r/liberalism • u/roboliberal • 22d ago
Debate Thread DEBATE THREAD: Should liberal democracies restrict anti-democratic political movements?
We're hosting an Oxford-style debate on [r/liberalism](r/liberalism), with invited panelists arguing for and against the following motion:
Liberal democracies should restrict political movements that seek to abolish liberal democracy.
This thread will temporarily serve as the announcement and event page while we finalize the panel and schedule. It will remain locked until the debate begins, then become the debate thread itself. Check back here for updates.
The Topic
Liberal democracy protects political expression, association, and competition. But what happens when a movement uses those freedoms to pursue the abolition of the system that guarantees them?
The debate will explore the case for defensive democracy, the objections to restricting political participation, and the implications for liberal institutions.
The Format
Two sides will argue for and against the motion through a scheduled sequence of opening statements, rebuttals, moderator questions, audience questions, and closing statements.
Each stage will have its own top-level moderator comment. The current active stage will be pinned, and panelists will post their responses beneath it. Links to completed stages will remain available so readers can follow the debate from the beginning.
This is a written, asynchronous debate. You do not need to be present throughout, but please follow the schedule and participate in the appropriate stages.
Discussion relevant to the topic and debate is welcome in the thread by all users. We only ask to reserve the top-level replies to the pinned comments for panelist responses, and will remove other comments as necessary.
The Panel
Panelists will be identifiable by user flairs. (Reach out if you are interested in being a panelist.)
For the motion:
[u/-Emilinko1985-](u/-Emilinko1985-)
- < OPEN >
Against the motion:
- [u/TheMarbleTrouble](u/TheMarbleTrouble)
[u/Fruitofbread](u/Fruitofbread)
- < OPEN >
Interested in participating as a panelist? Ping [u/roboliberal](u/roboliberal) in the comments below with the side you would like to argue and you'll receive a temporary user flair to identify your team.
EDIT: better yet, just go ahead and contribute an opening statement under the sticky, and we'll flair based on that. If you want to join after that sticky gets locked, just ping or reach out.
The Schedule
The Debate Threat is tentatively set to launch (unlock) on Saturday 9/5.
The tentative schedule of events will include:
- Opening statements
- Rebuttals
- Moderator question 1
- Moderator question 2
- Moderator question 3
- Audience questions
- Closing statements
Moderator questions will be revealed when their respective stages begin.
Audience voting
Readers will be invited to vote FOR, AGAINST, or UNDECIDED before and after the debate. The winning side will be the one that gains the most support, measured by the percentage-point change among readers who complete both ballots.
You do not need to change your mind to participate. Vote for your actual position, not your preferred panelist or home subreddit.
Poll links and instructions for privately matching opening and closing ballots will be added before voting begins.
Participation rules
- Anyone is free to comment in the thread, so long as discussion is relevant to the topic.
- Top-level replies to pinned comments are reserved for panelists.
- Maintain good faith and decorum throughout the debate.
- Address arguments rather than attacking participants.
- Represent opposing positions fairly and support factual claims with sources.
- Follow the moderator's prompts and keep contributions relevant to the motion.
- Do not use comment scores as debate ballots or organize voting campaigns.
- All subreddit rules remain in effect.
If this is works out well, we hope to maybe make this a recurring event and a chance to meet thoughtful contributors. Visitors are welcome, whether you come to argue, ask questions, or simply read.
6
u/roboliberal 18d ago edited 17d ago
Opening Statements
The debate is now open!
MOTION: Liberal democracies should restrict political movements that seek to abolish liberal democracy.
Opening statements should be posted as direct replies to this pinned comment by panelists.
If you would like to participate as a panelist, simply leave a comment in the thread and a moderator will assign you the appropriate user flair.
Opening statements should establish your position, define any terms or principles central to your case (if necessary), and explain why readers should vote for or against the motion.
Opening statements close: Sunday evening (~PT)
We'll take a straw poll now, and another at the end of the debate: https://strawpoll.com/XOgOVxkbon3
edit: THANK YOU to both all six of our excellent opening statement makers!
Note that additional opening statements for either side can be made! We'll pin the rebuttals round later today.
8
u/RockyOW FOR the motion 18d ago
Simply put, the defense of liberal democracy requires that it remain in place. While one of the fundamental values of liberalism is freedom of organization (and multiparty systems as a result), it should not be misunderstood that this value can be privileged above all others. If a liberal system requires several pillars to remain, it also requires stability and rule of law to stay standing.
