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.

• Video and Audio Editing: John Osterhoudt

The post What's the Root Cause of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? appeared first on Reason.com.

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 Does <i>The 1619 Project</i> Have Anything To Teach Us? appeared first on Reason.com.

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 Pal Singh appeared first on Reason.com.

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&M University, argued that fossil fuels are endangering life on the planet by causing global warming through greenhouse gas emissions. He contended that solar energy and wind energy are safe, reliable, and cost-effective means to decarbonize the electric grid.

Steven Koonin, who served as undersecretary for science at the Department of Energy during the Obama administration and is the founding director of New York University's Center for Urban Science and Progress, argued that making large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions aren't necessary to protect the earth. He also contended that doing so isn't cost-effective and that it's immoral. Koonin is also the author of Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters.

This debate was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein.

Intro edited by Regan Taylor; 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.

Should the U.S. give full military and political support to Ukraine in its war with Russia, short of sending troops?

That was the subject of a Soho Forum debate held on Thursday, June 23, at the Porcupine Freedom Festival, or PorcFest, in Lancaster, New Hampshire.

Cathy Young, a writer at the Bulwark and a contributing editor at Reason, is a Moscow-native who migrated to the U.S. as a teenager, argued that the U.S. government is correct to impose sanctions on Russia and to send military and economic support to Ukraine. 

Scott Horton, who's the host of Antiwar Radio, argued that U.S. backing of NATO provoked the Russian invasion and that imposing sanctions and sending weapons has brought more death and destruction.

He says the only role for the Americans is to call for an immediate ceasefire followed by negotiations.

The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie; edited by Brett Raney and John Osterhoudt.

The post Should the U.S. Be Arming Ukraine Against Russia? appeared first on Reason.com.

Has America's overdose crisis been caused by doctors over treating patients with opioids? 

That was the subject of this month's Soho Forum debate, held at the Sheen Center in downtown Manhattan.

Adriane Fugh-Berman defended the proposition, "America's overdose crisis is the result of doctors over‐treating patients with opioids." She's a medical doctor and a professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University Medical Center. She argued that the overdose crisis traces back to pharmaceutical companies convincing doctors that opioids were safe and effective, causing rising rates of addiction.

Jeffrey Singer, a surgeon and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, took the negative. He argued that the rate of overdoses and the rate at which doctors prescribe opioids aren't correlated. The real culprit, he said, was drug prohibition.

This debate was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie.

The post Did Prescription Opioids Cause The Overdose Epidemic? appeared first on Reason.com.

Do people who hire sex workers deserve to go to jail, or should all laws prohibiting consensual sex work be repealed?

On May 9, 2022, writer and activist Julie Bindel debated Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown at the Sheen Center in lower Manhattan. The resolution was "A good society should criminalize the purchase of sex."

The event was hosted by The Soho Forum, a monthly debate series sponsored by the Reason Foundation.

Bindel is the London-based author of The Pimping of Prostitution: Abolishing the Sex Work Myth. She opposes arresting women for the selling of sex but wants their customers to face consequences for their actions.

Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown, who's also the co-founder and president of Feminists for Liberty, took the position that all laws prohibiting consensual sex work should be abolished.

The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie; intro edited by John Osterhoudt

The post A Feminist Debate on Sex Work appeared first on Reason.com.

Should the United States use military force to deter China from invading Taiwan?

That was the subject of this month's Soho Forum debate, which took place in front of a full house at the Sheen Center in downtown Manhattan.

William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, defended the resolution. He argued that the U.S. should use all the tools at its disposal to deter foreign powers from engaging in conflict with their neighbors, with the ultimate goal of preventing an outright war such as the one we are witnessing in Europe.

Peter Van Buren, who spent 24 years working as a diplomat for the U.S. State Department, took the negative. He argued that Americans rarely have the context or understanding to intervene productively in foreign conflicts, and that more often than not, what looks like deterrence to one party looks like provocation to the other. Invoking the many years of experience he gained as a State Department diplomat stationed in Asia, he stated confidently that there would be no invasion of Taiwan by China either soon or in the distant future.

The debate was moderated by Soho Forum director, Gene Epstein.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie; intro edited by John Osterhoudt.

Photo: Ju Peng Xinhua News Agency/Newscom

The post Send The U.S. Military to Taiwan? appeared first on Reason.com.

