I love Open to Debate (ne Intelligence Squared) and was looking forward to this discussion. My take after listening: this was a low point in the Open to Debate series. Of the four debaters, one on the "Yes" side presented compelling, balanced arguments; the other "Yes" debater was fixated on abstract tangents about what justices should have done in circa 1900. The two people arguing "No" basically said "it's in the constitution" (true, but not the point of the debate) and then ranted about the current administration and levied personal attacks on the "Yes" panel.
It was interesting to learn the history and spirit of the Amendment - basically to ensure no question about the citizenship of children of former slaves. It was also interesting to listen to the arguments of the one reasonable debater on how the world has changed since then and why the policy may no longer make sense. This does seem to be something that we (America) should discuss on its merits and outside of political affiliation. Sadly, that didn't happen in this debate.
I love open to debate, I’ve been following it for a long time. I love to analyse arguments and to learn from them.
I’d love to make a suggestion that I’ve been pondering for a long time: The debate shouldn’t be revolving around an open question but a statement: this is how classic debates work and helps to narrow down the positions
I agree. Too often the debaters don’t even have the same conceptual framing of what they are talking about. That was partly true here. The debate is not about how the Supreme Court should rule on Trump’s exec order, but the broader issue.
We did this debate, grassroots style, at Braver Angels earlier this year, and it was one of the best ones we've ever done. I base that on the number of people who said they learned something new and even adjusted their view on the issue.
I was really disappointed in this debate. The question was poorly framed to start with. The ‘no’ side got nasty, and Donvan’s attempt to intervene on that didn’t seem to matter. Then they ended by saying even having the debate is ‘dangerous’ and THAT statement was not challenged at all. I know it was in the final seconds and the moderator was probably caught off guard, but even so, it was terrible to hear that on Open to Debate. I’ve heard many better discussions of this issue and am surprised and disappointed at how poorly this played out.
I generally agree w Dan's comments below. This was the worst debate in this series and I Squared as well. No one addressed the topic as to whether BR citizenship a good policy for the US to have in the 21st century, which is a separate and distinct question from whether it takes a constitutional amendment, act of Congress or an executive order to end it. The "No" debaters were all emotion and scant logic while the "Yes" debaters didn't parse the question or discuss the moral hazard of inducing illegal immigration by rewarding such migrants w citizenship and access to government benefits for their citizen children.
This was such a superficial debate as to be de-constructive rather than constructive. People think they learned something...they didn't. A wrong answer to this question by the SCOTUS could rip this country apart, could destroy our culture and could send us spiraling onward into a tyrannical hell.
Also John Donvan was very very abrupt and even raising his voice. Debates should flow more naturally. I love A LOT how John moderates debates, but not this one
I love Open to Debate (ne Intelligence Squared) and was looking forward to this discussion. My take after listening: this was a low point in the Open to Debate series. Of the four debaters, one on the "Yes" side presented compelling, balanced arguments; the other "Yes" debater was fixated on abstract tangents about what justices should have done in circa 1900. The two people arguing "No" basically said "it's in the constitution" (true, but not the point of the debate) and then ranted about the current administration and levied personal attacks on the "Yes" panel.
It was interesting to learn the history and spirit of the Amendment - basically to ensure no question about the citizenship of children of former slaves. It was also interesting to listen to the arguments of the one reasonable debater on how the world has changed since then and why the policy may no longer make sense. This does seem to be something that we (America) should discuss on its merits and outside of political affiliation. Sadly, that didn't happen in this debate.
I love open to debate, I’ve been following it for a long time. I love to analyse arguments and to learn from them.
I’d love to make a suggestion that I’ve been pondering for a long time: The debate shouldn’t be revolving around an open question but a statement: this is how classic debates work and helps to narrow down the positions
I agree. Too often the debaters don’t even have the same conceptual framing of what they are talking about. That was partly true here. The debate is not about how the Supreme Court should rule on Trump’s exec order, but the broader issue.
We did this debate, grassroots style, at Braver Angels earlier this year, and it was one of the best ones we've ever done. I base that on the number of people who said they learned something new and even adjusted their view on the issue.
I was really disappointed in this debate. The question was poorly framed to start with. The ‘no’ side got nasty, and Donvan’s attempt to intervene on that didn’t seem to matter. Then they ended by saying even having the debate is ‘dangerous’ and THAT statement was not challenged at all. I know it was in the final seconds and the moderator was probably caught off guard, but even so, it was terrible to hear that on Open to Debate. I’ve heard many better discussions of this issue and am surprised and disappointed at how poorly this played out.
I generally agree w Dan's comments below. This was the worst debate in this series and I Squared as well. No one addressed the topic as to whether BR citizenship a good policy for the US to have in the 21st century, which is a separate and distinct question from whether it takes a constitutional amendment, act of Congress or an executive order to end it. The "No" debaters were all emotion and scant logic while the "Yes" debaters didn't parse the question or discuss the moral hazard of inducing illegal immigration by rewarding such migrants w citizenship and access to government benefits for their citizen children.
This was such a superficial debate as to be de-constructive rather than constructive. People think they learned something...they didn't. A wrong answer to this question by the SCOTUS could rip this country apart, could destroy our culture and could send us spiraling onward into a tyrannical hell.
This is a shameful debate topic. It has as much merit: as should the us permit slavery? or if we should eliminate public school?
More and more these debates are just rational-washing extreme and backwards ideas. This debate was settled long ago.
Also John Donvan was very very abrupt and even raising his voice. Debates should flow more naturally. I love A LOT how John moderates debates, but not this one