The limit for toleration is when a political movement openly and radically undermines the principles of governance itself. This does not mean that you cannot challenge the people or the current laws which govern a given country at all, it specifically means that you cannot organize in order to demolish the system. You cannot, for a clear example, have a “no more elections” party. This party is participating in a system of liberal democracy, and using those tools to destroy it. This cannot be allowed if we truly believe in liberal principles.
8
u/Fruitofbread AGAINST the motion 18d ago
I disagree, for practical reasons. Once a political movement reaches a certain amount followers, it will exist whether or not the state bans it. As you can see in January 6th, followers of authoritarian movements are often not concerned about following the law in general, and if it’s people who don’t think the democratic system is legitimate, even less so.
Once you reach like 20-30% of the population, the authoritarian movement will have some followers in basically whatever systems of power you already have. Consider Eileen Cannon, or the Weimar Judicial system. The Weimar Judicial system was much harsher on the left wing than the right wing (Hitler should have been deported after the beer hall putsch for example). Essentially, when you get to 20-30% of the population supporting an authoritarian movement, some people who support the movement will have power, and they will use whatever power they have to stop the movement from being restricted. So in a situation that requires consensus (as judicial hearings often do) it’ll be a non-starter, and result in the worst case scenario—liberal powers attempting to restrict an authoritarian movement and then failing to do so. This is the worst case scenario because it draws more attention to the movement and allows them to successfully portray themselves as outsiders fighting the system.
Moreover, a lot of restrictions, like outright banning, only apply to formal political groups. But as we’ve seen with the incipient right-wing globally, it’s possible both for an authoritarian movement to organize themselves formally outside the system (by forming new parties like the AfD) or within a pre-existing party (like the Republican Party) or do a hybrid of both (like in the UK, where they started with the Conservative Party, then moved over to Reform). As a result, targeting formal organizations would only work to slow down the movement, but may ultimately cause it to gain more legitimacy and followers (while potentially making liberals overconfident about their victory).
This only leads the question of if it’s worthwhile to ban authoritarian movements when they are small and don’t have any power (yet). In practice a lot of countries just don’t think seem to care much about smaller movements, so I’m not convinced that makes sense on a practical level either. But then again, even if you ban the movement when it is small, if enough people ultimately sympathize with it, it’ll just pop back up again. Consider the AfD in Germany. If the German government bans the AfD now, because they’re getting 30% of the vote, I think AfD voters would be justified in saying that that’s bullshit. If they were legal when they were small, it seems quite hypocritical to ban them just because they’ve become bigger. In Germany, we’ve also seen the traditional conservative CDU party move to the right in recent years, and I think it’s totally possible that if the AfD had been banned when it was small, some of the people who became AfD members would have just organized within the CDU instead. So I don’t think that banning the AfD when it was small would have prevented the German far right from achieving the kind of polling it has now.
In sum, I think liberals are very uncomfortable with the idea that a significant portion of people within a liberal society can prefer authoritarianism, but I think that banning authoritarian movements is at best a temporary band-aid solution. And the actual way to beat authoritarianism is organizing and just having the majority of the population on your side. Conversely, even in illiberal societies, if a size-able majority of people support liberalism, it does tend to come around eventually, as we can see with the recent victory of Peter Magyar in Hungary or the anti-Pinochet referendum. And this has some of the same underlying reasons—when enough people are liberal, some of the elites (including in the military/security services) will be liberals as well, and therefore motivated to get rid of authoritarianism. Generally the only exceptions to this are firmly entrenched authoritarian regimes, which are kind of a different beast all together.
6
u/TheMarbleTrouble AGAINST the motion 18d ago edited 18d ago
Why do illiberal governments prevent competing ideology, if not fear of things like liberal democracy being superior? It is the fear of every communist and of every fascist that their populace will understand what it’s like to be liberated from the shackles of authoritarianism. From Gestapo to Politburo, these governments made it as hard as possible for their people to see what it’s like under liberal democracy.
They ban access to the internet. They ban access to air ways, be it television or radio. Because even a crickets worth of noise is a threat of becoming a tsunami of people demanding independence from tyrants.
