Public vs Private Education vs PPP systems including all non-state, charter and voucher based systems. This can be done for school education as well as higher education.
I liked this for two reasons: 1) They both agreed on the facts ahead of time. 2) They both agree that weed shouldn't be criminalized, they just disagree on how to go about it.
@A Kale the one on the right made it clear that he is not pro drug, if he could he wouldn't even leg stores sell it, he just wants it to be decriminalized because it's a fact that would be better.
yeah, the guy on the right works for a group that pushed the drug war, and his position essentially ensures that prisons stay full of non-violent offenders. Don't buy into the "reasonableness" of decrim vs. legalization, look at the material outcomes.
In an age where people don't just have different views but live in different realities with their own facts, this is a fantastic format. Would love to see more of this.
@@ToxicHorsePucky it just depends on what is done with that time - fill it with vague obfuscation - or site specific policies and the objectives those policies are claimed to accomplish.
Debates between politicians in general only allow a couple minutes of answering and less for responses. And those span an even wider range of topics than this. It’s difficult to cover all the nuance for sure, but I think this is much more effective since there’s no time wasted on lies and refuting them or attacking the other debater personally
Absolutely! I’d love to see it but a lot of controversial topics today are often to far apart to be bridged by common agreed upon facts. The situation presented here is the ideal: two people agreeing that there is a problem and the facts surrounding it but disagreeing on how to solve it. That’s diversity of thought and can lead to viable compromise that might even be better than each side in their own as it’s more deeply informed. A video like this on say “the existence of climate change” where the facts point very obviously in one direction doesn’t feel possible. It would have to be two people who agree climate change exists but have different approaches to the solution. Which is undeniably informative! I’m not trying to say it’s a bad idea
The "fact checked debate" format should be standard in the age of information. Glad to see a news outlet actually using the the free flow of information (and citing the degree of substantiation) for an informative, critical and civil discourse on a topic. A longer form of this would be great to see. Awesome work Vox team.
@@toxickoala4991At least in American political spaces, debates could potentially be established in such a way that includes a standardized process of fact verification…at least it seems plausible to me
Sadly these are only valuable to open-minded people that share similar interpretations of what defines fact. For example, if you had a young earth creationist debate a physicist it's unlikely the young earth creationist would consider their side or facts, as if they were able to do that then it is likely they wouldn't have their stance in the first.
@@marbles7649 As a person who was raised a Christan Creationist who became an Atheist (through watching debates), I agree it probably wouldn't change the debater's mind. Honestly, I care more about the people watching the debates who might be open minded than the debaters. Plus it allows for a viewer's mind to be challenged without putting up mental walls.
@@zsbacskai7331 fact check:black people are not the stereotype you have in your head and there are many black people who respect the law just as their are many white people who do. Minorities are not notorious tax evaders, the majority of tax evasion happens at the top echelon of wealth which is disproportionally white men. Illegal immigrants will of course not be paying tax however to equate all minorities to illegal immigrants or tax dodgers is simply unfounded racism
Yall fantasize about living in 1984 like it was your personal heaven. You guys really underestimate just how much subjective information influences complex "factual" statements, as well as how easy it is to manipulate statistics and polls. Fact checks are not simple. They would take 100s of pages of researching studies and specific methods used along with multiple biases that simply will never been detected by a human being to complete... fact checking completed by humans will never work on a large scale. At least not any time soon. Humans are not trustworthy.
@@Jackson-qi4rw peer review systems work pretty well in ensuring quality research and unbias reporting in the science community. No reason it can’t work in other fields so long as the other field is also reporting objective factual data that is not above critique and any inferences made by the author of the data are also critiqued by professionals in the field.
Their body language was great. Both leaning in towards each other and showing genuine engagement. I love debates and discussions like this when the two people on opposite sides are actually interested in what the other is saying
This discussion, with its mutual engagement and respect, approaches what the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas has described as an "ideal speech situation". Both interlocuters are interested in arriving at what they consider to be correct. They are manifestly not merely trying to 'win' an argument.
Agreed. I also appreciate that they were not interrupting each other. Unfortunately, I couldn't help but notice at least 8 logical fallacies that they both made. I actually made a video responding to them.
Focussing on consensus rather than polarising the talking points produces a far more interesting and informative debate. Look forward to seeing more of these.
Well, I mean those people were already VERY close to begin with if you compare them to the actual span of opinions over all of society. It's not like this accurately represents the average pro and con opinions. On a scale from -100 (against legalization) to +100 (for legalization) these guys are, like, +75 and +100.
Not really though. The decriminalization guy works for a company started by Clintons war on drugs official. ‘Decriminalized’ means still illegal and the DEA can still hunt down and penalize the sources of marijuana. Or just accuse people with possession of “intent to sell”. It’s a bad faith argument but we have just progressed to the point as a society that weed can’t be fully criminalized so they can’t argue that and they have to be more liberal with their argument.
@@devswell6538 he said in the video that decriminalization laws that still allow for prosecution like you described would be poorly crafted decriminalization laws. That is not what he wants.
This was an INCREDIBLE format. Please please please - make this an ongoing series for all tough topics. This is leagues better than the more popular “debate” or “other sides” that are out on RUclips right now.
Loved the perspective this gave, because the debate wasn't about right or wrong. It became about how facts and statistics were interpreted and what consequences the individual then prioritizes. The format gave space to recognize that even if all facts are correct opposing opinions are based on fundamental moral and ethic.
In a country and time where everything has to be black and white rather than seeing everything on a hue like it is, this is very inspirational for what may be to come.
@@Pastelsnek That's an Appeal to Pity. Obviously people aren't perfect, and people make mistakes. I'm not trying to be harsh. I'm just simply pointing out that although fact checking is important, recognising logical fallacies is also important. We shouldn't accept an argument if it's fallacious. The same way that we shouldn't accept an argument if the facts are not true.
Absolutely true, some may say «facts don't care about your feelings», but we can see that, even if they're addressing the same facts/statistics, two people can still have opposite points of view.
