Eric Brakey and Andrew Heaton debate the resolution, "Libertarians should focus on building liberty-for-real societies like the Free State Project, rather than reforming an ever-expanding, uncontrollable federal government."

Eric Brakey, executive director of the Free State Project and former Maine state senator, argued in favor of the resolution. Andrew Heaton, comedian, author, and host of The Political Orphanage podcast, argued against it.

The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

Because of major technical problems during the recording of this event, the audio quality is well below Reason's standards.

• Editor: John Osterhoudt

The post Should Libertarians Prioritize Their Own Communities? appeared first on Reason.com.

Jewish Currents' editor-at-large Peter Beinart and American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Michael Rubin debate the resolution, "The oppression of Palestinians in non-democratic Israel has been systematic and profound."

Arguing for the affirmative is Beinart, a professor of journalism and political science at the Newmark School of Journalism at the City University of New York. He's a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times, editor-at-large for Jewish Currents, and a political commentator for MSNBC. Beinart has authored several books, including Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning, which was released in January of this year.

Arguing for the negative is Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he specializes in the Middle East and Africa, and director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum. He's the author of Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes.

The debate was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein.

• 00:00 Introduction
• 00:15 The resolution reads…
• 00:55 Beinart's opening statement
• 11:36 Rubin's opening statement
• 28:08 Beinart's rebuttal
• 32:55 Rubin's rebuttal
• 39:45 Q&A
• 1:12:02 Beinart's closing statement
• 1:15:22 Rubin's closing statement
• 1:20:23 Announcements
• 1:25:07 Results

• Editor: John Osterhoudt

The post Are the Palestinians Systematically Oppressed? appeared first on Reason.com.

Scott Horton of The Libertarian Institute and Eli Lake of The Free Press debate the resolution, "The United States started the new Cold War with Russia and provoked Russia's invasion of Ukraine."

Taking the affirmative is Horton, the director of The Libertarian Institute and the editorial director of antiwar.com. He recently published a book on the debate subject called Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine.

Arguing for the negative is Lake, a columnist for The Free Press and contributing editor for Commentary magazine, whose longtime beat has been foreign affairs and national security.

The debate was hosted at Dartmouth College by the Dartmouth Political Union and moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein.

• Post Production: John Osterhoudt

The post Did the U.S. Provoke Russia's Invasion of Ukraine? appeared first on Reason.com.

Peter Gietl of Blaze Media and Salvadoran journalist Ricardo Avelar debate the resolution, "President Nayib Bukele's crime-fighting policies in El Salvador provide a model for reducing violence in other Latin American countries."

Arguing in favor is Gietl, the managing editor for Return and Frontier magazine for Blaze Media. In November of last year, Gietl published a lengthy photojournalistic essay chronicling his travels to El Salvador, titled "J'Adore El Salvador," which he concludes by asking: "Can we bottle [El Salvador's transformation] up and ship it back to America?"

Taking the negative is Avelar, a senior journalist and presenter for the Central American news outlet Revista Factum. In 2021, he co-directed a docuseries called 9F: The Return of Rifles, which is about the "El Bukelazo" events of February 9, 2020.

The debate is moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein.

• Post Production: John Osterhoudt

The post El Salvador's Bukele: Authoritarian or Model President? appeared first on Reason.com.

Did the Supreme Court err in its July 1 ruling in Trump v. United States that "the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority"? That was the subject of this month's Soho Forum debate. Law professor Elizabeth Price Foley and journalist Glenn Greenwald debated the resolution, "Presidential immunity for official acts is a key factor in the proper functioning of the U.S. government's executive branch."

Defending the resolution was Foley, a professor of law at Florida International University, where she teaches constitutional law and separation of powers. She has testified before Congress on numerous constitutional topics, and is the author of three books on constitutional law.

Arguing for the negative was Greenwald, a journalist and podcaster who won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for the NSA-Snowden revelations. He left The Intercept in 2020 to become independent, and is now the host of SYSTEM UPDATE nightly on Rumble.

This debated was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein.

The post Was the Supreme Court Wrong About Presidential Immunity? appeared first on Reason.com.

Santiago Forster and Agustín Dante Rombolá debate the resolution, "Free market President Javier Milei of Argentina has been making tangible progress toward improving the Argentinian economy."

