War a Deception? appeared first on Reason.com.

Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh debate the resolution, "Government restrictions on the immigration of peaceful and healthy people make sense from a libertarian standpoint, especially in present-day America." Comedian and host of the podcast, Part of the Problem, Dave Smith defends the resolution. Taking the negative is Alex Nowrasteh, the Vice President for Economic and Social Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. He's the coauthor (with Benjamin Powell) of Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions. The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. The post Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh Debate Immigration appeared first on Reason.com.

Eric Brakey and Andrew Heaton debate the resolution, "Libertarians should focus on building liberty-for-real societies like the Free State Project, rather than reforming an ever-expanding, uncontrollable federal government." Eric Brakey, executive director of the Free State Project and former Maine state senator, argued in favor of the resolution. Andrew Heaton, comedian, author, and host of The Political Orphanage podcast, argued against it. The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. Because of major technical problems during the recording of this event, the audio quality is well below Reason's standards. The post Should Libertarians Prioritize Their Own Communities? appeared first on Reason.com.

Jewish Currents' editor-at-large Peter Beinart and American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Michael Rubin debate the resolution, "The oppression of Palestinians in non-democratic Israel has been systematic and profound." Arguing for the affirmative is Beinart, a professor of journalism and political science at the Newmark School of Journalism at the City University of New York. He's a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times, editor-at-large for Jewish Currents, and a political commentator for MSNBC. Beinart has authored several books, including Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning, which was released in January of this year. Arguing for the negative is Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he specializes in the Middle East and Africa, and director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum. He's the author of Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes. The debate was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein. Chapters: 00:00 Introduction 00:15 The resolution reads… 00:55 Beinart's opening statement 11:36 Rubin's opening statement 28:08 Beinart's rebuttal 32:55 Rubin's rebuttal 39:45 Q&A 1:12:02 Beinart's closing statement 1:15:22 Rubin's closing statement 1:20:23 Announcements 1:25:07 Results The post Are the Palestinians Systematically Oppressed? appeared first on Reason.com.

Scott Horton of The Libertarian Institute and Eli Lake of The Free Press debate the resolution, "The United States started the new Cold War with Russia and provoked Russia's invasion of Ukraine." Taking the affirmative is Horton, the director of The Libertarian Institute and the editorial director of antiwar.com. He recently published a book on the debate subject called Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine. Arguing for the negative is Lake, a columnist for The Free Press and contributing editor for Commentary magazine, whose longtime beat has been foreign affairs and national security. The debate was hosted at Dartmouth College by the Dartmouth Political Union and moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein. The post Did the U.S. Provoke Russia's Invasion of Ukraine? appeared first on Reason.com.

Peter Gietl of Blaze Media and Salvadoran journalist Ricardo Avelar debate the resolution, "President Nayib Bukele's crime-fighting policies in El Salvador provide a model for reducing violence in other Latin American countries." Arguing in favor is Gietl, the managing editor for Return and Frontier magazine for Blaze Media. In November of last year, Gietl published a lengthy photojournalistic essay chronicling his travels to El Salvador, titled "J'Adore El Salvador," which he concludes by asking: "Can we bottle [El Salvador's transformation] up and ship it back to America?" Taking the negative is Avelar, a senior journalist and presenter for the Central American news outlet Revista Factum. In 2021, he co-directed a docuseries called 9F: The Return of Rifles, which is about the "El Bukelazo" events of February 9, 2020. The debate is moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein. The post El Salvador's Bukele: Authoritarian or Model President? appeared first on Reason.com.

Did the Supreme Court err in its July 1 ruling in Trump v. United States that "the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority"? That was the subject of this month's Soho Forum debate. Law professor Elizabeth Price Foley and journalist Glenn Greenwald debated the resolution, "Presidential immunity for official acts is a key factor in the proper functioning of the U.S. government's executive branch." Defending the resolution was Foley, a professor of law at Florida International University, where she teaches constitutional law and separation of powers. She has testified before Congress on numerous constitutional topics, and is the author of three books on constitutional law. Arguing for the negative was Greenwald, a journalist and podcaster who won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for the NSA-Snowden revelations. He left The Intercept in 2020 to become independent, and is now the host of SYSTEM UPDATE nightly on Rumble. This debated was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein. The post Was the Supreme Court Wrong About Presidential Immunity? appeared first on Reason.com.