So we need to: 1) decriminalize possession 2) prevent big alcohol, tobacco, etc. companies from getting too much/any market share 2a) prevent addiction-for-profit business models 2b) allow the most harmed communities from to receive the most benefit (harm can be based on the number of possession arrests made per capita) [benefit could be tax revenue and reserved licenses for people from the community or arrested for possession] 3) prevent societal impacts such as addiction, drug driving, and adolescent use
I don't think 2b) makes much sense. What you said is to literally pay them off for having been discriminated against. Also, the number of arrests for possession per capita are not statistically sufficient enough to determine who is eligible. For example it excludes those who suffered from the exact same discrimination but happened to live in a predominantly white neighborhood where _overall,_ on average, those numbers are significantly lower. And lastly I don't think it's helpful to say, "Now, in revenge, we only let black communities profit from legalization!" So what I would suggest, in the spirit of what you wanted to achieve, is to siphon off a major portion of the tax profits legalization brings in to support underprivileged neighborhoods overall. Make it mandatory for those funds to be used for social projects, cheap housing, very good schools in poor areas, all these kinds of stuff. This way everyone benefits from it, there is no new discrimination introduced, it will still mostly support minorities that have been affected by police action during the prohibition, it creates a more sustainable environment of opportunity for kids, and lastly it's more flexible politically so that local administrative bodies can steer those funds to where they are needed, meaning where the people affected by it can provide input in the process.
As a daily weed smoker for the past 7 years I think this is the best debate vid on RUclips on this topic. Props to the channel for getting an anti weed guy who’s not just some super religious old dude who thinks weed is a gateway drug and that the legalization will just turn everyone into lazy drug addicts. He actually doesn’t seem to mind the use of weed, but is more concerned about how big corporations will use it to further profit and keep his community down. I can respect that
I suppose it could be respectable but if his worry is about evil hands getting at the money from a growing new industry then he might as well be afraid of time or the weather. In an illicit drug market the money flows up to cartel kingpins, in a legal drug market it flows up to greedy CEOs. But that's just how capitalism works, the biggest slice of the pie is nearly never going to people who should have it, and as much as we all would like that to be different, there's not much sense in basing policy on an economical climate that doesn't exist in our country. I agree with a lot of the changes he's wanting, but it makes a lot more sense to grab your coat instead of just hoping for better weather.
@@rileysheehan943while I do agree with what he said about big alcohol and tobacco company’s getting ahold of it; the way I see it is the money still has to go somewhere. And if we can continue to regulate prices while still also regulating safety it makes sense that companies would want to get into it. There’s not necessarily a huge difference between it being weed or any other modern trend to capitalize off of expect marijuana is most likely here to stay. So we might as well be able to tax these cooperations to fund resources while also being able to regulate safe use instead of it go to heavier drug dealers or the Cartel/Mob or whatever it may be. There’s new processed food that comes out every year that we don’t know what is and we spend millions of dollars on those things. You can absolutely argue it makes you lazy, unhealthy and unmotivated just like weed, but we trust and buy those products because we’re familiar with them and understand there is a process that goes into checking quality and I think that’s exactly what the industry needs. Edit I also wanted to point out that I’m not saying weed necessarily does make someone lazy or complacent, but just that’s a common argument and something that say “twinkies” have in common
This is an excellent format. I love a discussion that can respectfully get past the emotionally-charged taglines and really get down to the catches on solutions. Unfortunately, there is never one solution that can satisfy all needs, so hearing these detailed concerns is important.
This is like a cold, refreshing drink of water in the middle of a vast and barren desert of misinformation, agendas and lies. Thank you so much for bringing some nuances to the debate format. Would love to work for you as a producer. Super talented team!
I find when I watch debate videos I tend to never drift too far from my original viewpoint. But this actually got seriously thinking about the other side of the debate, well done!
Incredible format. I hope that this channel continues to promote de-polarizing formats like this. There was no anger or hatred, no blatant falsehoods or rhetorical fallacies. This was a video where two mature adults disagreed on a topic and advocated for separate policy directions based on clear interpretations of facts.
It's great to have them agree on the same set of facts, too. Part of the issue in the political sphere is that you often have people coming from two different realities, and it's just not constructive at all.
I agree and appreciate that their behaviour was respectful and mature. However, I have to say that there were rhetorical fallacies. I counted at least 8 logical fallacies. For those interested, I actually made a video responding to them.
The "intelligence squared" podcast with Jon Donvan is fantastic. Debating with top of their field experts and moderated in a way that keeps things on point and civil. You may enjoy!! Cheers!
I agree. I would love to see many others issues fact checked. However, I couldn't help but notice at least 8 logical fallacies in this video. If you're interested, I actually made my own video responding to them.
This format is in much better faith than something you'd see on a channel like Jubilee. This debate seems to actually have a structured, informational goal, whereas some of these other series just have people flinging random talking points without much pushback or meaningful rebuttal.
no such thing as interrupting each other, name-calling or resorting to ad-hominem or false equivalences for the sake of pushing an argument like we see pretty much everywhere. we can disagree on how to address an issue in a civilized manner. more topics should be treated this way.
I thoroughly enjoyed this. I appreciate just how much work must've gone into this instead of just having two people talk at each other for 10minutes. Hopefully there's more in the future
@@minhluong4596 Honestly decriminalization is pretty chill, as long as you can grow it yourself and use it with no one caring that's fair. The only problem as stated again, is the illegal markets. But even when it is legal, the illegal markets sell it for cheaper in most cases so they are still prominent. Hard problem to tackle.
@@sickna-sty3244 that’s true, the black market will always exist. Here in Canada, where cannabis is legalized, the rate is still around 50/50 for the sales of both legal stores and black market. But then the legal market also gradually gained more, plus you get taxes from them. So legalizing kinda helps
Personally I was anti drugs and anti legalisation my whole life until I looked at the objective facts. Then I conceded and realised my issues were really with the criminal and health consequences and that restricting civil liberties were in fact an exacerbating not ameliorating factor. I hadn't considered the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation. Food for thought!
