Introducing Reason's 2023 Debate Issue
Where libertarians debate democracy, open borders, cats and dogs, and more
"Studies show that debate is good for you" is exactly the sort of thing you'd expect someone in an ill-fitting blazer and awkward shoes to say at a high school debate competition. Despite what you might think about libertarian magazine editors, I wasn't a high school debater. So technically, I don't have a dog (or a cat) in this fight.
But studies really do show debate is good for you. A 2011 study by the University of Michigan's Briana Mezuk and her colleagues found that compared with their nondebating peers, participants in the Chicago Debate League were more likely to graduate, were more likely to meet ACT college-readiness benchmarks, and had greater gains in GPA. The study went to great pains to control for self-selection, suggesting that what matters is the practice of debate itself, and not just an argumentative disposition. In another study a decade later with her Michigan colleague Tomohiro M. Ko, Mezuk found similar boosts to GPA and SAT scores for Houston debaters. And a 2021 study of New Jersey students found significant GPA and SAT bumps as well.
Anyone who has ever met a high school debater knows that they show the kind of self-possession, confidence, and critical thinking that is too often absent in their peers. They're also rarely the most popular kids in school, perhaps because in their enthusiasm for engagement, they sometimes tend to practice their skills in inappropriate circumstances.
In a culture where young people in particular are taught to go to great lengths to avoid giving offense, carving out space where disagreement is not just tolerated but encouraged becomes even more important. These are the opposite of the much-derided "safe spaces" of the 2010s.
The best relationships have space for respectful disagreement. Couples go to therapy to learn how to fight. Family members and friends can and should learn to talk through their differences before it comes to a dramatic will reading or a messy wedding toast. But when it comes to politics, many people are unwilling to agree to disagree and have lost the trick of disagreeing amicably.
The recent kerfuffle at The New York Times over coverage of transgender issues is an example of what not to do. In February, 980 contributors to the paper signed an open letter demanding that certain viewpoints about youth transition be off-limits in the paper of record. The paper has provided all of these people with a platform, and many have used that platform to argue their own side of the matter; The New York Times can hardly be mistaken for a bastion of conservative orthodoxy. But the goal of the letter writers was not to have their side heard, but rather to demand that the other side be silenced. "The natural destination of poor editorial judgment is the court of law," asserted the letter writers, in an astonishingly diaphanously veiled threat.
To its credit, Times leadership responded directly by refusing to meet the writers' demands, and then indirectly by publishing some of the very perspectives the writers sought to eliminate in the following days.
The most fun and productive disagreements happen when the combatants share some underlying values. For that reason, this issue of Reason focuses on places where folks who have an affinity for free minds and free markets might nonetheless diverge along the way. Since our last debate issue in October 2018, where we debated anarchism, Objectivism, intellectual property, gay wedding cakes, and utilitarianism, more fissures have opened up in the libertarian movement and in the American political scene at large. This time around, we're tackling democracy, open borders, zoning, homelessness, artificial intelligence, bitcoin, the European Union, the culture war, Ukraine, optimism, and more.
Even for seasoned journalists, accustomed to defending their views in the public square, formal debate is a different mode of engagement and often a clarifying one. The same goes for editors. As a fan of open borders myself, assigning two sides to our immigration debate was a valuable exercise in pushing my own boundaries and thinking hard about the people in my professional circles whom I respect yet disagree with. Part of the reason for having this issue was to practice what Reason preaches about being a big tent with space for civil disagreement. I think the idea of a national divorce is deeply misguided, and I find the prospect of returning to a more carceral approach to public mental illness alarming. But because we believe airing controversial ideas is important, we did our best to build a scrupulously fair framework, to work with writers to make each argument as strong as it can be, and to give the two sides equal time and respect in our pages.
While many of these debates are for very high stakes indeed, not every disagreement should feel like life-or-death, so we've included a debate over libertarian housepets (page 46) as well, to help bring down everyone's blood pressure. Some debates are better had over drinks, but even those conversations can benefit from structure and a public forum.