Santiago Forster and Agustín Dante Rombolá debate the resolution, "Free market President Javier Milei of Argentina has been making tangible progress toward improving the Argentinian economy." Taking the affirmative is Forster, a fellow at Fundación Rioplatense de Estudios, a South American think-tank dedicated to "spreading the principles of freedom, private initiative, free market, Rule of Law, and limited government." He is currently a student in International Business & International Affairs at Northeastern University, where he also serves as president of the LatAm Business Club. Taking the negative is Rombolá, the founder of Kairos Global, an association that trains young people interested in becoming human rights activists. He is a member of the Argentine political party Unión Cívica Radical, where he serves as president of their youth branch, Juventud Radical. The debate is moderated by Soho Forum director, Gene Epstein. The post Is Javier Milei Actually Improving Argentina? appeared first on Reason.com.

David Leonhardt of The New York Times and John Early of the Cato Institute debate the resolution, "The stagnation of living standards and soaring economic inequality have become the defining economic trends of American life." For the affirmative is Leonhardt, a senior writer at The New York Times and the author of Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream, which The Atlantic, the Financial Times, and McKinsey & Co. named one of the best books of 2023. He writes The Morning, the Times's flagship newsletter. In 2012, he won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary. Early is taking the negative. He is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and president of the consultancy Vital Few LLC. He is a former assistant commissioner at the Bureau of Labor Statistics and former legislative assistant to Sen. George McGovern (D–S.D.). His more than 80 publications include The Myth of American Inequality: How Government Biases Policy Debate. The debate is moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein. The post Are American Living Standards In Decline? appeared first on Reason.com.

Former budget director under Ronald Reagan, David Stockman, and Stephen Moore, Donald Trump's former senior economic advisor, debate the resolution, "In the current presidential election, both Democrats and Republicans consist of a UniParty that will lead us to the bottom of the national 'policy dumpster.'" Arguing for the affirmative is David Stockman, former budget director under President Reagan. He is the author of six books, the most recent being his 2024 Trump's War on Capitalism. He blogs on his website Contra Corner. The resolution's mention of a "policy dumpster" comes from a three-part blog Stockman authored in August. Taking the negative is Stephen Moore, Trump's former senior economic advisor and the research director of President Reagan's Privatization Commission. He is now a Senior Visiting Fellow in Economics at The Heritage Foundation. He is also the co-founder of Unleash Prosperity, which aims to educate policy makers in supply-side economics. He's the author of the 2012 book Who's the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth about Opportunity, Taxes, and Wealth in America. The debate was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein. The post Are the Two Parties Any Different? appeared first on Reason.com.

Economist and author Arthur B. Laffer and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Chase Oliver debate the resolution, "Among the candidates actively running for President in November, Donald Trump is the best choice." Defending the resolution is Laffer, who is widely recognized as "The Father of Supply-Side Economics," as his Laffer Curve is one of the main theoretical constructs of supply-side economics. Laffer was a member of President Ronald Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board for both of Reagan's terms and a founding member of the Reagan Executive Advisory Committee for the 1980 presidential race. He also advised U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on fiscal policy during the 1980s. In 2019, Laffer was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Donald Trump. He's authored numerous books, including his most recent, Taxes Have Consequences: An Income Tax History of the United States. Arguing against the resolution is Oliver, the Libertarian Party's candidate for president. He rose to prominence in the party as the 2022 Libertarian Senate candidate in a highly competitive race in Georgia, where he pulled 2 percent of the vote, forcing it into a runoff, which ultimately resulted in the Democratic candidate winning, tipping the balance of the Senate in their favor. The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. The post Is Donald Trump the Best Choice? appeared first on Reason.com.

Best-selling science and technology author Matt Ridley and University of Utah virologist Stephen Goldstein debate the resolution: "It is likely that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan laboratory in China." Defending the resolution is Ridley, the author of 10 books, including Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19. He sat in the U.K.'s House of Lords between 2013 and 2021 and served on the Science and Technology Select Committee. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, a fellow at the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a foreign honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Arguing against the resolution is Goldstein, a virologist at the University of Utah conducting research on human genetics. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania, where he conducted research on the biology of MERS-CoV, a zoonotic virus first identified in 2012. Over the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, Goldstein has engaged with the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, University of Utah Health, and local and national media to provide scientific expertise. He has co-authored reviews and original research papers on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The debate is moderated by the Soho Forum's Chief Operating Officer Jane Menton. The post Did COVID Come From a Lab? appeared first on Reason.com.