This was a very clever debate format. It forces sides to concede points, and while it might not change peoples positions, it allows them to better understand where the other side is coming from.
As soon as you stop trying to change peoples minds in debates and instead do more of this stuff, that's when you actually start to win people over. No one wants to be convinced over and over.
@@Sivvester I feel like the potential isn’t exactly winning people over but creating a space where people can arrive at a consensus and craft a solution that may not be perfect but somehow addresses the key concerns of various stakeholders!
This format is incredible. You have made something truly impressive. The set and the editing as well as the base idea is incredible. We must have this for many more controversial issues. Please can we get this syndicated onto some news shows?
I agree, fact checking is super important and I wish all debates were fact checked. But I couldn't help notice that this video contains at least 8 logical fallacies. If you're interested, I actually made my own video responding to them.
This was incredible! Thank you, Vox! I would love to see as many of these as possible. I’m afraid that, when it comes to the “thornier” issues, it’s going to be difficult to find two good faith experts who will agree on 5 facts.
The reason this debate was so pleasant is because the two sides both have legitimate points and are actually pretty similar to each other to a certain degree. Once you bring on anyone farther to the right than a social democrat the format will be untenable.
I feel like thornier issues are rarely decided by facts, they come down to underlying values and beliefs, so I think this format would be a great way to really get down to the real reasons people disagree.
This is a really effective and informative format for a debate, especially one that is so sensitive. Would be interested to see something similar about relevant topics!
The format is known as a civil debate , it is really the only true form of debate , every other so called format is simply a discourse , an argument , or a fight . A civil debate is done with the facts as know by both individual sides , and almost always leads towards the clarification and knowledge of the true facts in the end . Civil debates used to be the standard for agreeing on any fact , but not for quite some time now .
@@timc333 while this was a civil debate, this format of submitting statements the opposing side must regard as true is the format that interests me. As far as i know this format is not named.
I really appreciate that this debate was fact checked. I wish all debates were fact checked. However, I couldn't help but notice 8 logical fallacies in this video. If you're interested, I actually made my own video responding to them.
It was really an eye-opener to think about the consequences of legal marijuana when it comes to marketing. We would hate to see a repeat of the vaping debacle with companies illegally targeting teens with their ad campaigns. Makes me think medical marijuana might be the best way to go. I'd love to see a world where the FDA has to approve any claim made by a company selling marijuana. Though that would take a lot of funding for research.
Don't you think that only having medical marijuana would lead to almost no change in the situation? People who want to use it recreationally, which presumably is the majority of people, will still obtain it illegally and be charged with crimes.
Noooo, medical marijuana is a lot worse in ways, there's a lot of ways it can be exploited & abused by the state at the expense of the consumers to where they may not even receive the maximum potential benefits of medicalized weed. I'm currently living in a medical state, u remember that episode south park episode poking fun at medical weed? Even tho that's satire it's not too far off w/ the absurdity you may find w/ medical states. It best to simply legalize and REGULATE any companies that may attempt to sell it, including advertisers, especially
@@Dust514rocksright. Its currently medical in Ohio and has been for a small bit yet this Nov we're already voting on recreational. Medical seems barely accessible.
I'm with you there on most of it accept the only medical part, but it's such a thinker to try and find the best way to make it legal/commercial. I'm for it but I want us to really think about the long-term consequences and outcomes it can bring along with how we set ourselves up now for the best case scenario in the future.
@@soheil5710According to "Oxford Languages," the definition of an argument is "an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one." While plenty of quarrels/arguments have heated elements, it is not at all necesarry to be considered as such. Looking at the definition of debate, it does not say that it is required to be on facts. However a debate do require opposing arguments, and most people aren't going to listen to a bunch of people heatedly expressing what they believe without having fact to base it off of. :)
I think there is a third alternative. In my country, Norway, alcohol products like wine and spirits are heavily regulated, and only allowed to be sold in by one store chain that is rund and controlled by the government. In addition, advertisements for alcohol and tobacco products are illegal. A similar system for weed would remove the negative effects of letting businesess sell and market, while also creating a regulated and safe market. But of course, this might be a bit too "socialist" for the US...
the possibility for alcohol and particularly tobacco companies to use addiction for profit is still in place even if regulations are used to prevent advertisements. There would have to be policies preventing using addiction for profit, unfortunately my knowledge on the subject doesn't go far enough to understand how this would be done
the state of virginia does a similar thing with alcohol, but to a lesser extent -- only one store, the ABC store, is allowed to sell liquor in the entire state. it definitely helps a bit (i couldn't get liquor without asking my brother when i was teenager, lol), but if it was taken a little further (e.g. no ads) it could have some more meaningful effects honestly, i think will in this video convinced me toward decriminalization instead of legalization, since i never really knew the difference until now. i'd be interested to see how it would've turned out in my community if alcohol had a system like this
Yeah, the only problem with that, is that most Americans value the idea of laissez faire/distrust the govt. A lot of people would rather buy their weed illegally than trust the govt essentially. For good reason too, history should not be ignored. The American govt has proved time and time again that absolute power corrupts absolutely. If weed were to be solely run and controlled by the Govt, the people would just go right back to the black market. Those are my thoughts/opinions on it at least 👍
This was an incredible format! Debates are too often filled with one side sharing slanted/incomplete versions of facts, and the other side interrupting with some context to undercut their opponent’s argument. I really liked how this format skipped all the argumentative nonsense and allowed each side to present their argument, secure in the knowledge that the other side would respond in good faith. I truly learned something from the side I disagreed with today, and this added some nuance to my stance on marijuana legalization.
Will just seems to not want to make the same mistake we've made with tobacco companies profiting off of making people incredibly unhealthy and addicted to their products. I'd love to hear more of what he ha to say.