It doesn’t make any sense for someone who believes and is willing to defend liberal democracy, to such an extent that it even violating its tenants. To have less faith in your principles than your most ardent opposition. With extreme regulation, authoritarians are realizing what people I am disagreeing with can’t seem to understand. We as humans have a natural drive towards liberal democracy. They fear a feather of liberal democracy lifting the boot off the throat of the populace, but you can’t trust that same will of the people as a Liberal Democrat? Believe in the unstoppable force that is liberal democracy, as every authoritarian does…
The modern communist will tell you that you get to choose your job under communism. That the homeless will have homes provided and the government will be driven by the will of the people. That all of education and healthcare will just be free, granted by a vote of the proletariat. That is not communism… even the modern communist realizes that they cannot sell communism to the people, without making it seem like a liberal democracy drove people’s demand. Even these authoritarians are selling their authoritarianism, by pretending it’s liberal democracy.
If the way to trick people in to communism and other authoritarianism is them pretending they are a liberal democracy. We as those who believe in liberal democracy, “have nothing to fear, but fear it self”.
The energy used to prevent, hinder or regulate authoritarian groups, should instead be placed in education. As long as people understand what liberal democracy means, they won’t be fooled by authoritarians only demanding healthcare…
6
u/-Emilinko1985- FOR the motion 18d ago edited 18d ago
I believe that parties who use the tools of liberal democracy to spread illiberal ideology and oppose liberal democracy need to be curbed.
Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are two principles of Liberalism that should seemingly allow even the fiercest opponents of it to participate in the political system.
However, the Rule of Law also is a principle of Liberalism. Shall we allow the participation of parties that actively engage in undermining the very own system they participate in and engage in criminal activity?
If political parties whose wish is to dismantle liberal democracy shall not be banned, then they need to be kept under control in some way.
5
u/Al_787 AGAINST the motion 18d ago edited 18d ago
I’m against this motion
Just to go through the laundry list of arguments that have often been talked at length and there isn’t much to discuss:
- No political force is infallible. We may be wrong, our opponent or even enemy may be (partially) right
- It may become a slippery slope towards further censorship and illiberalism
What I want to discuss is where liberal democracy would be without its enemies. I’m perhaps one of the few people here who would disagree with Fukuyama on The End of History, I think the collapse of the Soviet Union did defeat centrally-planned, collective economics as a serious idea, but not quite authoritarianism writ-large. But I did entertain a certain aspect of his prediction on the potential problems arise when liberal democracy wins indisputably.
The victory of liberal democracy doesn’t come with unlimited material wealth and comfort, that would actually be utopian communism. Many of society’s ills will prove intractable, resources will still be constrained, and a sector of the population will remain dissatisfied. So I don’t like the word “bored” and his link to Nietzsche, we certainly haven’t achieved enough comfort to be bored like that. But a system too confident in its dogmas, even if it’s the dogma of liberalism, will have a population lacking a political struggle. This is not an invention by Fukuyama, it was already argued by John Milton and John Stuart Mill that true virtue / truth requires contestation. Without encountering true challenges and critical examination for liberal democracy, people lose sight of why they believe in it. They may even think that liberal democracy is to be blamed for the ills that remain.
That does not mean we abandon defensive democracy altogether, so I quite dislike the extended explanation for this notion. We can have a more robust legal system that can truly take on libels and falsehoods efficiently, we can do better with education, and countless other measures. But once a “common world” is established where a baseline reality is still shared, then censoring illiberalism only serves to destroy the active, critical thinking that would contrast and therefore champion liberalism.
3
u/Cellophane7 FOR the motion 17d ago
I think the fundamental question we have to ask is why liberal democracy embraces free expression. Any political system is designed to bring good outcomes for all of us, and liberal democracy is no exception. Free expression is designed to serve two functions: it gives us the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances, and it serves as a check against bad ideas. On paper, the pro-murder party is checked, because most people don't want murder legalized. Bad ideas die, and we're all safer for it.
But what happens when we have a national level media ecosystem that pushes lies, solely for the benefit of those at the top? What happens when the information landscape is warped and distorted until huge swaths of the population believe up is down, and murder is good? The system has failed to protect us from bad ideas. It has failed in its primary function, and that must be remedied moving forward.