Free State Project activist Dennis Pratt and Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein debate the resolution, "A better way to persuade more people of libertarianism is to convince them of the ethics stemming from self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, without relying primarily on consequentialist/utilitarian arguments." Dennis Pratt, a libertarian writer and activist in New Hampshire, took the affirmative, arguing that the consequentialist arguments typical of libertarian economists are only narrowly effective, don't represent the core of libertarianism, and are too difficult for most people to quickly grasp. The philosophy of self-ownership, he said, has far more force in its ability to persuade the most people. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein disagreed. While he espouses the same philosophy as his opponent, he made the argument that the empirical facts related to the poor results of government interventions can get many people to rethink their anti-libertarian assumptions. The debate occurred on June 20, 2024, at the Porcupine Freedom Festival in Lancaster, New Hampshire, and was moderated by Free State Project founder Jason Sorens. The post What's the Best Argument for Libertarianism? appeared first on Reason.com.

Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein and Chicago school economist David Friedman debate the resolution, "The Austrian economics of Mises and Rothbard contains economic intuitions that are important, correct, and missing from Chicago School economics." Taking the affirmative was Gene Epstein, the director of the Soho Forum and former economics and books editor at Barron's. His last published book was Econospinning: How to Read Between the Lines When the Media Manipulate the Numbers. Epstein has taught economics at the City University of New York and St. John's University, and he has worked as a senior economist for the New York Stock Exchange. Arguing for the negative was David Friedman, an economist, legal scholar, and anarcho-capitalist theorist, as well as author of six non-fiction books and three novels. His most popular book is The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism. The debate occurred on June 19th, 2024 at the Porcupine Freedom Festival in Lancaster, New Hampshire, and was moderated by libertarian writer and Free State Project activist, Dennis Pratt. The post Debate: Austrian vs. Chicago Economics appeared first on Reason.com.

Professor and legal scholar Alan Dershowitz and Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Glenn Greenwald debate the resolution, "The U.S. should strike Iran's nuclear facilities." Taking the affirmative is Dershowitz, an American lawyer and law professor known for his work in U.S. constitutional law and American criminal law. From 1964 to 2013, he taught at Harvard Law School, where he was appointed as the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law in 1993. He is the author of several books about politics and the law, including The Case for Israel and The Case for Peace. His two most recent works are The Case Against Impeaching Trump, and Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo. In January 2020, he joined President Donald Trump's legal team as Trump was being tried on impeachment charges in the Senate. He is a strong supporter of Israel but self-identifies as both "pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli." Taking the negative is Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer, investigative journalist, and best-selling author. Acclaimed as one of the 25 most influential political commentators by The Atlantic, one of America's top 10 opinion writers by Newsweek, and one of the Top 100 Global Thinkers for 2013 by Foreign Policy, Greenwald has won the highest awards in journalism, including the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for the revelations surrounding the National Security Agency and Edward Snowden. This debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. Timestamps: 00:00:00 Introduction 00:02:06 Dershowitz's Opening Statement 00:19:43 Greenwald's Openin

Important Update from The Soho Forum: "[We regret] to inform you of a significant change to tonight's debate between Brent Orrell and Tom Woods. Unfortunately, Brent Orrell will not be able to participate as his granddaughter tragically passed away over the weekend. Our hearts go out to Brent and his family during this difficult time. In light of this, we've made adjustments to the event to ensure it can still proceed. Our director Gene Epstein will read, word-for-word, the script that Brent prepared, along with the slides Brent submitted. Tom Woods will then make his case for the negative. In lieu of an Oxford-style before/after voting, we will extend the Q&A portion and conclude the program with a 5-mins summation from Tom Woods." The originally scheduled event was as follows: Brent Orrell of the American Enterprise Institute and podcaster and author Tom Woods debate the resolution, "Government-imposed restrictions during the Covid pandemic were prudent and essential." Taking the affirmative is Brent Orrell, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute focusing on job training, work force development, and criminal justice reform. Orrell has over 20 years of experience in the executive and legislative branches of government and was nominated by President George W. Bush to lead the Employment and Training Administration at the U.S. Department of Labor. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he wrote extensively on the impact of the disease on working conditions and the role of social distancing policies and practices in protecting worker and public health. Taking the negative is Tom Woods, the host of The Tom Woods Show and author of 13 books, including latest Diary of a Psychosis: How Public Health Disgraced Itself During COVID Mania. He won the $50,000 first-place prize in the Templeton Enterprise Awards for his book The Church and the Market and was the winner of the 2019 Hayek Lifetime Achievement Award, given in Vienna by the Hayek Institute and the Austrian Economics Center. The post A Soho Forum Discussion of COVID with Tom Woods appeared first on Reason.com.