Are platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram harming Americans in ways that government regulation could help correct?

On Thursday, February 17, Jonathan Haidt and Robby Soave had an Oxford-style debate on the role of government regarding social media before a capacity crowd at the Sheen Center in downtown Manhattan. It was hosted by the Soho Forum, a monthly debate series sponsored by Reason. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein served as moderator.

Haidt, professor of ethical leadership at New York University and co-founder of Heterodox Academy, defended the debate resolution, "The federal government should increase its efforts to reduce the harms caused by social media."

Soave, who took the negative, is a senior editor at Reason and author of the recently published Tech Panic: Why We Shouldn't Fear Facebook and the Future. He argued that widespread criticisms of social media stem from our innate—and misguided—distrust of new technology. Soave also contended that, for all its flaws, social media confers huge net benefits, and that the application of "government force" is likely to do far more harm than good.

Haidt, author of a recent article in The Atlantic on social media's harm to mental health, pointed out that while the platforms were not initially designed for people under 18, those individuals have arguably been its victims. Haidt likened the platforms to sugar—best taken in moderation.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by John Osterhoudt.

The post Regulate Social Media? Jonathan Haidt Debates Robby Soave appeared first on Reason.com.

Is there a libertarian case for vaccine mandates?

George Mason University Law Professor Ilya Somin supports vaccine mandates in certain cases because he believes they're a relatively "small infringement on freedom" and are preferable to harm reduction strategies like mask mandates and lockdowns, which he sees as posing a greater threat to our liberties.

Angela McArdle, the chair of the Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County, says she'll "actively work to destroy any institution that tries to enforce a vaccine passport," and is currently launching legal challenges to overturn vaccine mandates in California and New York. 

On September 8, Somin and McArdle went head-to-head at the Soho Forum in New York City. Somin took the affirmative, and McArdle the negative, on the resolution: While vaccine mandates are an infringement on freedom, some are justified due to their big payoff in lives saved.

The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Intro edited by John Osterhoudt.

Photos: Brett Raney

The post Two Libertarians Debate Vaccine Mandates appeared first on Reason.com.

The United States Constitution explicitly calls for copyright and patent laws  to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by "authors and inventors." But would getting rid of all intellectual property laws actually encourage more creativity and innovation by inventors, writers, and artists?

That was the topic of a November 15 Soho Forum debate held in New York City.

Stephan Kinsella, who's spent 28 years as a practicing patent law attorney, argued in favor of the proposition that "all patent and copyright law should be abolished."

He believes that government-created intellectual property laws empower patent and copyright trolls and powerful corporate interests while limiting the free flow of information, thus reducing the rate of innovation and creativity.

Richard Epstein, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, says that our current system isn't perfect but sees copyright and patents as a natural extension of private property rights and believes that it should be defended by libertarians accordingly. 

The debate took place in New York City in front of a live audience and was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by John Osterhoudt. Production by Caveat. Photos by Brett Raney.

The post Abolish Intellectual Property Rights? appeared first on Reason.com.

On October 4, 2021, Bill Kristol, an editor-at-large of The Bulwark, went up against Scott Horton of the Libertarian Institute in an Oxford-style debate on U.S. foreign policy at Symphony Space in New York City. 

Kristol was a leading proponent of the invasion of Iraq, the founding editor of The Weekly Standard, a foreign policy advisor to John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, and Chief of Staff to Vice President Dan Quayle.

Scott Horton is the author of Enough Already: Time to End the War on Terrorism and Fool's Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan. He's the editorial director of AntiWar.com and the host of AntiWar radio and the Scott Horton Podcast.

The debate was hosted by The Soho Forum, with director Gene Epstein moderating.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Thumbnail by Brett Raney.

The post U.S. Foreign Policy: Bill Kristol vs. Scott Horton appeared first on Reason.com.

Do voter identification laws ensure secure and trustworthy elections, or are they a way for political parties to manipulate the democratic process in their favor? 

At a September 8 debate in New York City hosted by the Soho Forum, Eliza Sweren-Becker from New York University's Brennan Center for Justice argued that state legislators are using arbitrary rules to suppress the voting rights of vulnerable citizens.

The Heritage Foundation's Hans von Spakovsky countered that these rules are necessary to guarantee that every vote cast is valid, noting that in states where voter ID laws already exist, registration rates have risen.