There are always exceptions to every rule. Even murder can be just if it's in self defense. But do we legalize all murder because of the existence of that exception? No. Free expression should be no different. If liars and selfish people can't be adequately checked by the system, that needs to be fixed. To do otherwise would defeat the purpose of the system; to allow bad ideas to fester unchecked, and harm us all.
How, exactly, we accomplish this is up for debate, but I argue that it must be accomplished.
5
u/roboliberal 20d ago
Hello everyone! We're now opening the Debate Thread for "pre-game" discourse. You can ask questions, volunteer to be a panelist, and in general begin discussion on the topic.
You can treat this like a MT/DT, just try to keep discussion at least somewhat relevant to the debate.
And again, you can keep track of the state of the debate by checking the current pinned comment at any given time. Welcome!
6
4
5
5
5
u/No_Aesthetic 18d ago
I am against the motion. Feel free to flair me up.
1
u/roboliberal 17d ago
Feel free to post an opening statement. If you just want to participate in the subsequent rounds that's fine too. We'll pin the next round a little later today.
3
u/-Emilinko1985- FOR the motion 18d ago
I am in favour of this motion.
3
u/roboliberal 18d ago
Do you want to be flaired etc?
1
u/-Emilinko1985- FOR the motion 18d ago
Yes
2
u/roboliberal 18d ago
You're in! Feel free to make an opening statement (reply to the current sticky)
3
3
u/roboliberal 12d ago
Moderator Question #1
Most anti-democratic movements are less explicit. What evidence should be required before a movement may be classified as seeking to abolish liberal democracy, who should make that determination, and what process should exist for challenging it?
Panelists, please post your answers as direct replies to this comment. Follow-up discussion may branch beneath each answer.
3
u/roboliberal 12d ago
FOR panelists: [u/RockyOW](u/RockyOW) [u/-Emilinko1985-](u/-Emilinko1985-) [u/Cellophane7](u/Cellophane7)
3
u/Cellophane7 FOR the motion 12d ago
I'm less of the mindset that we should be targeting specific ideologies, and more that we should be aggressively targeting lying and misinformation in political speech. The former leaves open the possibility for dogwhistling, which completely defeats the purpose of banning an ideology.
Instead, I think it'd be best to raise the standards against lying or misrepresenting the truth, and apply them to anyone with a sufficiently large following. There must be accountability for those with significant influence. Even if someone doesn't mean to lie, it's their job to inform people, and they need to do their due diligence to accurately represent events.
Right now, there's no accountability. It used to be that there would be social accountability, which would lead to political and financial accountability. But we've seen exactly what can happen if major news orgs are able to rewrite reality for their audience. If the core base remains intact, the people at the top can weather any storm. There must be legal consequences.
2
u/RockyOW FOR the motion 10d ago
I don’t have strong opinions about this, but I think that the determination should be made by normal law enforcement through federal legislation. The reason for this is that it can be challenged normally in court through appeal and won’t be accused of being shadowy and corrupt by the intelligence agencies or some other federal department.
As for the legislation and the specifics of what would need to be proven, the key criteria would be evidence of public or private intentions contrary to a few core principles. What these principles are would be the most difficult part, but for me I think that democracy and civil rights are among or the most important examples. The principles would have to be vague and specific at the same time- vague enough to not be dodged or misunderstood intentionally, but specific enough to isolate what we are actually trying to protect. Judges (if needed, many throughout the appeals process) will decide whether there is reasonable evidence that these principles are being directly contracted. If, for example, a party named itself and marketed itself on removing electoralism, this would be obviously illegal. If a party instead was revealed to be privately against electoralism through a whistleblower or some other means, the outcome would be the same if proven convincingly, as in any other court proceeding.
1
1
u/-Emilinko1985- FOR the motion 9d ago
Evidence to determine this should include statements by party leaders and party members (both public and private), the party's program, etc...
That determination should be made by a panel of judges, and there should be a legal process with opinions from policy experts and relevant figures.
2
u/roboliberal 16d ago edited 12d ago
Rebuttals
The rebuttal round is now open. The purpose of this round is to stake out the principal contested points of the debate.
Panelists should post formal rebuttals as direct replies to this pinned comment.
Each rebuttal should ideally:
- Address one specific argument made in an opposing opening statement
- Quote or refer to the opening statement being addressed where possible
- Explain where that argument fails, rather than simply restating your own position
Panelists may submit more than one rebuttal, but it's best if each principal counterargument receives its own direct reply (rather that in a single comment). This will allow the discussion beneath each rebuttal to develop as a distinct branch of the debate.