Joe Nocera of The Free Press and Gene Epstein of The Soho Forum debate the resolution, "Capitalism has been a key factor in leaving the United States unprepared to address the COVID-19 pandemic." Taking the affirmative is Nocera, a columnist for The Free Press and co-author (with Bethany McLean) of The Big Fail: What the Pandemic Revealed About Who America Protects and Who It Leaves Behind. His business journalism has appeared in numerous publications, including Esquire, Bloomberg, and The New York Times. Arguing against the resolution is Epstein, the executive director of the Soho Forum. He is the former economics and books editor of Barron's, a position he left in January 2018 after a 26-year stint. He frequently appears on libertarian podcasts, especially The Tom Woods Show. The post Did Capitalism Fail During the Pandemic? appeared first on Reason.com.

Reporter and podcaster Eli Lake and author Jeremy Hammond debated the resolution, "The root cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the Palestinians' rejection of Israel's right to exist." Taking the affirmative is Lake, the former senior national security correspondent for The Daily Beast and Newsweek. He is currently a reporter at The Free Press and host of The Re-Education podcast. He has also contributed to CNN, Fox News, C-SPAN, Charlie Rose, the I Am Rapaport: Stereo Podcast, and Bloggingheads.tv. Hammond, an independent journalist and author, takes the negative. He is the author of several books, including Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. The post What's the Root Cause of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? appeared first on Reason.com.

M. Anthony (Tony) Mills of the American Enterprise Institute and Terence Kealey of The Cato Institute debate the resolution, "Government must play a role in fostering scientific and technological progress by funding basic research." Defending the resolution is Mills, a senior fellow and director of the Center for Technology, Science, and Energy at the American Enterprise Institute. He is also a senior fellow at the Pepperdine School of Public Policy and a scholar associate of the Society of Catholic Scientists. Dr. Mills was previously a resident senior fellow at the R Street Institute and an editor for numerous publications. His writings have appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New Atlantis, National Affairs, Issues in Science and Technology, and various peer-reviewed journals. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Notre Dame. Taking the negative is Kealey, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. Originally trained in medicine and biochemistry, he is a former lecturer in clinical biochemistry at the University of Cambridge. Between 2001 and 2014 he was the vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. He is known for his 1996 book, The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. The post Must Government Fund Science? appeared first on Reason.com.

Should the federal government be able to "urge," "encourage," "pressure," or "induce" social media companies into censoring free speech about COVID-19? A recent ruling in federal court said no. That ruling is the subject of this month's Soho Forum Debate between law professor Kate Klonick and professor of medicine Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. The resolution is: "The making of national internet policy was hindered, rather than helped, by the July 4th federal court ruling that restricted the Biden administration's communications with social media platforms." Arguing for the affirmative is Kate Klonick, an associate professor at St. John's University Law School, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a distinguished scholar at the Institute for Humane Studies. Her writing has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and numerous other publications. Arguing against the resolution is Jay Bhattacharya, M.D. Ph.D., a professor of medicine at Stanford University. He is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, as well as a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and at the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. His research focuses on the economics of health care around the world with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. His peer-reviewed research has been published in economics, statistics, legal, medical, public health, and health policy journals. Dr. Bhattacharya was one of three main co-signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration of October 2020, an open letter published in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns. The post Social Media Censorship and The First Amendment appeared first on Reason.com.

