Opening event
Loading the latest details…
Most Americans can't name their representative or all three branches of government. Mill proposed weighted voting in 1861. Does democracy require an informed electorate — or is any competence gate a door to authoritarianism? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Thursday, October 1, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT
What's at stake
Whoever defines 'competence' controls who votes. But accepting that policy is shaped by voters who don't understand its consequences is also a choice with real costs.
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.
“Voters are systematically ignorant of basic political facts. Most cannot name their representative, identify the three branches of government, or describe their own party's policies. Collective decisions made on this basis are not the wisdom of crowds — they are aggregated ignorance, producing outcomes nobody wants and nobody can explain.”
“Competence conditions already exist for consequential decisions: a driver's license to drive, a bar exam to practice law, a medical license to prescribe drugs. It is not obvious why government — the most consequential collective decision we make — should be the one domain with no competence requirement whatsoever.”
“Every historical literacy test was a tool of racial and class oppression. The US's history of literacy requirements shows exactly who gets labeled 'uninformed': Black voters, immigrants, the poor. This proposal has a body count, and the populations most likely to fail any knowledge test are the ones most dependent on government to protect their interests.”
“Democracy's point is not to produce optimal policy outputs but to ensure that everyone affected by power has a say in it. Legitimacy and competence are different values, and legitimacy is what democracy exists to provide. A technically optimal decision made by an expert class over the objection of the governed is not better governance — it is benevolent autocracy.”
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
Thursday, October 1, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT
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.