Taking the affirmative is Forster, a fellow at Fundación Rioplatense de Estudios, a South American think-tank dedicated to "spreading the principles of freedom, private initiative, free market, Rule of Law, and limited government." He is currently a student in International Business & International Affairs at Northeastern University, where he also serves as president of the LatAm Business Club.

Taking the negative is Rombolá, the founder of Kairos Global, an association that trains young people interested in becoming human rights activists. He is a member of the Argentine political party Unión Cívica Radical, where he serves as president of their youth branch, Juventud Radical.

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

The post Is Javier Milei Actually Improving Argentina? appeared first on Reason.com.

David Leonhardt of The New York Times and John Early of the Cato Institute debate the resolution, "The stagnation of living standards and soaring economic inequality have become the defining economic trends of American life."

For the affirmative is Leonhardt, a senior writer at The New York Times and the author of Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream, which The Atlantic, the Financial Times, and McKinsey & Co. named one of the best books of 2023. He writes The Morning, the Times's flagship newsletter. In 2012, he won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary.

Early is taking the negative. He is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and president of the consultancy Vital Few LLC. He is a former assistant commissioner at the Bureau of Labor Statistics and former legislative assistant to Sen. George McGovern (D–S.D.). His more than 80 publications include The Myth of American Inequality: How Government Biases Policy Debate.

The debate is moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein.

The post Are American Living Standards In Decline? appeared first on Reason.com.

Former budget director under Ronald Reagan, David Stockman, and Stephen Moore, Donald Trump's former senior economic advisor, debate the resolution, "In the current presidential election, both Democrats and Republicans consist of a UniParty that will lead us to the bottom of the national 'policy dumpster.'"

Arguing for the affirmative is David Stockman, former budget director under President Reagan. He is the author of six books, the most recent being his 2024 Trump's War on Capitalism. He blogs on his website Contra Corner. The resolution's mention of a "policy dumpster" comes from a three-part blog Stockman authored in August.

Taking the negative is Stephen Moore, Trump's former senior economic advisor and the research director of President Reagan's Privatization Commission. He is now a Senior Visiting Fellow in Economics at The Heritage Foundation. He is also the co-founder of Unleash Prosperity, which aims to educate policy makers in supply-side economics. He's the author of the 2012 book Who's the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth about Opportunity, Taxes, and Wealth in America.

The debate was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein.

The post Are the Two Parties Any Different? appeared first on Reason.com.

Economist and author Arthur B. Laffer and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Chase Oliver debate the resolution, "Among the candidates actively running for President in November, Donald Trump is the best choice."

Defending the resolution is Laffer, who is widely recognized as "The Father of Supply-Side Economics," as his Laffer Curve is one of the main theoretical constructs of supply-side economics. Laffer was a member of President Ronald Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board for both of Reagan's terms and a founding member of the Reagan Executive Advisory Committee for the 1980 presidential race. He also advised U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on fiscal policy during the 1980s. In 2019, Laffer was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Donald Trump. He's authored numerous books, including his most recent, Taxes Have Consequences: An Income Tax History of the United States.

Arguing against the resolution is Oliver, the Libertarian Party's candidate for president. He rose to prominence in the party as the 2022 Libertarian Senate candidate in a highly competitive race in Georgia, where he pulled 2 percent of the vote, forcing it into a runoff, which ultimately resulted in the Democratic candidate winning, tipping the balance of the Senate in their favor.

The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

• Editor: John Osterhoudt

The post Is Donald Trump the Best Choice? appeared first on Reason.com.

Best-selling science and technology author Matt Ridley and University of Utah virologist Stephen Goldstein debate the resolution: "It is likely that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan laboratory in China."

Defending the resolution is Ridley, the author of 10 books, including Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19. He sat in the U.K.'s House of Lords between 2013 and 2021 and served on the Science and Technology Select Committee. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, a fellow at the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a foreign honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Arguing against the resolution is Goldstein, a virologist at the University of Utah conducting research on human genetics. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania, where he conducted research on the biology of MERS-CoV, a zoonotic virus first identified in 2012. Over the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, Goldstein has engaged with the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, University of Utah Health, and local and national media to provide scientific expertise. He has co-authored reviews and original research papers on the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

The debate is moderated by the Soho Forum's Chief Operating Officer Jane Menton.

The post Did COVID Come From a Lab? appeared first on Reason.com.