Susan Schneider of the Center for the Future Mind and AI entrepreneur Jobst Landgrebe debate the resolution, "Artificial intelligence poses a threat to the survival of humanity that must be actively addressed by government." For the affirmative is Schneider, the director of the Center for the Future Mind at Florida Atlantic University. She previously held the NASA chair and the distinguished scholar chair at the Library of Congress. In her recent book, Artificial You: AI and the Future of Your Mind, she discusses the philosophical implications of AI and, in particular, the enterprise of "mind design." She also works with Congress on AI policy, appears on PBS and the History channel, and writes opinion pieces for The New York Times, Scientific American, and the Financial Times. Taking the negative is Landgrebe, an entrepreneur and researcher in the field of artificial intelligence working on the mathematical foundations and the philosophical implications of AI-based technology. In 2013, he founded the company Cognotekt, where he serves as managing director. Together with philosopher Barry Smith, he co-authored Why Machines Will Never Rule the World: Artificial Intelligence without Fear. He is also a research associate in the philosophy department at the University at Buffalo. The post Will AI Destroy Humanity? appeared first on Reason.com.

The Manhattan Institute's Mark Mills and InOrbis CEO Rosario Fortugno debate the resolution, "Between now and 2035, electric vehicles in the consumer market will disappoint environmentalists by remaining a product bought mainly by the well-heeled minority." Taking the affirmative is Mills, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow, a faculty fellow at Northwestern University's engineering school, and a partner in Montrose Lane, an energy-tech venture fund. He is author of the book The Cloud Revolution: How the Convergence of New Technologies Will Unleash the Next Economic Boom and a Roaring 2020s. Taking the negative is Fortugno, the CEO of InOrbis, a company that works to develop technologies for electric vehicle fleet management, autonomous vehicles, and machine learning. He blogs at ApplyingAI.com on the topics of free markets, electric vehicle adoption, and the benefits of artificial intelligence. The post Will Electric Cars Disappoint Environmentalists? appeared first on Reason.com.

Chairman of the Ayn Rand Institute Yaron Brook and George Mason University professor Bryan Caplan debate the resolution, "Anarcho-capitalism would definitely be a complete disaster for humanity." Taking the affirmative is Brook, host of The Yaron Brook Show. He was the executive director of The Ayn Rand Institute from 2000 to 2017 and is now the chairman of the board. Brook has co-authored many books focused on capitalism and the benefits of free markets, including In Pursuit of Wealth: The Moral Case for Finance, Equal Is Unfair: America's Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality, and Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can End Big Government. He was a columnist at Forbes and has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Investor's Business Daily, and more. Caplan, a professor of economics at George Mason University, is taking the negative. He's The New York Times bestselling author of The Myth of the Rational Voter, Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, The Case Against Education, and more. He writes for the Substack Bet On It, and has been published in The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Reason, and more. The post Would Anarcho-Capitalism Be a Disaster? appeared first on Reason.com.

Education activist Corey DeAngelis and attorney Stephan Kinsella debate the resolution, "Today's school-choice movement in the U.S. is worthy of support by libertarians." Taking the affirmative is DeAngelis, a senior fellow at the American Federation for Children. He is also the executive director at the Educational Freedom Institute, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, a senior fellow at Reason Foundation, and a board member at the Liberty Justice Center. He was named on the Forbes 30 under 30 list for his work on education policy and received the Buckley Award from America's Future in 2020. Taking the negative is Kinsella, a libertarian writer and patent attorney. He was previously general counsel for Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., and an adjunct law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. His publications include Against Intellectual Property, International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution, and a forthcoming book Legal Foundations of a Free Society. The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by The Soho Forum, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason. The post Should Libertarians Support School Choice? appeared first on Reason.com.

The Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh and attorney Francis Menton debate the resolution, "The U.S. should have free immigration except for those who pose a security threat or have a serious contagious disease." Taking the affirmative is Nowrasteh, the vice president of economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute, where most of his work has focused on immigration. He's the co-author (with Benjamin Powell) of Wretched Refuse?: The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions. A native of Southern California, Nowrasteh received a master's degree in economic history from the London School of Economics. Taking the negative is Menton, who writes at manhattancontrarian.com and was a litigation partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP before retiring in December 2015 after over 40 years with the firm. The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by The Soho Forum, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this site. Audio editing by John Osterhoudt. The post Should the U.S. Have Free Immigration? appeared first on Reason.com.

