We Need Better Presidential Debates

by robertrosenkranz on February 22, 2016

We Need Better Presidential Debates

Oxford-style would tell us more than the current uninformative and stilted face-offs.

Originally published on the Wall Street Journal on Feb. 21, 2016 6:09 p.m. ET
http://www.wsj.com/articles/we-need-better-presidential-debates-1456096141

By ROBERT ROSENKRANZ and JOHN DONVAN

Prime-time presidential debates were a brilliant innovation of the 1960s, meant to inform voters and let them see the candidates in action. Their format, however, is due for an update.

READ REMARKS....

Artificial Intelligence: Stop or Go? The Makings of a Debate.

by robertrosenkranz on February 1, 2016

Originally Published in The Huffington Post By Robert Rosenkranz

In classical Chinese painting, one sometimes sees distinguished figures in a mountain retreat, involved in “the four elegant pursuits.” The first three are readily understandable: painting, music, and calligraphy. The fourth is a surprise: the game of Go. Seeing these paintings, it seemed most odd to include a board game in this pantheon of pursuits. But then I realized there was something quintessentially human about the game. Computers simply couldn’t do it. In 1996 an IBM chess program, Deep Blue, beat the then reigning human champion. Its programs were designed by expert chess players, whose algorithms, pared with the computer’s vast calculating powers, produced an unbeatable competitor. 20 years later, no computer program could play Go as well as decent amateur. Until last week.

READ REMARKS....

Intelligence Squared US Debate Analysis: U.S. Prosecutors Have Too Much Power

by robertrosenkranz on December 15, 2015

Robert Rosenkranz: Intelligence Squared US Debate Analysis
U.S. Prosecutors Have Too Much Power

More than 90% of America’s prison population has never had a jury trial. Instead, they are in jail following plea bargains negotiated with prosecutors.

In these negotiations, prosecutors have vastly more bargaining power than the accused. Since plea bargaining saves time for judges, juries, and the entire apparatus of the court system, it is arguably an efficient approach. But does it produce just results?

READ REMARKS....

Intelligence Squared US Debate Analysis: Raise the Federal Gas Tax to Fund Infrastructure

by robertrosenkranz on November 16, 2015

Robert Rosenkranz: Intelligence Squared US Debate Analysis
Raise the Federal Gas Tax to Fund Infrastructure

As most Americans may know, a portion of their gasoline bills is a federal gas tax. This tax is 18 [CK] cents a gallon and is used largely for the building and maintaining of roads, highways and bridges around the country.

As noted at the outset of the debate, economists consider the federal gas tax to be as close to a “perfect tax” as can likely exist. This is because it is “reasonably close to a user tax. It’s a fee for using the service…and that is almost the least distorting tax you could have…where the people who are using it are paying for it.” Conservatives might like it for that reason; environmentalists might favor it because it discourages use of fossil fuels.

Despite its near-Utopian economic nature, the federal gas tax remains unpopular, and has not been raised in more than 20 years. This reality is the background for our latest Intelligence Squared debate in which two teams put forth arguments for and against the concept of raising the gas tax to fund transportation infrastructure projects.

READ REMARKS....

Intelligence Squared US Debate Analysis: China and the U.S. are Long-term Enemies

by robertrosenkranz on November 5, 2015

Robert Rosenkranz: Intelligence Squared US Debate Analysis
China and the U.S. are Long-term Enemies

The evolving relationship between China and the United States is one of inherent tension yet also mutual benefit. As China’s position as a world power strengthens, the U.S. must choose carefully how to respond and to relate as that growing power naturally changes the dynamics between the two countries.

For its part, the United States is not likely to allow itself to be shut out of the Pan-Asian region while China is not likely to sit back idly while a democratic coalition designed to limit its growth emerges. The natural inclination of nations in these positions is to assume that the other party has malicious intent. Yet, each country has reason to not act hastily upon such assumptions.

Given this landscape, how adversarial is the relationship between China and the U.S.? This was the subject of a recent debate in which the motion “China and the U.S. are long-term enemies” was discussed. I pointed out that this debate “could have been held three years ago…or three years from now…because the challenge of accommodating the shifting power relationships in Asia is a huge challenge and a long-term project.”

READ REMARKS....

Debate