This was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience voted before and after the event to see which side swayed more people. It was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Audio editing by John Osterhoudt. Live production by The Sheen Center.

Photo: Anthony Behar/Sipa USA/Newscom

The post Do Voter ID Laws Undermine the Democratic Process or Ensure Trustworthy Elections? appeared first on Reason.com.

Founded in 1971, the Libertarian Party was created to elect libertarians to public office, including the presidency of the United States. 

Founded in 2001, the Free State Project is an effort to turn New Hampshire—the "Live Free or Die" state—into a libertarian paradise of minimal government, with the ultimate aim of electing a libertarian to the governorship.

Which is the more realistic path to creating a freer society? That was the question debated by Jeremy Kauffman, a member of the board of the Free State Project, and Angela McArdle, candidate for chair of the National Libertarian Party and current chair of the L.P. of Los Angeles County.

Kauffman defended the resolution, "The Free State Project is a more realistic path to liberty than the Libertarian Party," and McArdle took the negative.

The debate was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein and held in front of a live audience at the Free State Project's annual Porcupine Freedom Festival (Porcfest). It was an Oxford-style debate, so the audience voted on the proposition before and after the proceedings, with the winner being the person who moved more people to his or her side.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie.

Photo: Brett Raney

The post Is the Free State Project a Better Idea than the Libertarian Party? appeared first on Reason.com.

U.S. national debt held by the public is at almost $22 trillion, or about $67,000 per citizen, surpassing the country's annual Gross Domestic Product for the first time since World War Two. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that it'll reach 102 percent of GDP by the end of 2021, to 107 percent by 2031, and hit 202 percent by 2051.

The federal government's "growing debt burden would increase the risk of a fiscal crisis and higher inflation as well as undermine confidence in the US dollar," the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded in its March 2021 Long-Term Budget Outlook. 

If the world were to lose confidence in the dollar, what could replace it— another fiat currency, gold, or bitcoin? That was the topic of a recent Oxford-style debate hosted by the Soho Forum.

John Vallis, a financial consultant and host of the Bitcoin Rapid-Fire podcast, believes that bitcoin will eventually replace governments' fiat money as the preferred medium of exchange. He argues that bitcoin's global adoption is a matter of when not if.

Lawrence H. White, an economics professor at George Mason University, is skeptical of bitcoin's future as money. He believes it may have a future as a financial asset, but isn't suitable to become a global medium of exchange. 

The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein and held before a live audience at the Porcupine Freedom Festival—better known as PorcFest—in Lancaster, New Hampshire.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie, audio production by John Osterhoudt

The post Does Bitcoin Have the Potential to Become a Generally Accepted Medium of Exchange? appeared first on Reason.com.

"Socialism is preferable to capitalism as an economic system that promotes freedom, equality, and prosperity."

That was the proposition at an in-person Soho Forum debate held on Sunday, April 18, in The Villages, Florida. 

Ben Burgis, a philosophy instructor at Georgia State University's Perimeter College and a contributor to Jacobin magazine, spoke in support of socialism. His long-term political goals include giving workers control of the means of production through labor cooperatives, redistributing wealth and power through direct democracy in the workplace, and prohibiting wage-and-salary labor.

Gene Epstein, director of the Soho Forum, former economics editor of Barron's, and a former senior economist for the New York Stock Exchange, argued against Burgis. He contended that free markets already allow for worker co-ops and that if they were popular and effective, they would be more widely adopted than they are currently. He also objected that Burgis' proposed ban on wage-labor is a direct assault on individual rights and reveals the coercion behind socialist economic policy.

The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by Reason, conducts Oxford-style debates, meaning the audience votes yes, no, or undecided before and after the event. The winner is the debater who convinces the most people to switch sides. At the start of the event, 8.6 percent of the crowd agreed that "socialism is preferable to capitalism," 76 percent disagreed, and 15 percent were undecided. Sam Peterson of Libertas served as moderator.

Audio Production by John Osterhoudt, narrated by Nick Gillespie

The post Socialism or Capitalism? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

Do U.S. presidents need fast-track authority or should their power be sharply curtailed? In order to save our democracy, says Stanford University political scientist Terry Moe, we have to make the U.S. government faster, more efficient, and more effective—and we can do that by expanding the power of the executive branch to use "fast-track" authority to approve all types of legislation. Moe, the co-author of Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy, wants Congress to have the power to approve or deny these laws through an "up or down" vote (but not to add amendments or filibuster their passage).