Economist and libertarian David Friedman and Soho Forum Director and libertarian Gene Epstein debate the resolution, "The right way to persuade people of libertarianism is by showing them that its outcomes are superior by their standards, without any resort to the flawed nonaggression principle." Coincidentally, both Friedman and Epstein are 78 years old and Jewish. But as Epstein pointed out in his opening remarks, the comparison ends there. Friedman is the son of the famous free market Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman and his wife and collaborator, economist Rose Friedman, and was schooled intensely in the art of debate while growing up. Epstein, by contrast, can claim nothing comparable in his own lineage. Taking the affirmative, Friedman reviewed key arguments set forth in his book, The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, originally published in 1973 but issued in updated editions since then. Though he does not believe that the libertarian's nonaggression principle, or NAP, is a coherent principle, he also explained that one can do without the NAP in convincing nonlibertarians to accept libertarian solutions to society's problems. Taking the negative, Epstein argued that what he preferred to call the zero-aggression principle, or ZAP, often plays an essential role in defending the libertarian case for radical reform. He provided examples, including abolishing both drug laws and government's interference with free international trade. He also addressed various aspects of Friedman's view that ZAP is an incoherent principle.   The debate was held before a live audience at noon on June 23 at the Porcupine Freedom Festival ("PorcFest") in Lancaster, New Hampshire. It was moderated by PorcFest leader Dennis Pratt. As Pratt has said, the primary purpose of the six-day event is to induce libertarians to move to the "free state" of New Hampshire.  The post Is the Nonaggression Principle Incoherent? appeared first on Reason.com.

Northwestern University law professor Andrew Koppelman and Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein debate the resolution, "Libertarianism has been thoroughly corrupted by delusion, greed, and disdain for the weak." Taking the affirmative is Koppelman, John Paul Stevens professor of law and professor of political science at Northwestern University. He received the Walder Award for Research Excellence from Northwestern, the Hart-Dworkin Award in Legal Philosophy from the Association of American Law Schools, and the Edward S. Corwin Prize from the American Political Science Association. He has written more than 100 scholarly articles and eight books, most recently Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed. You can find his recent work at andrewkoppelman.com. Arguing for the negative is Epstein, the director of the Soho Forum and former economics and books editor at Barron's. He's the author of Econospinning: How to Read Between the Lines When the Media Manipulate the Numbers. Epstein has taught economics at the City University of New York and St. John's University and worked as a senior economist for the New York Stock Exchange. He has defended the negative at six Soho Forum debates. His November 2019 debate on socialism with University of Massachusetts professor Richard D. Wolff has gained almost 6 million views on Youtube. The post Are Libertarians Greedy and Delusional? appeared first on Reason.com.

Woody Holton, a professor of history at the University of South Carolina, and Phillip Magness, director of research and education at the American Institute for Economic Research, debate the resolution, "The New York Times book The 1619 Project, and the Hulu video series based on it, are important contributions to our understanding of slavery and the role of African Americans in American history." The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by The Soho Forum, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason. Taking the affirmative was Holton, who is the author of Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia, which won the Organization of American Historians' Merle Curti Social History Award; Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution, a finalist for the National Book Award; Abigail Adams, which won the Bancroft Prize; and Liberty Is Sweet: The Hidden History of the American Revolution, which Holton wrote as The Huntington Library's Los Angeles Times distinguished fellow and as a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow. Arguing against the resolution was Magness, the author of The 1619 Project: A Critique. He holds a Ph.D. and master's from George Mason University's School of Public Policy and a bachelor's from the University of St. Thomas (Houston). Magness' work encompasses the economic history of the United States, with specializations in the economic dimensions of slavery and racial discrimination, the history of taxation, and measurements of economic inequality over time. In addition to his scholarship, Magness' writings have appeared in numerous venues, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Newsweek, Politico, Reason, National Review, and The Chronicle of Higher Education. The post <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/2023/04/21/does-the-1619-project-have-anythin