I feel like Barcelona(or maybe the entirety of Spain these days) took an excellent approach to this problem in a way that would satisfy both viewpoints. There is absolutely no public sale, advertisement or consuming of marijuana allowed, but it's not illegal to grow or consume privately. There are social clubs where for a membership fee you may receive it as gifts, but it's not allowed to leave the club with it, which is really difficult to enforce and nobody really cares. Really similar to tobacco products in a lot of countries, not banned but not advertised.
I think the main critique of this point is that to maintain consistency, we would then need to look at alcohol as well, and have a similar policy for that. The problem with that is how involved alcohol is in culture at least in the us
i feel like canada has taken a great approach. we have no advertisement other than physical, so it may be a sign saying there’s a dispensary there but it won’t say like there’s a sale or name strains or anything, and it’s working incredibly
I would love to watch more of this format of debate. I felt as though I could trust both speakers more because of the fact-checking and homework they provided ahead of time.
The one caveat I would add is that I don't think two sides is enough for this debate. The anti-weed gentleman in this debate actually wasn't that anti-weed. I think we might have wanted at least one more side - someone who actually believes that weed should be criminalized in all fifty states.
@@intheovaloffice i guess that wouldn't work. The known facts definitely speak for a decriminalisation for all the reasons mentioned, like unnecessary police work, impure drugs and serious consequences for consumers lifes only for possession, not for something they "did". The pros of decriminalisation and consequently a humane treatment idea of consumers would be too heavy
I'd love to see this in a longer form if possible! This is a very novel approach (getting both parties to agree upon the facts that will be debated), and one that is greatly appreciated!
From a long time reader, best Vox format in ages. In our current age I’d really love to see more of this. It’s very much a “Critical Thinking” oriented format and this should continue being a thing going forward.
this is a great video concept. the editing team did a great job of giving visual representation of the studies being cited, which made it very accessible and even entertaining to watch. i feel like this concept has the potential to reach a broad audience, which would be huge for education in our society. as a student working towards a history ed. degree, this is very inspiring!
I wished so long for a format that has a bigger focus on facts than on rhetoric and actually makes sure, the audience is not exposed to missinformation. You did such a great job with this show, I am looking forward for more!
This is amazing and I love that you were all in a call going over the facts so neither Will nor Sam could backtrack during the debate. All debates should be in this or a similar format so people watching and the debaters themself can actually get something out of the debate. You see people lie or avoid clear answers far to often during important debates and the moderators do nothing and I hate it. Why have a debate if, by the end no one has learned anything or things has just become ever murkier. Once again, well done VOX!
I think the core position for decriminalization having a nationwide cash only black market should have been explored more since it's completely nonsensical. The decriminalization view is taking too small of a picture and trying to poke meaningless holes in the legalization view
I agree. I think all debates should be fact checked. I also couldn't help but notice at least 8 logical fallacies in this video. If you're interested, I actually made my own video responding to them.
This was so much better to watch and listen to rather than all of those emotionally charged screaming debates, I absolutely loved this fact checked version. I feel like nowadays people dont have valid well thought out arguments and they just know how to debate well and get people riled up.
@@gkitty2827 yeah It has turned into a either a screaming contest or just being able to debate well but you dont have to present any valid or thought out arguments
That was an amazing way to debate! I never feel like I can trust what people say because of the way they're reacting to someone else's opinion or fact. This form of debate was something I could actually take notes on!
Huge fan of this debate style! Political debates should definitely be held in the same way. I personally love not having an in-studio audience at key debates. It reduces the need to play for laughs/keep people entertained and puts the focus back where it should be - an honest exchange of ideas and solutions to societal problems.
So refreshing seeing two professionals just talk about something they're passionate about. They both came out better representatives of their cause from this.
fact-checked, civil debate between two opposing parties, who try to convince each other and the viewers about their plans and beliefs about a defined topic and just that one topic? i love it! would love to see more of this format
I don't think it's trying to convince, it's seems more like they're showing their reasoning without dehumanization and thus allowing thoughts to flow in the viewers to at least consider their views reasonable.
As a Political science student, this is one of the best, most fact-based and solution-oriented debate formats I have ever seen. Bravo! I am genuinnely impressed.
As a Senior Criminologist in a University I absolutely love this format, the argument concerning the marketing of weed is incredibly solid and needs to be discussed more. Marketing has a history of exploiting individuals (look at vapes), therefore legalising the marketing and commercial sales of weed could potentially be exploited by the market. We need far more debates such as these outside of academia and I salute Vox for adopting this structure.
Well said. I feel naive that I've never taken a strong look at that angle before and was purely focused on the criminal aspect. Very well presented and thought provoking. I admit as a supporter of cannabis legalization, I do not support the over-commercialization of it due to the exploitation you mention and other slippery slopes such as shops popping up in the same areas we so often find liquor and gun stores. Senior Criminologist, huh? Fascinating stuff! I'm an outdoor educator in Yellowstone. I'll give you a deal if I can pick your brain for a while!!!😁
To be honest, this is the only problem I hold with weed myself. Weed is definitely beneficial for its depressant abilities, but the marketing has made it seem like something that everyone needs. Even in my hometown of only a few thousand people there are 10 dispensaries... many people keep buying it here because its claimed to be a miracle drug.
@@spiriten That's interesting to hear, and very similar to my experience. Small town, around 8,000 people, and dispensaries every where, and I see the same "miracle drug" sentiment among many new, elderly often, users. I believe there is value to cannabis consumption. I partake myself, and believe it helps me in some ways. I'm also well aware of consequences that surround it, as well. And I am also far from convinced it's any type of a cure-all. I am definitely concerned with the amount of shops, and the lack of information available about the products. I'm also not thrilled that in my little mountain town, at least two of these shops are owned by a large company out of Germany. I would much prefer to see these as local endeavors, but perhaps that is naive of me.
@@gabrielford3473 Absolutely agreed with everything said. I'm really glad it's legalized and normalized, but I'm not happy with the state of it. Luckily for us all the dispensaries we have are local businesses that buy locally produced weed (truly a booming market here in Michigan, USA)
I am pretty much a pot head but this almost won me over. The ways big business could destroy the industry and cause a lot of issues with advertising/commercialization is really concerning and I hadn’t thought about it.