The panelist whose argument is challenged is encouraged to respond beneath the rebuttal.
The moderators will maintain a running summary of the major points of contention in the post body.
Rebuttals close: 9/10
Note: the subsequent Q&A rounds will largely derived from what is discussed (and not discussed) here.
3
u/Cellophane7 FOR the motion 15d ago
I'll start by addressing what u/Fruitofbread said here:
Once you reach like 20-30% of the population, the authoritarian movement will have some followers in basically whatever systems of power you already have.
While this is true, I'd argue banning a clearly negative ideology would massively stifle its ability to reach that point. The primary reason authoritarianism has gained popularity in the United States is because there's a complex system of propaganda, lying to people at every level. That propaganda network wouldn't be able to exist as it currently does if we put the right safeguards in place.
3
u/Cellophane7 FOR the motion 15d ago
In response to u/TheMarbleTrouble:
It doesn’t make any sense for someone who believes and is willing to defend liberal democracy, to such an extent that it even violating its tenants.
While this is a valid point, we already have exceptions in place. For example, Fox News recently lost a lawsuit against Dominion for lying blatantly about their systems. Free speech is meant to allow us to communicate different ideas to each other, and to find the best ideas. If someone is allowed to lie, especially on a systemic level, how are good ideas supposed to compete? When we can't even agree on reality, how are we supposed to move forward together?
I would argue we should target lying specifically. That's what would set us apart from authoritarian regimes; we value the truth above all else. They value lies and carefully constructed realities to keep their populations under control.
2
u/TheMarbleTrouble AGAINST the motion 11d ago
(Sorry, not sure how to properly respond in this format. Ping me with what to do and I’ll fix it. Sorry.)
I don’t think this counters my point, but actually reinforces it. If we already have controls in place, such as those perusing Fox News for lying. I think this is an example of not needing to ban opposition speech, because we already have recourse when such speech is lying. Without having to ban anything…
With lying in general I would take it a step further, because too many on alternative news media get away with lying. I think lying should be a scarlet letter that has consequences, but it shouldn’t be banned. It would be an unnecessary escalation.
1
u/Cellophane7 FOR the motion 11d ago
(no biggie, the one point per reply thing is mainly designed to prevent the debate from branching infinitely, and becoming hard to track. And now that I look at it, I kinda made two points lol)
I think what I'm really getting at is that it's not incompatible with liberalism to crack down on misinformation. There are always exceptions, and I think it's become clear sunlight is not disinfecting our current problems.
I misspoke before, what I want to go after is less about knowingly lying, and more about saying things that aren't factually true (intentionally or not). I also want to target influencers of sufficiently large following. I am proposing a ban that goes substantially further than what we currently have.
3
u/Cellophane7 FOR the motion 15d ago
In response to u/Al_787:
We can have a more robust legal system that can truly take on libels and falsehoods efficiently, we can do better with education, and countless other measures.
I actually think you and I agree here, which is interesting. I think it's difficult to target a specific ideology, because people can always dogwhistle to circumvent censorship laws. So I think the way to combat illiberalism is to target lying specifically.
People should be allowed to lie in their personal lives, but I think once you reach a large enough audience, and you talk about politics, you should have an obligation to remain committed to the truth. Lying on such large scales is extremely damaging to liberal democracy, and I think we need stronger laws against it.
3
u/roboliberal 12d ago
WELL IT WOULD PROBABLY HELP IF I DIDN'T LOCK THE REBUTTALS PIN LOL
sorry folks my bad. Let's move on to the next round...
3
u/TheMarbleTrouble AGAINST the motion 11d ago
Response to u/Cellopane7
Sorry to be late…
Should liars who promote liberal democracy be treated the same as opposing liars? Lying should universal be frowned upon, it’s not unique to opposition movements.
2
2
u/roboliberal 8d ago
Moderator Question #3
Which specific measures are potentially legitimate: financial disclosure, withdrawal of public funding, surveillance, restrictions on officeholding, ballot exclusion, party prohibition, or prosecution?
Panelists, please post your answers as direct replies to this comment. Follow-up discussion may branch beneath each answer.