On March 30, the Manhattan Institute's Jason L. Riley and New York University (NYU) professor Nikhil Pal Singh debated the resolution, "Upward mobility for black Americans lies in rejecting the policies of progressive government, while making the most of the opportunities offered by American society." The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by The Soho Forum, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason. Taking the affirmative was Riley, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a columnist for The Wall Street Journal, where he has written about politics, economics, education, immigration, and social inequality for more than 25 years. He's also a frequent public speaker and provides commentary for television and radio news outlets. Riley is the author of five books, including Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed, False Black Power?, Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell, and The Black Boom. Arguing for the negative was Singh, professor of social and cultural analysis and history at NYU and the founding faculty director of the university's Prison Education Program. He is author, most recently, of Race and America's Long War, and of the forthcoming Reconstructing Democracy: Black Intellectuals in the American Century. His essays have appeared in The New Republic, The Nation, The New Statesman, n+1, and Boston Review. His November 2018 Soho Forum debate on "anti-racism," opposite John McWhorter, has received more than a quarter-million YouTube views. The post Black America and Progressivism: Jason L. Riley vs. Nikhil

On February 21, law professor F.H. Buckley and Libertarian Party activist Jonathan Casey debated the resolution, "The breakup of the United States into different regions is a workable option likely to bring a marked improvement in human affairs." The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by The Soho Forum, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason. Taking the affirmative was Buckley, a foundation professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School. He is a frequent media guest, a senior editor at The American Spectator, and a columnist for the New York Post. He is the author of the 2020 book American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup. Some of his other books include Progressive Conservatism, Curiosity and Its Twelve Rules for Life, and The Republican Workers Party. Taking the negative was Casey, the founder and chair of the Libertarian Party Classical Liberal Caucus. He has worked and volunteered in the liberty movement for several years, specializing in communication. He founded the Classical Liberal Caucus to promote a professional and policy-based message from within the Libertarian Party. The post National Divorce? appeared first on Reason.com.

On January 26, economists Lawrence H. White and Frederic Mishkin debated the resolution, "Replacing the Federal Reserve with free market institutions would significantly improve the economy's money, banking, and financial systems." The debate was held at New York City's Sheen Center and hosted by The Soho Forum, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason. Arguing the affirmative was White, a professor of economics at George Mason University. His forthcoming book Better Money: Gold, Fiat, or Bitcoin? (Cambridge University Press, 2023) compares and contrasts alternative monetary standards. Best known for his work on market-based monetary systems, White is the author of Free Banking in Britain (1984), Competition and Currency (1989), and The Theory of Monetary Institutions (1999), and co-editor of Renewing the Search for a Monetary Constitution (2015). His research has appeared in the American Economic Review, the Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, The Economic History Review, and other leading economics journals. He's also a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a distinguished senior fellow at the Mercatus Center. Mishkin, who argued the negative, is the Alfred Lerner professor of banking and financial institutions at Columbia University's Graduate School of Business and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. From September 2006 to August 2008, he served on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. He was previously a senior fellow at the FDIC Center for Banking Research and president of the Eastern Economic Association. From 1994 to 1997, he was executive vice president and director of research at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as well as an associate economist of the Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve System. Mishkin's research focuses on monetary policy and its impact on financial markets and the aggregate economy. The post Should We Abolish the Federal Reserve? appeared first on Reason.com.

Rich Lowry and Alex Nowrasteh debate the resolution, "Nationalism is an important value that Americans should support." The event is produced by The Soho Forum, a monthly debate series presented by Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason. For the affirmative: Richard Lowry is the editor in chief of National Review. He was selected to lead the news outlet by its founder, William F. Buckley. Lowry writes a syndicated column for King Features Weekly Service and a weekly column for Politico. He is also a commentator for NBC News. His most recent book is The Case for Nationalism: How It Made Us Powerful, United, and Free (Broadside Books, 2019). For the negative: Alex Nowrasteh is the director of economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute where most of his work has focused on immigration. He is widely published in newspapers, blogs, and peer-reviewed academic journals. He is the co-author (with Benjamin Powell) of the book Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions (Cambridge University Press, 2020), which is the first book on how economic institutions in receiving countries adjust to immigration. He is a native of Southern California and received an MSc in economic history from the London School of Economics. The post Should Americans Value Nationalism? appeared first on Reason.com.

