Should We Abolish Prisons?
The US incarcerates 2 million people at the world's highest rate — nearly 70% return within five years. Norway's rate is one-tenth, its recidivism under half. Can a system this broken be reformed — or must it be replaced? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Wednesday, November 18, 2026 · 7:00 PM EST
What's at stake
Abolition demands massive investment in mental health, housing, and economic opportunity as alternatives to incapacitation. Without that investment, it's a slogan, not a policy.
The Matchup
The Positions
Prisons do not reduce crime; they warehouse poverty and trauma and return people to society more damaged than when they entered. Abolition means investing in what actually works instead of what merely punishes.
- States that have invested in education, mental health treatment, and drug rehabilitation consistently outperform high-incarceration states on crime rates. Texas and California both significantly reduced their prison populations in the 2010s through reform legislation and saw crime rates continue to fall rather than rise. Incarceration volume and public safety are not the same thing.
- The racial composition of American prisons is not a statistical accident. Black men are incarcerated at five times the rate of white men for the same types of offenses. A justice system that produces this outcome consistently across 50 years of reform efforts is not neutral; it is structurally discriminatory. Reforming it at the margins has not changed the pattern, which means the structure itself requires replacement.
- Abolition does not mean releasing everyone immediately; it means building the alternative systems first and transitioning out of mass incarceration as those systems mature. Finland and Norway transformed their prisons into humane rehabilitation environments by investing in education and psychology over decades. The abolitionists' claim is that taking this approach to its conclusion eliminates the need for warehousing people at all.
Debater: To be announced
Some people cause serious harm to others and must be removed from society. Prison abolition has no credible answer for the serial violent offender, and no community-based alternative has been tested at the scale required.
- Prison serves an incapacitation function that no proposed alternative matches. A person who is incarcerated cannot commit new crimes against the public during that period. For serious violent offenders, that temporary removal prevents additional victims. No community-based restorative process can substitute for physical separation when someone is genuinely dangerous.
- The abolition movement's own theorists acknowledge that a transition away from prisons requires decades of upstream investment in housing, education, and mental health services. In the absence of those systems, abolition is not a reform; it is a plan to release dangerous people into communities that currently lack the resources to manage them. The sequencing matters enormously.
- Victims of serious crimes have a stake in justice that is not satisfied by restorative circles or community accountability processes alone. The criminal justice system gives victims a structured, state-mediated response to harm rather than the options of private revenge or complete helplessness. Abolition dissolves that framework without providing a clear, tested, and equally accessible replacement.
Debater: To be announced
Join the debate
Make Your Case
Record a 60-second video on either side — or make it in writing. The strongest cases get featured before the live debate.
“States that have invested in education, mental health treatment, and drug rehabilitation consistently outperform high-incarceration states on crime rates. Texas and California both significantly reduced their prison populations in the 2010s through reform legislation and saw crime continue to fall. Incarceration volume and public safety are not the same thing.”
“The racial composition of American prisons is not a statistical accident. Black men are incarcerated at five times the rate of white men for the same types of offenses. A justice system that produces this outcome consistently across 50 years of reform is not neutral — it is structurally discriminatory. Reforming at the margins has not changed the pattern, which means the structure requires replacement.”
“Prison serves an incapacitation function that no proposed alternative matches. A person who is incarcerated cannot commit new crimes against the public during that period. For serious violent offenders, temporary removal prevents additional victims. No community-based restorative process can substitute for physical separation when someone is genuinely dangerous.”
“The abolition movement's own theorists acknowledge that a transition away from prisons requires decades of upstream investment in housing, education, and mental health services. In the absence of those systems, abolition is not a reform — it is a plan to release dangerous people into communities that currently lack the resources to manage them.”
How It Works
The Format
Standard SuperDebate: two people, cross-examination, moderated from start to finish
Opening Argument
PRO · opening case
Cross-Examination
CON questions PRO
Opening Argument
CON · opening case
Cross-Examination
PRO questions CON
Rebuttal
PRO
Rebuttal
CON
Closing Statement
PRO · final case
Closing Statement
CON · final case
Audience Vote
You pick the winner
~28 minutes of debate · audience vote follows closing statements
Don't Miss It
Stay in the Loop
The debate drops when the two sides are confirmed. Get the email the moment it goes live.
Premieres
Wednesday, November 18, 2026 · 7:00 PM EST
Get Involved
Open debate runs on the people who show up. Tell us how you want to be part of it.
More Debates
Structured debates on the ideas that matter most. You score who makes the stronger case.

Jordan vs. LeBron: The GOAT SuperDebate
Watch the full recorded Jordan vs. LeBron GOAT basketball debate, argued by championship debaters, then score both debaters live.

DEI: More Harm Than Good?
DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Wilfred Reilly and Armand Domalewski debate whether DEI programs move institutions toward equality, or create a new paradigm for inequality.


UBI Debate: Should America Have a Universal Basic Income?
Scott Santens (PRO) vs Malcolm Collins (CON) debate the resolution: "An unconditional basic income would be net beneficial for American citizens." — July 10, 2026, 2 PM CT.


Messi vs Ronaldo: Who Is the Soccer GOAT?
Two debaters. Assigned sides. Cross-examination. One argues the case for Messi, the other for Ronaldo — in a structured debate format with opening arguments and rebuttals.