The Cato Institute's Gene Healy says that non-libertarians of all political persuasions suffer from a "dangerous devotion" to the "boundless nature of presidential responsibility." Healy, who's the author of The Cult of the Presidency, says that instead of giving the executive branch more legislative authority, presidential powers must be brought back to their constitutional limits.

At a Reason-sponsored Soho Forum debate held on March 17, 2021, and moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein, Terry Moe and Gene Healy went head-to-head on this issue. It was an Oxford-style debate, meaning the winner is the person who moves the most people in his direction.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Audio production by Ian Keyser.

The post Is More Presidential Power Necessary in the Modern World? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

At each of Whole Foods Market's more than 500 American stores, managers ask every team member—from the meat clerks to the baristas to the janitorial staff—to orient their work around a shared purpose, which is to make natural and healthy food widely available.  This goal, according to Whole Foods CEO and co-founder John Mackey, is in no way inconsistent with maximizing shareholder value, often seen as the essential purpose of a corporation. 

As Mackey writes in his new book about leadership, "At the heart of Conscious Capitalism is a radical refutation of the negative perceptions of business, and a rejection of the split between purpose and profit." Mackey believes that this is the key to defending capitalism against those who condemn it for having no inspiring ideals. 

At a Reason-sponsored Soho Forum debate held on February 18, 2020, Ayn Rand Institute Chairman of the Board Yaron Brook challenged this view. He believes that maximizing profit should always be the primary goal of companies, and it's that focus which explains why capitalism has lifted the broad masses out of poverty. That's the message businesses should be emphasizing, he said, and it's inspiring enough.

The debate, which played out in front of 200 people in The Villages, Florida, was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein. It was an Oxford-style debate, meaning the winner is the person who moves the most people in his direction.

The post Should Businesses Only Focus on Shareholder Value? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

Oren Cass, who is the former domestic policy director for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and the founder and executive director of the think tank American Compass, believes that the U.S. government should intervene more aggressively in the manufacturing industry.

Cass participated in a recent Soho Forum virtual debate, held on January 13, 2021, arguing in favor of the proposition:

"To promote prosperity among all income groups, the U.S. government should adopt an industrial policy."

Arguing against Cass: Scott Lincicome, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He says that, in the real world, government interference has only hurt manufacturing. The problem with the economic nationalism favored by Cass is that it insulates companies from the discipline of profit and loss. In a free market, businesses learn from their mistakes. When the government is involved, they react by growing bigger as a way to cover for their failures.

It was an Oxford-style debate, and Lincicome prevailed by convincing 14.56 percent of the audience to switch to his side.

The Soho Forum, sponsored by Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series typically held at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village, but which has gone remote during the pandemic.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Regan Taylor, John Osterhoudt, and Ian Keyser.

Photo: Andy Star/Envato Elements.

The post Should the U.S. Government Adopt an Industrial Policy? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

Should the COVID-19 lockdowns be replaced with a more targeted strategy?

On October 4, 2020, epidemiologists from Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocates for ending the COVID-19 lockdowns and turning to a strategy of protecting elderly and vulnerable populations, while allowing everyone else to resume their normal lives.

Critics of the Declaration issued a counter-petition, called the "John Snow Memorandum," stating, "Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population."

In an online Soho Forum debate on December 13, Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard biostatistician and epidemiologist and coauthor of the Great Barrington Declaration, debated Andrew Noymer, an associate professor of population health and disease prevention at the University of California, Irvine, who signed the John Snow Memorandum.

It was an Oxford-style debate, and in this case, the contest ended in a tie: Both debaters convinced 5.56 percent of audience members to switch to their side over the course of the debate.

The Soho Forum, sponsored by Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series typically held at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village, but which has gone remote during the pandemic.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie; audio production by Regan Taylor

Photo: Steve Sanchez/Sipa USA/Newscom

The post End the COVID-19 Lockdowns? Two Epidemiologists Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

The Electoral College is the best means of electing a president compared to any others that might be devised.

When Donald Trump won the presidential election in 2016 even though 2.8 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton, everyone from Bill De Blasio, to Michael Moore, to Eric Holder and Bill Maher said that at long last we should abolish the electoral college. Then-California Senator Barbara Boxer introduced a bill to amend the U.S. constitution to do just that.