Marketing of marihuana can always be banned as part of legalization. I like this debate format, and it should be explored more. But none of the arguments against legalization hold up in my opinion. They all have (easy) solutions, solutions that either have been implemented in other countries or from other existing regulations f.i. on tobacco.
You can say the exact same thing about the alcohol and tobacco industry, yet they are allowed to operate unimpeded comparatively. It is possible to legalize but also impose restriction on how these companies conduct their businesses (i.e. either no or limited advertisement). And like Paul said, you can't impose regulations and rules on something that is unregulated. Instead of American companies (or the government) profiting off of the sale of these products, you have billion-dollar criminal organizations that fill the void.
this video just oozes maturity. it doesn't even feel like a debate most of the time, it just feels like a productive conversation. maybe we should all start taking notes.
It would be nice to see something like this from more contrasting standpoints. Don't get me wrong, these guys have different end goals, but they are looking at maybe 60% common ground as decriminalization is ones ideal and the others baseline. Edit: To be clear, I love this format and everything about it
I think that the format requires them to have common ground. Usually politicians don't try to find the shared truth but discredit them. Only if our politicians were required to debate like this in congress...
Most people actually do share about 60% common ground on political issues. Studies have been done on this- people often consider themselves 70/30 on controversial issues, but consider their "opponents" to be 90/10 or 100%.
Compared to jubilee and they discussions they facilitate I feel like this is much more productive and give a chance for the facts to be accurately presented and heard. I really appreciate this
I love this format. It was a really interesting discussion and made me curious about some of these topics. As a Canadian, legalizing Marijuana isn't something I'm doing much debating over anymore, but it's still neat to see otbers' perspectives on it.
I can’t wait to see more of this format! This is very refreshing and good way to form solid opinions on facts from both sides of topics! Please do more of this with more subjects!
They both made fantastic points throughout and provided very succinct summaries at the end that held a viable base for each argument. Wonderful people to have on the show and definitely know what they're talking about!! Loved this
Great points, Will. Why don’t you bring those to the alcohol industry first considering the amount of deaths directly caused by it on a DAILY basis, but let’s make sure that’s in almost every store.
One thing that I didn’t hear mentioned was taxation. Legalisation allows for marijuana to be taxed which can cover the costs of treatment for addiction. Also knowing the purity and strength is very important for informed drug use.
True, but--counterpoint--the tax rate can be (really, is) so high that it keeps the price of legal cannabis high (no pun intended), which keeps black market cannabis at lower prices. Black market weed is still available in legal states.
There are people who prefer the black market. With legalization you have three choices: dispensaries, legally growing plants at home and the black market.
@@julietardos5044 yeah I agree that the black market doesn’t go away but currently and with only decriminalisation all weed would be sold through the black market so no taxes are being generated.
@@James_Haskell That's a good point. Why not have the best of both worlds. Decriminalise and legalise so people can buy from the dispensaries, buy off the streets or grow at home. Generating tax but with other options of attainment. Everybody is happy.
I've never seen such a debate before! It's... It's making my brain itch...! I-I'm thinking...! I'm thinking! I'm actually processing facts and weighing them against my own viewpoints on this subject! I didn't think this was possible! Please, on behalf of everyone out there, do more debates like this! I thoroughly enjoyed this!
This is a brilliant format of a debate. For the first time I'm actually watching a debate and genuinely understanding both sides and not just waiting for the cliché's to come out. Definitely need more of these!
I really liked this format and I would love to see it applied to gun safety/regulation and also the regulation of social media and data collection by tech companies.
@@TheAmericanCatholic Not entirely true. You could have regulation that temporarily/completely remove firearm from individual who are found to be; suicidal, have anger issue and what not.
I agree. Fact checking should be a standard in all debates of all types of issues. But I couldn't help noticing at least 8 logical fallacies in this video. If you're interested, I actually made my own video responding to it.
It's cool that Will brings the focus back to public health cost again and again. I think his fight is really about how America bends over backwards for capitalism. As long as businesses can get their way any way they want for larger profit margins, then "exploitation by addiction for profit" is going to win a great majority of the time. Products/Services that have little element of addiction are redesigned to have greater addictive aspects for the profits of business at the expense of people. Videogames and social media are examples of that.
I don't disagree, I guess my question is whether this battle is the best use of his resources. For example, doesn't alcohol or gambling have a worse social impact on communities than weed? Or, does he think bigger issues like those are near impossible to win, so he's focusing on an attainable goal? Or, is he trying to draw media attention toward the issue/ raise awareness? Like Andrew Yang and Automation, UBI, etc.
I think he may be particularly interested in the impact of weed because of the changes happening to laws surrounding weed right now. In the US, the past decade has seen lots of discussion about the legalisation of weed and it's happening in real-time, the same is not true for laws surrounding alcohol and gambling. I do agree that alcohol has a terrible social impact that is often ignored in favour of issues such as weed. @@bp8718
@@bp8718i believe he wants to prevent big companies marketing marijuana to society, because of how it may affect us. Especially when he mentioned big tabaco and alcohol companies put profit before the health of people.
I was very interested to note that there was no mention of Canada's 3 years of legalized cannabis, which surely has produced some data that could be used in a debate like this!
Canada did a huge road test study before legalizing cannabis ... people drove slower and safer and cared more for the outcome when tested for cannabis and driving
@@randylahey7343 No it's not. It's just as Will Jones said - it's not only being sold, but businesses are also promoting and profiting from cannabis. I can walk down a street and see *advertisements* for cannabis - individuals can choose to do what they want themselves, but allowing the promotion of harmful substances is evil
That was great body language. Each was attentive and leaning close to the other. I find fascinating fights and discussions where opposing parties are truly interested in hearing what the other has to say. I'd want to see more talks similar to this one. We need facts that everyone can agree on in a world full of unknowable truths.
