Last night I participated in a debate on the death penalty hosted by Intelligence Squared in New York. See Bill's post yesterday. We will post a link to the podcast when it is available.
I have participated in many debates on this subject over many years, but this one was exceptionally well done by the hosts. It was very well produced, fairly structured, and well moderated.
IQ2 scores debates by having the live audience vote on the motion before the debate begins and again after it concludes. The winner is the side with the greatest net votes changed in favor of its position.
The motion was that the death penalty be abolished, so a "yes" vote is a vote against the death penalty, and a "no" vote is a vote to keep the death penalty. There is a potentially confusing double negative there, but the moderator explained the vote carefully enough that I doubt anyone was confused. Our side was, of course, the "no" side.
And the result:
I have participated in many debates on this subject over many years, but this one was exceptionally well done by the hosts. It was very well produced, fairly structured, and well moderated.
IQ2 scores debates by having the live audience vote on the motion before the debate begins and again after it concludes. The winner is the side with the greatest net votes changed in favor of its position.
The motion was that the death penalty be abolished, so a "yes" vote is a vote against the death penalty, and a "no" vote is a vote to keep the death penalty. There is a potentially confusing double negative there, but the moderator explained the vote carefully enough that I doubt anyone was confused. Our side was, of course, the "no" side.
And the result:
Pre-debate; Yes 49%, no 17%, undecided 34%
Post-debate: Yes 54%, no 40%, undecided 6%.
Net change: Yes +5%, no +23%, undecided -28%.
We prevailed by a wide margin, with an 18% greater shift in our direction. I thought things were going well during the debate, but I was genuinely surprised by the margin. A graphic of the result is here.
We knew going in that the audience leaned heavily in the other direction, as indicated by the initial vote. The shift in our direction is probably largely undecideds making up their mind in our favor, although a few people did tell me afterward they changed from yes to no.
Why the big shift? Did Robert Blecker and I really dazzle them with masterful presentations? I'd like to think so, but actually I think the main reason is that people have heard the other side's arguments many times but this was the first time they had heard ours. Hearing both sides fairly presented for the first time, an audience that began overwhelmingly favoring the other side comes out much closer to evenly divided.
Post-debate: Yes 54%, no 40%, undecided 6%.
Net change: Yes +5%, no +23%, undecided -28%.
We prevailed by a wide margin, with an 18% greater shift in our direction. I thought things were going well during the debate, but I was genuinely surprised by the margin. A graphic of the result is here.
We knew going in that the audience leaned heavily in the other direction, as indicated by the initial vote. The shift in our direction is probably largely undecideds making up their mind in our favor, although a few people did tell me afterward they changed from yes to no.
Why the big shift? Did Robert Blecker and I really dazzle them with masterful presentations? I'd like to think so, but actually I think the main reason is that people have heard the other side's arguments many times but this was the first time they had heard ours. Hearing both sides fairly presented for the first time, an audience that began overwhelmingly favoring the other side comes out much closer to evenly divided.
As I stated, you and Blecker would Kick a _ _.
In any balanced debate, the pro death penalty side wins, with any objective judging.
That is why so many "academic" death penalty conferences are anti death penalty, only or weighted, heavily, anti death penalty.
The debate website shows:
DECLARED WINNER: AGAINST THE MOTION
Were there officials debate judges who voted on that?
Looks to me like among the undecided, you won by 23 to 5, or nearly five-to-one.
Looks like Dudley nailed it when he predicted you and Blecker would kick something on the posterior side.
I would note also how slanted against national opinion the (New York City) audience is. It started out three-to-one against you, with a third undecided. Among the country as a whole, our side wins in polling by about two-to-one. NYC is as tough an audience for the DP as Berkeley is for capitalism.
Just one more item: Should I look for these results to be posted on the ever-informative Death Penalty "Information" Center?
Hey, look, just joking.
Dudley, the declared winner is the side that had the greatest increase in votes for its position, comparing the post-debate vote with the pre-debate vote. We were +23 and they were +5, so we won.
I guess I should say as well that, although you are typically modest, I'm not buying it. My courtroom experience is that the side with the better case almost always wins; all this talk about how the lawyers can razzle-dazzle is pretty much baloney.
Still, when you collect the undecideds by nearly five-to-one; in one of the Capitals of Liberalism; and against the most talented and experienced opponents the other side has to offer, that is more than just presenting the evidence.
That is the performance of the presenters.
Take a bow.
Bill, I would expect the DPIC to report that the final vote was 54-40 for the motion. That would be the truth but not the whole truth and not the most important part of the truth, which is their modus operandi.
Kent --
Two observations: If DPIC has to report that abolition wins by a scruffy 14 points in New York City, of all places, they might as well raise the white flag there and then.
And if they fail prominently to report that the retentionist side won by a fat 23-5 among undecideds, their reputation for honesty, such as it is, will take a further beating.
I was finally able to get around to watching this debate. It seems obvious, at least to me, that ultimately the winning argument is simply that there are some crimes that are just so unimaginably horrific that nothing short of the death penalty comes close to resembling justice. Well done, Kent and Prof. Blecker.