A Gallup poll from September of this year showed that 61 percent of Americans support abolishing the electoral college in favor of a national popular vote, although it's an issue that breaks along partisan lines. 77 percent of Republicans want to keep the electoral college, while 89 percent of Democrats said that we should get rid of it.

Is the electoral college the best system for electing a president? That was the subject of an online Soho Forum debate held on Wednesday, November 11, 2020. Richard Epstein, a law professor at New York University, defended the system against Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Harvard. Soho Forum director Gene Epstein moderated.

Lessig won the Oxford-Style debate by gaining 14.29 percent of the audience's support. Epstein lost 2.04 percent of his pre-debate votes.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Audio production by Ian Keyser.

The post The Electoral College: Keep or Replace? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

If governments don't completely eliminate fossil fuels by 2040, society is doomed, says Jeff Nesbit, author of This is the Way the World Ends.

That kind of apocalyptic rhetoric "costs us trillions, hurts the poor, and fails to fix the planet," says Bjorn Lomborg, author of False Alarm.

Are fossil fuels an imminent threat to human life, or are attempts to eliminate them more destructive? That was the subject of an Oxford-style online Soho Forum debate hosted on Sunday, October 18th, 2020.

Arguing in favor of the complete elimination of fossil fuels over 20 years was Nesbit, the executive director of Climate Nexus. He went up against Lomborg, the president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. The debate was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Ian Keyser. Intro by John Osterhoudt.

Music: "Under Cover," by Wayne Jones

Photos: Gina M Randazzo/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Sebastian Silva/EFE/Newscom; imageBROKER/Jim West/Newscom; Stefan Boness/Ipon/SIPA/Newscom

The post Completely Replace Fossil Fuels Within 20 Years? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

In July, the Soho Forum hosted a three-way debate asking the question "Who should Libertarians Vote For in 2020?" George Mason Law Professor Ilya Somin made the case for Joe Biden, chair of the Libertarian Party in Los Angeles Angela McArdle argued for Jo Jorgensen, and attorney and Manhattan Contrarian blogger Francis Menton defended Donald Trump.

A lot has changed since July, and with the election now less than three weeks away, the Soho Forum hosted another event in which those same three libertarians updated their arguments for their preferred candidates.

None of the participants have changed their minds on who to vote for, but they all agree on one thing: The stakes have gotten higher.

Somin blogs at The Volokh Conspiracy and has written Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter and Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom.

McArdle is the chair of the Libertarian Party of Los Angeles and the author of The Communist Cookbook: Delicious Dining for the Modern Marxist.

Menton blogs at Manhattan Contrarian and is a retired partner in the Litigation Department and co-chair of the business litigation practice group Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP in New York.

The post Who Should Libertarians Vote for in 2020? A Soho Forum Update appeared first on Reason.com.

"The latest in school segregation." That's how the headline of a recent New York Times op-ed described private "pandemic pods," in which parents of K–12 students hire an in-person teacher while public schools remain online-only due to COVID-19 lockdowns. The pandemic pods, says the writer, "will exacerbate inequities, racial segregation and the opportunity gap within schools."

Business Insider had a somewhat different take, claiming the pods are "inequitable and inevitable" and "a dream come true for the school choice movement."

Are pandemic pods just the latest tool by which "nice white parents" use their financial and political clout to separate out their kids, thus increasing segregation in education? And if so, is the solution to increase government spending on K–12 schools so that all parents will want to keep their kids in the public system?

That was the subject of an online Soho Forum debate held on Wednesday, September 16, 2020. The Soho Forum is a monthly series sponsored by Reason. The debates are done Oxford-style, which means the audience votes on the resolution at both the beginning and end of the event; the side that gains the most ground is victorious. 

Arguing for more government spending was Jon Hale, a professor of education at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Arguing in favor of pods and other parental innovations was Corey DeAngelis, director of school choice at the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this website. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated the debate.

Photo credit: Photo 156402271 © Pojoslaw | Dreamstime.com

The post Could All Parents Have 'Pandemic Pods' If There Were More School Choice? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic makes it all the more urgent for the U.S. to install a system of Medicare for All.

That was the topic of an online Soho Forum debate held on August 19, 2020. Arguing in favor of the proposition was Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts and the author of the book, The Case for Medicare for All. He went up against Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute and author of False Premise, False Promise: The Disastrous Reality of Medicare for All. Soho Forum director Gene Epstein moderated.