Perhaps because we are the minority nearly everywhere we go, libertarians tend to place special emphasis on making space for good-faith debate and broadening the scope of acceptable disagreement. Even a little corner for conversation can matter. We are proud to sponsor The Soho Forum debate series and to make it available as a podcast, along with our occasionally contentious Reason Roundtable and Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie shows. As The Wall Street Journal put it: "Anyone who follows the debates of the libertarian Soho Forum knows that even in the Democratic stronghold of New York City it is possible to shift public opinion from radical progressive orthodoxy so long as viewpoint diversity is maintained." Open to Debate, the Oxford-style debate series highlighted in this issue's interview with CEO Clea Conner, is another space for such diversity.
If you believe that those with whom you disagree on key topics are evil and you strive to remove them from your life and the public square, you will grow to fear and misunderstand them more. This can become pathological when taken to an extreme.
Instead, debate acts more like exposure therapy, an increasingly popular way to deal with everything from trauma to peanut allergies. Getting a small dose of dissent in a controlled environment over an extended period may well be the best way to build a healthy response going forward.
You do not cure a peanut allergy by force-feeding someone Reese's Cups. It's rarely a successful debating tactic to simply shout someone down, browbeat them into submission, or make their argument illegal. Thoughtful, consensual, incremental approaches work better in this (and in nearly everything else, for that matter).
Sometimes—albeit rarely—the previously allergic grow fond of PB&Js. But most simply build their defenses against their body's outsized and unhelpful reaction to them and in so doing shed some of their fear and anxiety.
High school debaters tend to be disproportionately successful in law and business. In fact, about 60 percent of the current Congress participated in debate, though whether you take this as an argument for or against is up to you. But debate is about more than just professional or academic success. And it's for everyone, not just the blazer brigade.
Subscribers have access to Reason's whole May 2023 issue now. These debates and the rest of the issue will be released throughout the month for everyone else. Consider subscribing today!
- Debate: It's Time for a National Divorce
- Debate: Artificial Intelligence Should Be Regulated
- Debate: Democracy Is the Worst Form of Government Except for All the Others
- Debate: To Preserve Individual Liberty, Government Must Affirmatively Intervene in the Culture War
- Debate: The E.U. Was a Mistake
- Debate: The U.S. Should Increase Funding for the Defense of Ukraine
- Debate: Mentally Ill Homeless People Must Be Locked Up for Public Safety
- Debate: Despite the Welfare State, the U.S. Should Open Its Borders
- Debate: Cats Are More Libertarian Than Dogs
- Debate: Make Housing Affordable by Abolishing Growth Boundaries, Not Ending Density Restrictions
- Debate: Bitcoin Is the Future of Free Exchange
- Debate: Be Optimistic About the World
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I love this full-throated advocacy for debate.
My kids’ school system leans heavily into debate, starting in elementary school. (They have the largest elementary school debate program in the nation)
I participate as a judge at all levels (having kids in elementary, middle and high school, and having debate teachers and advisors who twist arms to get volunteers). I highly recommend my fellow libertarians volunteer to help their local schools debate programs. It is quite rewarding, and the kids grow a lot through the process.
One interesting aspect: unlike these debates at Reason or the Soho debates, the kids are only given the single sentence debate topic in advance. They have no knowledge of which side they will be on.. so they have to prepare both pro and con arguments. They also have to think on the fly to counter their opposition.
It really can make for some entertaining interactions.
Thanks, good post!
I do wonder if your school is public or private. I assume public? This is a GOOD thing that public schools even ALLOW debate any more!
I also assume that they don’t throw ridiculous questions out there… “The Earth is flat. Debate!” … “Vaccines are a great danger, doing more harm than good. Debate!”
Boost your monthly income by doing a part-time internet job from home. Simply by copying and pasting information from the internet, you may make $17k or more. Simple internet work to accomplish in your leisure time. Stay at home, be safe, and earn money. Details may be found here.
.
.
Here►—————————➤ https://Www.Coins71.Com
The most serious threat posed is that the U.S. and Russia would find themselves in an escalatory spiral leading to a nuclear exchange.