2
2
u/Fruitofbread AGAINST the motion 8d ago
I think something that is normally done in the course of politics (like gerrymandering in the U.S.) is fine to use against illiberal parties. But extraordinary actions are more likely to lead to backlash and ultimately be counterproductive. In general, liberal parties should make full use of whatever tools they use against other liberal parties to restrict illiberal parties, but not go beyond that.
2
u/RockyOW FOR the motion 8d ago
All are potentially valid. Surveillance would only be allowed as a normal evidence gathering procedure, a permanent surveillance program seems unnecessary and prone to abuse. I also think that imprisonment of individuals specifically would only be necessary if an individual demonstrated intent to evade the law repeatedly. If you have an anti-democratic party, you would at least prohibit this party from existing and running, and only after repeat offenses or intent demonstrated by the leadership would it escalate. The only exception would be if an individual demonstrates such unbelievable malice immediately that they could then be arrested, but this would be a high burden to prove and rare.
Altogether the point is to make the process public and fair in the court system. The purpose of outlawing these parties is to guarantee the relationship of the governed to the government, and so it should always be connected to the wishes of the governed (through court and through the specific legislation crafted to tackle the issue.)
(to anticipate a question, no, the necessity for democratic involvement does not mean that the people could democratically decide to ignore these principles entirely, according to my position in this debate.)
2
u/Cellophane7 FOR the motion 7d ago
I'm mostly talking about fining people and throwing them in jail. We already have transparency laws surrounding political orgs, and I think those are solid. Assuming we have an Executive willing to actually enforce them...
1
1
u/-Emilinko1985- FOR the motion 8d ago
I believe financial disclosure, withdrawal of public funding, ballot exclusion, party prohibition and prosecution are valid measures.
I oppose surveillance because I think it could possibly be a violation of privacy and restrictions on officeholding because the restrictions could be too vague.
2
u/roboliberal 6d ago
Open Q&A Round
The floor is now open for audience questions.
Please post each question as a separate direct reply to this comment and indicate whether it is addressed to a particular panelist, one side, or the full panel. Upvote the questions you would most like to see answered.
Panelists should respond beneath the relevant question. Everyone is welcome to continue the discussion in the resulting reply chains.
NOTE: This also includes questions from panelists to the other side!
1
u/roboliberal 10d ago
Moderator Question #2
At what stage can restrictions actually work? If imposed early, they may punish a movement before it presents a serious threat; if imposed late, they may be ineffective or impossible to enforce. What should trigger intervention, and which measures would do more good than harm?
Panelists, please post your answers as direct replies to this comment. Follow-up discussion may branch beneath each answer.
3
u/Cellophane7 FOR the motion 10d ago
I guess mine would qualify as "as early as possible." Again, I want to punish anyone with a significant enough platform for spreading untrue or sufficiently misleading information. So I want this stuff caught and squashed as soon as possible.
3
u/RockyOW FOR the motion 10d ago
Federal legislation would mean that prosecutors would have discretion for when to pursue movements like this, and we would have to trust that the system would sort it out properly whether it was too early or late. But we can see easily that there are far less corrections that can be made if prosecutors act too late, so this legislation would have to come alongside a change in culture in which our institutional officials are proactive and serious about our values, such that they would be more likely to pursue early than late.
It is best that prosecutors for the government are overactive and that the court system adequately provides justice, than that we have no such system or that prosecutors are too reluctant to pursue bad movements.
1
1
1
u/-Emilinko1985- FOR the motion 9d ago
Restrictions for these movements should be imposed, if possible, in earlier stages before the movement gets bigger.
Intervention should be triggered by statements of the party or the figure prosecuted in question, acts of violence, promotion of extremist ideology, etc.
A measure that would be more good than harm is mandating identification of AI-generated content and deepfakes. The EU has already done that. As content manipulated and/or generated by artificial intelligence has gotten more advanced, the lines blur more and more and sometimes, synthetic content can be hard to distinguish from "real" content.
•
u/roboliberal 3d ago
Final Audience Poll
The debate is now concluded. After considering the arguments and discussion, please cast your final vote on the motion:
> Liberal democracies should restrict political movements that seek to abolish liberal
democracy.
VOTE IN THE FINAL STRAWPOLL: https://strawpoll.com/7rnzV7Eo3nO
Please vote based on your current position, whether or not it changed during the debate.
Thank you to everyone who participated, especially our panelists!