The Soho Forum runs Oxford-style debates, meaning the audience voted on the proposition before and after the presenters' remarks. The winner is the person who moves more votes in his or her direction. At the start of the evening, 20 percent of the Zoom audience agreed that the pandemic furthered the case for Medicare for All, 60 percent were against, and 20 percent were undecided. At the end of the debate, 27 percent agreed with the proposition, 73 percent disagreed, and no one was left undecided. Because she gained the most votes, Sally Pipes was declared the winner.

The Soho Forum, sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village. Debates will remain online until New York allows public events again. For information on how to watch and vote in the next online Soho Forum debate, go here.

Produced by John Osterhoudt.

Photo: Molly Adams/Flickr.

The post Does COVID-19 Strengthen the Case for Medicare for All? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

Should libertarians vote for Biden, Jorgensen, or Trump in the next presidential election?

That was the topic of an online Soho Forum debate held on Wednesday, July 22, 2020. It featured George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin; Angela McArdle, the chair of the Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County; and Francis Menton, a retired attorney who blogs at Manhattan Contrarian. The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

Arguing that libertarians should vote for Joe Biden was Somin, whose books include Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter and Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom.

In support of Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen was Angela McArdle, author of The Communist Cookbook: Delicious Dining for the Modern Marxist.

Francis Menton made the case that libertarians should help to re-elect Donald Trump. Menton is a retired partner in the Litigation Department and co-chair of the Business Litigation Practice Group of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP in New York.

Voting for this online debate was exclusive to the live Zoom audience. McArdle won by convincing 32.5 percent of the audience to change their minds and support Jo Jorgensen. Support for Trump increased by 3 percent, while Biden lost 4.8 percent.

The Soho Forum, sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.

Produced by John Osterhoudt.

The post Who Should Libertarians Vote For in 2020? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

There is overwhelming evidence that the criminal justice system is racist.

That was the resolution of an online Soho Forum debate held on Wednesday, June 24, 2020. It featured The Washington Post's Radley Balko and the Manhattan Institute's Rafael Mangual. The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

Arguing that America's criminal justice system is, in fact, racist was Radley Balko, an opinion writer for The Washington Post. A former editor at Reason, Balko is also the author of Rise of the Warrior Cop and co-author of The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist.

Defending America's criminal justice against the charge of racism was Rafael Mangual, the deputy director of legal policy at the Manhattan Insitute, who is also a contributing editor for City Journal. Mangual's writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, the New York Post, the Boston Herald, and The Philadelphia Inquirer.

The Soho Forum, sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.

Update: Voting on this debate ended on Tuesday, June 30, 2020, at noon EST. Radley Balko won by convincing 21.62 percent of the audience to change their minds. Rafael Mangual convinced 10.81 percent.

Produced by John Osterhoudt.

The post Radley Balko and Rafael Mangual Debate Systemic Racism appeared first on Reason.com.

"The lockdown has saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives and spared American hospitals the horrors of rationing care."

That was the resolution of a public debate hosted via Zoom by the Soho Forum on Monday, June 1, 2020. It featured Marty Makary, a surgical oncologist at Johns Hopkins, and Knut Wittkowski, former head of the Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design at The Rockefeller University.

The Soho Forum typically hosts Oxford-style debates, in which a live audience votes before and after the event, and the debater who swayed the most people wins the contest. Because this debate took place over Zoom, we did things a little differently. The online audience was asked to vote before the debate. If you voted before the debate, please go to sohovote.com after you listen to the podcast and cast your final vote. But if you didn't register your initial vote before the debate started on Monday evening, your final vote won't be counted.

Arguing for the affirmative was Marty Makary, a surgical oncologist at Johns Hopkins and the author of the 2019 book The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care—and How to Fix It.

Knut Wittkowski argued for the negative. Wittkowski is the CEO of ASDERA LLC, a company discovering novel treatments for complex diseases from data of genome-wide association studies. Wittkowski also served for 20 years as head of the Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design at The Rockefeller University in New York City.

The Soho Forum, sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.

Update: Voting on this debate ended on Monday, June 8, 2020, at noon EST. Knut Wittkowski won by convincing 11.43 percent of the audience to change their minds. Marty Makary convinced 8.57 percent.

Audio production by John Osterhoudt.
Photo: Maria Khrenova/ZUMA Press/Newscom

The post Were the Lockdowns a Mistake? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

"The current pandemic makes it all the more necessary for the federal government to tighten restrictions on immigration."

