Former senior policy adviser to President Donald Trump Stephen Moore and the Cato Institute's Scott Lincicome debate the resolution, "As a means of gaining leverage in economic and political relations with foreign governments, Trump's tariff policies have brought net benefits."

Taking the affirmative is Moore, the co-founder and chairman of Unleash Prosperity. He is also the author of several economics books, including Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status, which was a finalist for the F.A. Hayek Award for Advancing Economic Understanding.

Arguing the negative is Lincicome, the vice president of general economics and trade at the Cato Institute.

The debate is moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein.

The post Are We Winning the Trade Wars? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Statistician Aaron Brown and gun policy scholar Robert Spitzer debate the resolution, "Until there is convincing evidence that government-imposed gun control brings a net reduction in harm, all legal restrictions on adult possession of guns should be abolished."

Taking the affirmative is Brown, a statistician, Bloomberg opinion columnist, and author of Wrong Number: How To Extract Truth From a Blizzard of Quantitative Disinformation. Subscribe to Brown's Reason newsletter here.

Taking the negative is Spitzer, distinguished service professor emeritus of political science at SUNY Cortland and author of multiple books on gun policy.

The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

The post Does Gun Control Make Us Safer? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Journalist Michael Tracey and Pace University's Marcella Szablewicz debate the resolution, "The Jeffrey Epstein scandal has become a case of moral panic."

Taking the affirmative is Tracey, an independent journalist, political commentator, and media critic known for his skepticism of the Epstein narrative and what he calls the surrounding "mythology" and hysteria.

Taking the negative is Szablewicz, an associate professor of communication and media studies at Pace University's Dyson College of Arts and Sciences. Her research focuses on digital media and media moral panics.

The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

The post Are the Epstein Files a Moral Panic? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The Heritage Foundation's Simon Hankinson and George Mason University's Bryan Caplan debate the resolution, "Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should complete its mandate to deport all illegal aliens currently residing in the United States."

Taking the affirmative is Hankinson, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Border Security and Immigration Center and author of The Ten Woke Commandments—You Must Not Obey.

Taking the negative is Caplan, a professor of economics at George Mason University. He is the author of 12 books, including the graphic novel Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration.

The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

The post Should ICE Deport All Illegal Aliens? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Yale Law School professor Natasha Sarin and the Cato Institute's Adam Michel debate the resolution, "Billionaires should pay a higher share of federal taxes."

Taking the affirmative is Sarin, who is a professor at Yale Law School and the president and co-founder of the Budget Lab at Yale. She is also a former counselor to Secretary Janet Yellen at the U.S. Treasury Department.

Arguing against the resolution is Michel, the director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute. He was formerly deputy staff director at the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee.

The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

The post Should Billionaires Pay More Taxes? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Fordham Law School professor Zephyr Teachout and the Manhattan Institute's John Ketcham debate the resolution, "Mayor Zohran Mamdani is likely to fulfill his campaign pledge to make New York City more affordable for most residents."

Taking the affirmative is Teachout, an attorney and professor of law at Fordham Law School. She is the author of two books, Break 'Em Up: Recovering Our Freedom from Big Ag, Big Tech, and Big Money and Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizens United. She's also formerly served as special adviser and senior counsel for economic justice at the New York Attorney General's Office.

Arguing the negative is Ketcham, a legal policy fellow and director of Cities at the Manhattan Institute. He's also a contributing editor to City Journal, where he's closely followed Mamdani's governance.

The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

The post Can Zohran Mamdani Make NYC Affordable? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Harvard professor Jeffrey Flier and historian of science Terence Kealey debate the resolution, "The National Institutes of Health should be abolished."

For the affirmative is Kealey, former vice chancellor of the University of Buckingham. He's the author of multiple books, including The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. He is also an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, where he co-authored the white paper "Mission Lost: How NIH Leaders Stole Its Promise to America."

For the negative is Flier, the George Higginson professor of physiology and medicine at Harvard Medical School. He is also a former clinical associate at the National Institutes of Health.

The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

The post Should the NIH Be Abolished? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Technology authors Perry Metzger and Brian Merchant debate the resolution, "Artificial Intelligence will provide enormous net benefits to nearly every member of society."

Metzger is taking the affirmative. He is the co-founder and chairman of the board of Alliance for the Future, and the author of science comic Computers: How Digital Hardware Works.

Merchant is taking the negative. He is a reporter in residence at the AI Now Institute. He's also the author of two books, The One Device: The Secret History of the iPhone and Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion Against Big Tech.

The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

The post Will AI Benefit Everyone? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Naomi Schaefer Riley and Martin Guggenheim debate the resolution, "Government-run child protective services should intervene more in the lives of children."

For the affirmative is Riley, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and at the Independent Women's Forum. She's the author of seven books, the most recent of which is No Way To Treat a Child: How the Foster Care System, Family Courts, and Racial Activists Are Wrecking Young Lives.

Guggenheim is taking the negative. He is the Fiorello LaGuardia Professor of Clinical Law Emeritus at New York University Law School and co-director of the Family Defense Clinic. He's also the author of multiple books, including What's Wrong With Children's Rights.

The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

The post Should Child Protective Services Intervene More? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Economic researchers Matt Stoller and Geoffrey A. Manne debate the resolution, "The U.S. government should break up large technology companies like Amazon, Meta, and Google to protect workers, suppliers, consumers, and democratic institutions."

Arguing in favor of the resolution is Stoller, the director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project and the author of Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy.

Taking the negative is Manne, the president and founder of the International Center for Law & Economics.

The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

The post Is It Time To Break Up Big Tech? appeared first on Reason Magazine.