Opening event
Loading the latest details…
The Supreme Court ended race-conscious admissions in 2023 — Black and Hispanic enrollment at selective universities has already fallen. Does the Constitution require colorblindness, or permit race-awareness as a remedy? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Wednesday, November 4, 2026 · 7:00 PM EST
What's at stake
Without race-conscious admissions, the pipeline to elite professions narrows for groups that faced systematic exclusion. With it, equal protection is applied unevenly.
The Matchup
Debater: To be announced
Debater: To be announced
Join the debate
Record a 60-second video on either side, or make it in writing. The strongest cases get featured before the live debate.
“The achievement gap between Black and white students is a documented product of 80 years of explicitly race-based federal housing and education policy: redlining, school segregation, GI Bill exclusion. Using race-neutral admissions to fix a race-created problem is not neutral; it is a deliberate choice to ignore cause and effect.”
“California banned affirmative action in 1996. By 2006, Black enrollment at UCLA Law School had fallen by 80 percent. A generation of qualified students was diverted to less prestigious schools, and the pipeline to the state's legal and political leadership narrowed dramatically. The real-world consequences of colorblindness are documented and severe.”
“The Fourteenth Amendment's equal-protection clause applies to individuals, not demographic groups. Admissions officers make decisions about individual applicants, and using race as a factor in those decisions is a racial classification. The Supreme Court has now confirmed this interpretation twice, and a constitutional amendment would be required to override it.”
“Race-conscious admissions at elite schools have been most harmful to Asian American applicants, who faced documented caps and lower effective evaluation standards than other groups at Harvard and other selective schools. Correcting one historical injustice by creating another is not a principled approach to equality.”
The Format
Standard SuperDebate: two people, cross-examination, moderated from start to finish.
4 min · PRO · opening case
4 min · CON questions PRO
4 min · CON · opening case
4 min · PRO questions CON
3 min · PRO
3 min · CON
3 min · PRO · final case
3 min · CON · final case
— · You pick the winner
Don't miss it
The debate happens live with real-time audience voting. Get one email right before we go live, with the watch link.
Premieres
Wednesday, November 4, 2026 · 7:00 PM EST
Open debate runs on the people who show up. Tell us how you want to be part of it.
Structured debates on the ideas that matter most. You score who makes the stronger case.
Humanity uses 1.7 Earths yearly. Degrowth economists say rich nations must shrink; others say technology can decouple growth from harm. Can the planet survive endless growth — or is degrowth a recipe for poverty? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Aging kills 100,000 people every day — more than cancer and war combined. Google's Calico has invested billions in life-extension research. Should we treat aging as a disease — or accept it as part of a meaningful life? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
The US has spent over $1 trillion on the drug war since 1971 — overdoses still hit 107,000 in 2023. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and saw deaths plummet. Does legalization fix it — or abandon the most vulnerable? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
South Korea's birth rate hit 0.72 in 2023 — a record low. Japan and Hungary pay tens of thousands per child; birthrates keep falling. Is population collapse a civilizational crisis — or a feature of modernity and freedom? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.