That was the resolution of a public debate hosted via Zoom by the Soho Forum on Wednesday, May 6, 2020. It featured Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, and Bryan Caplan, professor of economics at George Mason University. Soho Forum director Gene Epstein moderated.

The Soho Forum typically hosts Oxford-style debates, in which a live audience votes before and after the event, and the debater who swayed the most people wins the contest. Because this debate took place over Zoom, we did things a little differently. The online audience was asked to vote before the debate. If you voted before the debate, please go to sohovote.com after you watch the video and cast your final vote. But if you didn't register your initial vote before the debate started on Tuesday evening, your final vote won't be counted.

Arguing for the affirmative was Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and author of The New Case Against Immigration.

Bryan Caplan argued for the negative. Caplan is a professor of economics at George Mason University and the author of Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration.

The Soho Forum, sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.

Update: Voting on this debate ended on Tuesday, May12, 2020, at noon EST. Bryan Caplan won by convincing 21.88 percent of the audience to change their minds. Mark Krikorian convinced 15.63 percent.

Produced by John Osterhoudt.

Illustration: 82001983 © Topgeek—Dreamstime.com
Photo: 177972613 © Wisconsinart—Dreamstime.com

The post Does COVID-19 Make Immigration Restrictions Necessary? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

The US economy should be liberated from the governments' lockdowns right away.

That was the resolution of a virtual debate hosted by the Soho Forum via Zoom on Tuesday, April 21, 2020. Arguing for the affirmative was David Henderson, an economist and research fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and for the negative Justin Wolfers, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated.

The Soho Forum typically hosts Oxford-style debates, in which the live audience votes before and after the event, and the debater who swayed the most people wins the contest. Because this debate took place over Zoom, we did things a little differently: The online audience was asked to vote before the debate…if you did so, go to sohovote.com after you watch and cast your final vote. However, if you didn't register your initial vote before the debate started on Tuesday evening, your final vote won't be counted.

Henderson is also the author of the recent article, "Liberation from Lockdown Now." He was a senior economist for health policy with President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. Wolfers also serves as a member of the Congressional Budget Office Panel of Economic Advisers.

The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series that's usually held at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village. This debate, however, was conducted via Zoom.

Update: Voting on this debate ended on April 28, 2020. David Henderson won by convincing 12.7 percent of the audience to change their minds. Justin Wolfers lost support by 4.76 percent.

Audio production by John Osterhoudt.

Photo: Pacific Press/Sipa USA/Newscom

The post Is It Time to End the Coronavirus Lockdowns? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

Antitrust should take the initiative to control the size of big tech companies.

That was the resolution of a public debate hosted by the Soho Forum in New York City on March 9, 2020. It featured Tim Wu of Columbia University Law School, and Richard Epstein of New York University Law School. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated.

It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious. Richard Epstein prevailed in the debate by convincing 17.48 percent of audience members to change their minds. Wu convinced 2.91 percent.

Wu, who was arguing for the affirmative, is the Julius Silver Professor of Law, Science, and Technology at Columbia Law School. He is also the author of The Master Switch, The Attention Merchants, and The Curse of Bigness.

Epstein is the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University Law School, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago. His most popular titles include The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government,  Why Progressive Institutions are Unsustainable, and Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain.

The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.

Produced by John Osterhoudt.

Photo: Brett Raney.

The post Should the Government Break Up Companies Like Amazon and Facebook? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

President Trump's trade-related initiatives against China deserve broad public support.

That was the resolution of a public debate hosted by the Soho Forum in New York City on February 4, 2020. It featured Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation and Gene Epstein of the Soho Forum. Comedian Dave Smith moderated.

It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event; the side that gains the most ground is victorious. Moore prevailed by convincing 21.51 percent of audience members to change their minds. Epstein convinced 13.98 percent.

Arguing for the affirmative was Stephen Moore, distinguished visiting fellow for the Project for Economic Growth at the Heritage Foundation. Moore is also a senior economic contributor for FreedomWorks and the founder of the Club for Growth.

Gene Epstein argued for the negative. Epstein, former economics editor of Barron's, is co-founder and director of the Soho Forum.

The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.

Produced by John Osterhoudt.
Photo: Brett Raney

The post Is Donald Trump's Trade Policy with China Good for Americans? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.