They did that because they knew every point had been fact-checked, and thus without a good counterargument a point would stand against them. Which is actually a testament to this debate format. Another great idea from Vox.
@@maximumkillmtg I would argue that they agreed to be in this video because they are both clearly the sort of person who wanted to have a debate like this. You can't just force anyone into this format, the individuals matter.
Universal Healthcare vs Private Healthcare? I would recommend other topics, but my only other ideas are really incendiary and already talked about a lot, and maybe not necessarily what this series would need to thrive lol. This was a great video!
I love this format! I feel like this was a real adult discussion of an important topic rather than the fights that pass for debate these days. ❤❤❤ Please do more!
This is fantastic, I always wanted a format of discussion where each side has to recognize and respond to the strongest arguments of the opposing side. Having a prearranged set of facts that are agreed upon for discussion is amazing
More power to you and this format! A debate which don't mix opinions into facts, but seperate opionios and facts is the way it should be in a public debate!
Two sides to every coin. It was great how they both used each others' facts and articles for their own arguments because it shows the complexity of the issue and how these two opposing viewpoints generally want the same thing but in different ways, all while leaving pretty much no room for emotionally charged responses since everything brought up was fact-checked and agreed-upon to be used in this discussion. Absolutely brilliant.
This is how an issue should be presented-though it would have been more useful to hear from a third or fourth distinct opinion on the issue to show that the issues in our country can be addressed in more than 2 ways/2 sides of an issues. Phenomenal structure, thank you Vox for this incredibly responsible way to disseminate information.
This was so fantastic as a format, I feel like we actually had a debate and I’m actually aware of the nuances in these views. You can see by the comments this discussion is just so much more substantially an actual exploration of views and not the garbage debates we see on main stream media.
One thing that industry has brought to the pot world that I love is the THC levels and strain right on the box. Those make huge difference on experience and enjoyment and are something you wouldn't be confident in with backyard weed even if you grew it yourself.
I fully agree! I’ve had a pleasant experience in Oregon and knowing exactly what I’m getting and knowing the expectations of my experience are highly important in my use.
This is much more informative than most debates. I would really like to see more debates done in this fashion. I'm sure it's a ton of work but the value the episode provides is high.
Fun Fact: Will's Organization, Smart Approaches to Marijuana, was founded in part by David Frum and has Berry McCaffrey (Clinton's Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy) as an advisor. Effectivly it's a DEA front lol.
But even then, Will concedes that the current federal policy of retaining marijuana as a Schedule I drug continues to be a problem for the US as a whole, so is it possible to argue that he's biting the hand that feeds him?
Totally! But in fairness to the big picture, all of this is up-front for anyone with access to Google. The whole point is not to reduce the possibility of civil discourse to left vs. right labels. The fact that they initiate by stating they have opposing views and then clearly work hard in good faith to find common ground is the kind of story we need right now.
Very well put together and seriously made me re-think everything I knew and I needed to take a long minute to really consider my stances and why I have them. This is fantastic, Vox.
What a fantastic format, can't imagine how much work you had to do behind the scenes to create this. I guess that's the issue though isn't it? It's so easy and cheap to get two random talking heads together to bicker in a non-informed way. You can then edit it and chuck it out as content. It takes 10x as long to do what you've done here... find the right people to hold the debate, fact check them, encourage them to "play nice" etc. yet the RUclips algorithm counts them as equally valid content blocks...
Beautiful set. Would love to see more debates with this sort of set. Having each person sit in what seems like their own home, really gives each persons ideas more weight. You get a more personal feel for the individual’s thoughts on the matter.
This has been the best debate on any topic I've ever seen. I've never seen anything like it and I never found both sides of a debate to be so reasonable, relatable, well argued and thought out. More please.
That was unironically one of the best videos I have seen in a very long time. No winner - No Loser - Just a debat with fact checked points on subjects where there is no clear line.
Please do more of these! Really liked the concept and the discussion of a fact checked debate! Definitely something that should become more main stream and common in RUclips debates
What are other topics you’d like to see in this format? Let us know in a comment below 👇
Public vs Private Education vs PPP systems including all non-state, charter and voucher based systems. This can be done for school education as well as higher education.
Abortion
This format is awesome! You guys have done a great job coming up with another amazing way to present the facts!!
The death penalty
Medicare for all or Socialized medicine vs. the current system of American Healthcare
Holy... the designer of the set should get an oscar or something. Two people, each in their own room, but discussing at the same table. I love it.
YES THE SET DESIGN IS GORGEOUS!
I love it, it's like arguing with yourself in front of a mirror
She is amazing!
@@snikkisnikki 😅
Simple yet smart design :0
I liked this for two reasons:
1) They both agreed on the facts ahead of time.
2) They both agree that weed shouldn't be criminalized, they just disagree on how to go about it.
That's bcz they are both pro drugs to begin with.
@A Kale the one on the right made it clear that he is not pro drug, if he could he wouldn't even leg stores sell it, he just wants it to be decriminalized because it's a fact that would be better.
So well said 👏🏽
yeah, the guy on the right works for a group that pushed the drug war, and his position essentially ensures that prisons stay full of non-violent offenders. Don't buy into the "reasonableness" of decrim vs. legalization, look at the material outcomes.
I don't support the legalisation of recreational drugs. Why?
1.) They're immoral.
In an age where people don't just have different views but live in different realities with their own facts, this is a fantastic format. Would love to see more of this.
IMO it needs to be longer form factor. All of these topics needed more discussion and giving each person a couple minutes isn’t nearly enough time.
@@ToxicHorsePucky it just depends on what is done with that time - fill it with vague obfuscation - or site specific policies and the objectives those policies are claimed to accomplish.
Agreed, more please. Gun, abortion reform debate next?