I am making over $30k a month working part time. I am a full time college student and just working for 3 to 4 hrs a day. Everybody must try this home online job now by just use this Following
Website…….. http://Www.Smartjob1.com
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.…………>> GOOGLE WORK
Don’t take De-Bate squirrel.
I’ll take that bait, and bite it!
If you try & de-bait it, I’ll fight it!
Said a true master baiter.
Easy Online home Job to earn extra $19,000 or more by working Online. I am afull time college student and doing this Online Job in spare time for only 2 to3 hours a day Online. Last month i have received $18418 from this Job. Veryeasy and awesome Job to do and regular earning from this are amazing. Everybodycan get this Job and makes more income Online just by follow instructions onthis website……………
.
.
…………………….. http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
The claim is that libertarians value critical thinking, reason, eh?
Then they should recognize that debate has a purpose, a conclusion.
Otherwise it’s just rambling gobbledygook. Is that critical thinking enough for ya?
From what I’ve seen here, self proclaimed libertarians neither prove what they claim or refute what they deny.
They engage in purposeless debate and run away as their opponents conclusion becomes unavoidable.
I don’t think that cowardly irrational behaviour is so good for their health.
A 2011 study by the University of Michigan’s Briana Mezuk and her colleagues found that…
I knew the name ‘Mezuk’ might summon you, Herr Misek.
Then they should recognize that debate has a purpose, a conclusion…Otherwise it’s just rambling gobbledygook.
But enough about Holocaust Denial.
From what I’ve seen here, self proclaimed libertarians neither prove what they claim or refute what they deny.
From what I’ve seen, Nazis are just copypasta generators in human form with brown uniforms.
They engage in purposeless debate and run away as their opponents conclusion becomes unavoidable.
And Nazis like to infiltrate Libertarian circles and try to divert us and besmirsh our brand.
I don’t think that cowardly irrational behaviour is so good for their health.
Unlike Nazis, I don’t hide behind Racism, Antisemitism, Religious Mysticism, Socialism. Collectivism, and general parrot-think to deal with the world.
And I can take care of my health without some Fuhrer lecturing me on “corpse soup,” yanking out cigarettes from people’s mouth, and offering me a Zyklon-B sauna.
Fuck Off, Nazi!
The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.“ George Orwell
You don’t even realize how pathetic you are to structure that entirely juvenile and purposeless response like a debate.
There’s nothing juvenile and purposeless about my response and there’s no gap between my real and declared aims. My grown-up purpose and my real and declared aim is that you:
Fuck Off, Nazi!
Name calling? That’s juvenile. Hahaha
You’re failing miserably at achieving your purpose aren’t you?
Why don’t you beg Kol Nidre boy?
I don’t debate the irrational, I denounce and shun them in Cyberspace and stand guard against them in the 4-D world.
Fuck Off, Nazi!
Not only public…. it is part of DeSantis’ dastardly Florida curriculum.
The topics are from a national organization and they can be really tough, especially for young kids. My middle schooler is really active in debate, having never lost a round in 2 years. Her topics have included obscure and technical things like 1990s NATO expansion.
That would be tough for those of us who lived through it and watched it play out on the nightly news. But to these kids? The issues involve countries that don’t exist anymore, international treaties that don’t exist… and were all a decade or more moot before they were born.
Take that topic up as a junior history major in college and it would be tough. But as a 7th or 7th grade kid who has not even had world history yet?
She was in there with a 10th grade textbook trying to figure out what the Warsaw pact meant to the issue without having ever heard of the breakup of the Soviet Union.
I have been quite impressed with the level they are able to bring after a couple of weeks of study.
Give the two of us 2 weeks to prepare for a debate on the relative roles of city-state warfare and nomadic infiltration in the development of Rigvedic culture, and I daresay we wouldn’t fare as well.
Rigvedic culture? I don’t even know what it is (W/O the all-knowing Google, of course).
The only way I’ll ever be cultured is if you throw me into a petri dish with some agar, har-har!
Very impressive of your kids! I see another version of myself in them.
I was in the 2nd and 3rd Grade during The Bicentennial Celebration and was positively immersed in all things related to The Revolutionary War, The Founding Fathers, Abolitionism, The Civil War, and American inventors.