On November 15, Jay Bhattacharya and Sten Vermund debated the resolution, "Focused protection, as set forth in the Great Barrington Declaration, should be the general principle of public health management of highly infectious respiratory virus pandemics." The event was produced by The Soho Forum, a monthly debate series presented by Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason. For the affirmative: Jay Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine at Stanford University. He is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute. His research focuses on the economics of health care around the world with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. His peer-reviewed research has been published in economics, statistics, legal, medical, public health, and health policy journals. He holds an MD and Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University. Bhattacharya was one of three main co-signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020. For the negative: Sten Vermund is a professor of public health and pediatrics at the Yale School of Medicine. A pediatrician and infectious disease epidemiologist, he has focused on diseases of low- and middle-income countries. He has become increasingly engaged in health policy, particularly around the sustainability of HIV/AIDS programs and their expansion to noncommunicable diseases, COVID-19 pandemic response and prevention, and public health work force development. His recent grants include capacity-building for public health in Chad, molecular epidemiology for HIV in Kazakhstan, and COVID-19 vaccine studies in Dominican Republic and Connecticut. He has worked with schools and arts organizations for COVID-19 risk mitigation and institutional safety. This was an Oxford-style debate, meaning the debater who changed more audience member minds won the debate. Bhattacharya started with 56.72 percent of the vote, while Vermund started with 7.46 percent. Bhattacharya ended with 81.34 percent of the vote, a 24.63 percent change. Vermund ended with 15.67 percent of the vote, an 8.21 percent change. The post Never Lock Down Again? Jay Bhattacharya vs. Sten Vermund appeared first on Reason.com.

"Free market ideology is largely responsible for the dismal performance of the U.S. economy over the past few decades." That was the resolution for a live debate on Monday, October 17, 2022, at the Sheen Center in downtown Manhattan.* Defending the resolution was Binyamin Appelbaum, the lead writer on business and economics for the New York Times editorial board. He previously worked as a Washington correspondent for the Times. He is the author of The Economists' Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets, and the Fracture of Society (2019). Arguing for the negative was Gene Epstein, the director of the Soho Forum and former economics and books editor of Barron's. His last published book was Econospinning: How to Read Between the Lines When the Media Manipulate the Numbers. Epstein has taught economics at the City University of New York and St. John's University, and he has worked as a senior economist for the New York Stock Exchange. He has defended the negative at six Soho Forum debates. His November 2019 debate on socialism with University of Massachusetts professor Richard Wolff has gained more than 5 million views on Youtube. The debate was moderated by Nick Gillespie. *CORRECTION: This page originally said that the live debate was held on October 15. The post Is Free Market Ideology Hurting the Economy? appeared first on Reason.com.

Is it imperative that the world eliminate all nuclear weapons? That was the topic of a live debate hosted by the Soho Forum on September 19, 2022. Ward Wilson is the author of Five Myths about Nuclear Weapons and president of RealistRevolt. He argued that nuclear weapons have almost no practical application, and it's time to end world leaders' fascination with their awe-inspiring power.  Peter Huessy, is director of strategic deterrent studies at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and president of his own defense consulting firm, GeoStrategic Analysis. He argued that we can't get to nuclear abolition without getting other nuclear powers on board, including Russia and China, which both see them as essential tools in their foreign policy agenda The debate was held at the Sheen Center in downtown Manhattan, and was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. Narrated by Nick Gillespie; edited by John Osterhoudt The post Is It Time to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons? appeared first on Reason.com.

Does the world need to rapidly convert to using renewable energy to save the planet from global warming? That was the topic of a Soho Forum debate held at the Sheen Center in New York City on August 15, 2022. Andrew Dessler, the director of the Texas Center for Climate Studies at Texas A interview body edited by Brett Raney. Photos by Brett Raney. The post Does Climate Science Really Compel Us Toward Urgent Action? appeared first on Reason.com.

Will gold remain an important form of money, or are cryptocurrencies like bitcoin set to overtake it?  That was the subject of a Soho Forum debate held on July 26 at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, as part of Mises University, an annual instructional program in the Austrian school of economics attended by over 80 accepted students from around the country. Keith Weiner, CEO of Monetary Metals, defended the resolution: "Gold will remain an important form of money in the 21st century." Weiner took the position that gold is poised to hold on to the monetary status it's enjoyed for the past 5,000 years and that its recent performance only confirms why. Pierre Rochard, co-host of the Bitcoin for Advisors podcast, took the negative, arguing that the technological advantages of bitcoin will make it the preferred medium of exchange in a post-dollar world. This debate was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein. Narrated by Nick Gillespie; edited by Clay Barnett and John Osterhoudt The post Will Bitcoin Demonetize Gold? appeared first on Reason.com.