Debates between politicians in general only allow a couple minutes of answering and less for responses. And those span an even wider range of topics than this. It’s difficult to cover all the nuance for sure, but I think this is much more effective since there’s no time wasted on lies and refuting them or attacking the other debater personally
Absolutely! I’d love to see it but a lot of controversial topics today are often to far apart to be bridged by common agreed upon facts. The situation presented here is the ideal: two people agreeing that there is a problem and the facts surrounding it but disagreeing on how to solve it. That’s diversity of thought and can lead to viable compromise that might even be better than each side in their own as it’s more deeply informed. A video like this on say “the existence of climate change” where the facts point very obviously in one direction doesn’t feel possible. It would have to be two people who agree climate change exists but have different approaches to the solution. Which is undeniably informative! I’m not trying to say it’s a bad idea
The "fact checked debate" format should be standard in the age of information. Glad to see a news outlet actually using the the free flow of information (and citing the degree of substantiation) for an informative, critical and civil discourse on a topic. A longer form of this would be great to see. Awesome work Vox team.
Yes, fact number 5 was very informative.
It’s so easy to do and it NEEDS to be done!
But what about the media and politicians how will they get away with dishonesty?
@@thesjkexperience Could be nice to learn more about how the fact checking is done. Like a step by step guide. PDF, video maybe?
@@toxickoala4991At least in American political spaces, debates could potentially be established in such a way that includes a standardized process of fact verification…at least it seems plausible to me
All politics-related debates should be fact-checked.
Facts
No
The question is how? Cause both sides claim they have sources 🙄
Rather than having facts debate-checked.
Live and immediate fact checking for every “in fact” comment.
This is exactly I want the world to have. MORE FACT CHECKED DEBATES!!! I hope this becomes a huge series
Sadly these are only valuable to open-minded people that share similar interpretations of what defines fact. For example, if you had a young earth creationist debate a physicist it's unlikely the young earth creationist would consider their side or facts, as if they were able to do that then it is likely they wouldn't have their stance in the first.
@@marbles7649 As a person who was raised a Christan Creationist who became an Atheist (through watching debates), I agree it probably wouldn't change the debater's mind. Honestly, I care more about the people watching the debates who might be open minded than the debaters. Plus it allows for a viewer's mind to be challenged without putting up mental walls.
@@zsbacskai7331 fact check:black people are not the stereotype you have in your head and there are many black people who respect the law just as their are many white people who do. Minorities are not notorious tax evaders, the majority of tax evasion happens at the top echelon of wealth which is disproportionally white men. Illegal immigrants will of course not be paying tax however to equate all minorities to illegal immigrants or tax dodgers is simply unfounded racism
Yall fantasize about living in 1984 like it was your personal heaven. You guys really underestimate just how much subjective information influences complex "factual" statements, as well as how easy it is to manipulate statistics and polls. Fact checks are not simple. They would take 100s of pages of researching studies and specific methods used along with multiple biases that simply will never been detected by a human being to complete... fact checking completed by humans will never work on a large scale. At least not any time soon. Humans are not trustworthy.
@@Jackson-qi4rw peer review systems work pretty well in ensuring quality research and unbias reporting in the science community. No reason it can’t work in other fields so long as the other field is also reporting objective factual data that is not above critique and any inferences made by the author of the data are also critiqued by professionals in the field.
Their body language was great. Both leaning in towards each other and showing genuine engagement. I love debates and discussions like this when the two people on opposite sides are actually interested in what the other is saying
I think both of them being so articulate gave them mutual respect for each other. Loved it.
This discussion, with its mutual engagement and respect, approaches what the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas has described as an "ideal speech situation". Both interlocuters are interested in arriving at what they consider to be correct. They are manifestly not merely trying to 'win' an argument.
Agreed. I also appreciate that they were not interrupting each other.
Unfortunately, I couldn't help but notice at least 8 logical fallacies that they both made.
I actually made a video responding to them.
@@rationalmangowhere’s your video?
Focussing on consensus rather than polarising the talking points produces a far more interesting and informative debate. Look forward to seeing more of these.
Indeed, a great relief to see this format, hope to see it more!
Well, I mean those people were already VERY close to begin with if you compare them to the actual span of opinions over all of society. It's not like this accurately represents the average pro and con opinions. On a scale from -100 (against legalization) to +100 (for legalization) these guys are, like, +75 and +100.
This is a wonderful format-fights misinformation, personalizes & professionalizes the information, and is simply entertaining.
Not really though. The decriminalization guy works for a company started by Clintons war on drugs official. ‘Decriminalized’ means still illegal and the DEA can still hunt down and penalize the sources of marijuana. Or just accuse people with possession of “intent to sell”. It’s a bad faith argument but we have just progressed to the point as a society that weed can’t be fully criminalized so they can’t argue that and they have to be more liberal with their argument.
@@devswell6538 is this true? do you have sources?
@@rianne1998 haha
Yes, but unfortunately it doesn't count for logical fallacies. I spotted at least 8 in this video. I actually just made a video about it.
@@devswell6538 he said in the video that decriminalization laws that still allow for prosecution like you described would be poorly crafted decriminalization laws. That is not what he wants.
This was an INCREDIBLE format. Please please please - make this an ongoing series for all tough topics. This is leagues better than the more popular “debate” or “other sides” that are out on RUclips right now.
I can't stand watching a "debate" that doesn't fact check people. that's not helpful. it's just rhetoric then
I would love to see Vox do this for LGBTQIA+ rights or Police Defunding or other progressive ideas.
@@imcasey Ugh, the fact that LGBTQIA+ rights are still considered “progressive” really annoys me..
I second that
@@zTeaTheCoffee gotta love being called a groomer for not being cishet
Loved the perspective this gave, because the debate wasn't about right or wrong. It became about how facts and statistics were interpreted and what consequences the individual then prioritizes. The format gave space to recognize that even if all facts are correct opposing opinions are based on fundamental moral and ethic.
In a country and time where everything has to be black and white rather than seeing everything on a hue like it is, this is very inspirational for what may be to come.
I agree, however between both of them, they made at least 8 logical fallacies.
@@rationalmango i mean, they’re still human
@@Pastelsnek That's an Appeal to Pity.