With my set of World Book Encyclopedias, I was also immersed in World History, especially the World Wars, Philosophy and Religion, Diseases, Animals, Space Exploration, Electronics, and almost anything that came up when the pages fell open!
I say just have them define the terms and the parameters of the subject and they could probably study and debate anything!
My kids’ school system leans heavily into debate, starting in elementary school. (They have the largest elementary school debate program in the nation)
Top AND bottom surgery, or just top surgery until they’re 16?
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.…………>> GOOGLE WORK
The core of school debate is that you’re randomly assigned a side regardless of your personal beliefs. You have to be very familiar with all sides of the debate to persuasively argue something you don’t actually believe.
Which is a terrible idea because, if I’ve learned anything from these comments, even thinking about something from a different point of view means you not only support that point of view but you voted for Biden as well.
If there is anything I have learned it is that Straw Men have the highest reproductive rate of any species on earth.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Part of the reason so many of the posters here can sock, parody, and predict what (primarily) the left is going to say/do is because they understand both sides of the argument.
It’s also why people like Tony and shrike are so shit at it: they can’t even imagine not thinking like authoritarian shitheels.
I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($550 to $750 / hr) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly 85000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don’t have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I…go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart……
GOOD LUCK
SITE. ——>>> WORK AT HOME
Debate is white supremacy.
And a threat to democracy.
I highly recommend keeping this two-author point-counterpoint format as a regular feature.
Reason has become far too focused on click-generating hot takes about other reporting… or even hot takes about hot takes. Since original reporting is apparently not a thing anymore, this deep dive on a single issue is a good consolation prize.
I would also recommend a strong hand from the editor to ensure that actual libertarian ideology is being applied to the pro and con positions. That is where the real value lies, not in having 2 writers of differing opinions offer up hot takes.
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me… They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500… Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet…
.
Read all about it here…………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
I was told there would be libertarians in this debate.
>>You do not cure a peanut allergy by force-feeding someone Reese’s Cups.
not certain there are peanuts within a mile of any Reese’s concern … and I do like to combine my cat and dog population they’re cute together
My peanut allergy was cured by Reese’s Cups. Also, cats are deathly allergic to me.
I have a new indoor/outdoor kitty who showed up after my other one got eaten last September he’s a hoot
Can you share the recipe?
yellow curry and jasmine rice do well.
Concerning the “National Divorce” debate, national divorce however it might theoretically happen, will not result in any increase in liberty. If polarization is carried to its final conclusion, the result will be almost completely “red” states and almost completely “blue” states unopposed by any meaningful alternative political entities, and unopposed by even weak Federal moderation.
i cannot comprehend how anyone with a functioning brain can support open borders. without a secure border there is no nation. a nation with an open border like we have now is not secure and we’re allowing undesirables into our nation that will absolutely cause devastating problems. liberty & freedom lies within our borders. if there are others outside our borders who desire the same then go through the legal process of immigrating.
It really is akin to “open borders creationism”. In exactly the same way you can point to fossils embedded in sediment and many of the tenets of creationism utterly crumble, you can point to the ruins of houses, farms, castles, villages, cities, city-states, tribal lands, etc., etc., etc. and the walls, contracts, disputes/negotiations, and borders that have been built, signed, and conducted going back into antiquity and, like any devout creationist, the open borders people will just reply “Nuh uh! Borders are a lie being perpetrated by devil-worshiping racists!”
Do you think we could make it easier for those liberty loving people to immigrate here? Or at least let more of them in?
every immigrant should be evaluated based on criteria. we allow immigration only if it is beneficial to our country. so if an applicant is valuable to our nation then they may be eligible. i doubt there are as many qualified applicants as you may think.
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me… They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500… Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet…
.
Read all about it here…………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
After searching for numerous travel agencies for the best tour packages I found https://www.dejourneys.com/.
Open borders / right to immigration should be top priority .
Open borders only works in a state-controlled society with public property borders !
In a society of private property, open borders would require legalizing trespassing.
It should be rejected by ALL libertarians for that reason alone.