Yesterday’s presidential debate promised to be a showdown for the ages and to a large extent, it delivered, with the candidates more or less laying out their respective cases amid numerous interruptions and the occasional name-calling. But what did audiences take away from the debate?
Carl Pope, Sierra Club's former director, counters the economic harm argument by saying the number of coal plants retired under the EPA's previous air pollution rules are driving cleaner sources of electricity, with very little harm to the economy.
The country is already moving away from coal, and the Clean Power Plan follows that trend line. This argument helped him win an Intelligence Squared Oxford-style debate this month on the Clean Power Plan, and the legal challenges against it.
Harcourt argues that profiling one group diverts resources from examining others outside the group. So while it may help detect attacks in the short term, profiling could backfire in the long term as "it may well encourage the recruitment of terrorists from outside the core profile and the substitution of other terrorist acts."
Monday’s presidential debate has all the makings of something we’ve never seen before in modern politics. But beyond the expected hyperbolic verbal-sparring, will there be anything of substance that American voters will get out of the showdown? Intelligence Squared U.S., a nonpartisan organization whose goal is to raise the level of public discourse in the United States, wants to make sure there is.
Glick brings up an Intelligence Squared U.S. debate held in Manhattan last week. The subject was “Blame the elites for the Trump phenomenon.” All four debaters were conservatives who are, within a range, anti-Trump. Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney and The Federalist’s Ben Domenech were on the side blaming the elites for Trump’s rise. Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin and Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens opposed that view, mostly arguing that the voters share some of the blame.
John Donvan of ABC News, moderator of public broadcasting’s excellent Intelligence Squared US debates, has been making the media rounds urging that the debate format be changed to Oxford rules — to formally argue resolutions like “Resolved: The United States Should Withdraw from NATO,” in which the candidates would make brief opening and closing statements and in the time remaining question one another about the issue at hand, under strict time guidelines At Change.org, 60,000 have signed a petition urging this be done.
The debates this election season have been unprecedented in modern politics, but imagine if they looked a little different, and the candidates actually discussed the issues on Americans’ minds rather than scream over each other and hurl insults. Intelligence Squared U.S. is an organization that seeks to restore civility and constructive public discourse to today’s media landscape, with their ultimate goal being to provide a new forum for intelligent debates of opposing viewpoints.
On average, drug price increases are 6 times the rate of inflation and just in the past month, the makers of the EpiPen have come under heavy criticism for a recent hefty price increase. But how much is the pharmaceutical industry really to blame? Is the industry fleecing American consumers, or are steep drug prices a necessary by-product of an expensive research and approval process that yields life saving prescription drug interventions? On Thursday, October 13, America's premiere debate series Intelligence Squared U.S.
This election cycle has seen large swaths of the electorate reject political and media establishment wisdom by backing the campaigns of outsider candidates--the most surprising result being the candidacy of Donald Trump. How did a businessman turned reality TV personality, with no political experience, capture the Republican ticket? Could it be the fault of the "elites" for pursuing policies that have failed to help the struggling working class? Or is this rise in populism the result of misplaced anger and extreme political polarization?
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court issued a stay blocking the implementation of the Obama administration's much-debated "Clean Power Plan" (CPP). Widely considered a hallmark of President Obama's environmental legacy, the CPP was challenged by 29 states and leading business organizations who argue the risks of reducing carbon emissions - higher energy costs, slower economic growth, reduced employment, and lower business profits - are not worth the rewards. Does climate change require the actions outlined by the CPP, or is the EPA reaching too far?