Obviously people aren't perfect, and people make mistakes.
I'm not trying to be harsh.
I'm just simply pointing out that although fact checking is important, recognising logical fallacies is also important.
We shouldn't accept an argument if it's fallacious. The same way that we shouldn't accept an argument if the facts are not true.
Absolutely true, some may say «facts don't care about your feelings», but we can see that, even if they're addressing the same facts/statistics, two people can still have opposite points of view.
So we need to:
1) decriminalize possession
2) prevent big alcohol, tobacco, etc. companies from getting too much/any market share
2a) prevent addiction-for-profit business models
2b) allow the most harmed communities from to receive the most benefit (harm can be based on the number of possession arrests made per capita) [benefit could be tax revenue and reserved licenses for people from the community or arrested for possession]
3) prevent societal impacts such as addiction, drug driving, and adolescent use
yes sir !
I don't think 2b) makes much sense. What you said is to literally pay them off for having been discriminated against. Also, the number of arrests for possession per capita are not statistically sufficient enough to determine who is eligible. For example it excludes those who suffered from the exact same discrimination but happened to live in a predominantly white neighborhood where _overall,_ on average, those numbers are significantly lower. And lastly I don't think it's helpful to say, "Now, in revenge, we only let black communities profit from legalization!"
So what I would suggest, in the spirit of what you wanted to achieve, is to siphon off a major portion of the tax profits legalization brings in to support underprivileged neighborhoods overall. Make it mandatory for those funds to be used for social projects, cheap housing, very good schools in poor areas, all these kinds of stuff. This way everyone benefits from it, there is no new discrimination introduced, it will still mostly support minorities that have been affected by police action during the prohibition, it creates a more sustainable environment of opportunity for kids, and lastly it's more flexible politically so that local administrative bodies can steer those funds to where they are needed, meaning where the people affected by it can provide input in the process.
As a daily weed smoker for the past 7 years I think this is the best debate vid on RUclips on this topic. Props to the channel for getting an anti weed guy who’s not just some super religious old dude who thinks weed is a gateway drug and that the legalization will just turn everyone into lazy drug addicts. He actually doesn’t seem to mind the use of weed, but is more concerned about how big corporations will use it to further profit and keep his community down. I can respect that
You smoked weed 2,555 days in a row. That’s really awesome.
I suppose it could be respectable but if his worry is about evil hands getting at the money from a growing new industry then he might as well be afraid of time or the weather. In an illicit drug market the money flows up to cartel kingpins, in a legal drug market it flows up to greedy CEOs. But that's just how capitalism works, the biggest slice of the pie is nearly never going to people who should have it, and as much as we all would like that to be different, there's not much sense in basing policy on an economical climate that doesn't exist in our country. I agree with a lot of the changes he's wanting, but it makes a lot more sense to grab your coat instead of just hoping for better weather.
@@rileysheehan943 that is an amazing point
@@bobufo5729 actually impressive
@@rileysheehan943while I do agree with what he said about big alcohol and tobacco company’s getting ahold of it; the way I see it is the money still has to go somewhere. And if we can continue to regulate prices while still also regulating safety it makes sense that companies would want to get into it. There’s not necessarily a huge difference between it being weed or any other modern trend to capitalize off of expect marijuana is most likely here to stay. So we might as well be able to tax these cooperations to fund resources while also being able to regulate safe use instead of it go to heavier drug dealers or the Cartel/Mob or whatever it may be. There’s new processed food that comes out every year that we don’t know what is and we spend millions of dollars on those things. You can absolutely argue it makes you lazy, unhealthy and unmotivated just like weed, but we trust and buy those products because we’re familiar with them and understand there is a process that goes into checking quality and I think that’s exactly what the industry needs.
Edit I also wanted to point out that I’m not saying weed necessarily does make someone lazy or complacent, but just that’s a common argument and something that say “twinkies” have in common
This is an excellent format. I love a discussion that can respectfully get past the emotionally-charged taglines and really get down to the catches on solutions. Unfortunately, there is never one solution that can satisfy all needs, so hearing these detailed concerns is important.
This is like a cold, refreshing drink of water in the middle of a vast and barren desert of misinformation, agendas and lies. Thank you so much for bringing some nuances to the debate format. Would love to work for you as a producer. Super talented team!
I find when I watch debate videos I tend to never drift too far from my original viewpoint. But this actually got seriously thinking about the other side of the debate, well done!
Incredible format. I hope that this channel continues to promote de-polarizing formats like this. There was no anger or hatred, no blatant falsehoods or rhetorical fallacies. This was a video where two mature adults disagreed on a topic and advocated for separate policy directions based on clear interpretations of facts.
well said...i also hope it continues! very enlightening stuff
It's great to have them agree on the same set of facts, too. Part of the issue in the political sphere is that you often have people coming from two different realities, and it's just not constructive at all.
I agree and appreciate that their behaviour was respectful and mature.
However, I have to say that there were rhetorical fallacies.
I counted at least 8 logical fallacies.
For those interested, I actually made a video responding to them.
this is highkey genius, the format should be an ongoing series- it's a game changer.
The "intelligence squared" podcast with Jon Donvan is fantastic. Debating with top of their field experts and moderated in a way that keeps things on point and civil. You may enjoy!! Cheers!
@@gabrielford3473 appreciate that so much!! will check it out!!!!
I agree. I would love to see many others issues fact checked.
However, I couldn't help but notice at least 8 logical fallacies in this video.
If you're interested, I actually made my own video responding to them.
This format is in much better faith than something you'd see on a channel like Jubilee. This debate seems to actually have a structured, informational goal, whereas some of these other series just have people flinging random talking points without much pushback or meaningful rebuttal.
no such thing as interrupting each other, name-calling or resorting to ad-hominem or false equivalences for the sake of pushing an argument like we see pretty much everywhere. we can disagree on how to address an issue in a civilized manner. more topics should be treated this way.
I thoroughly enjoyed this. I appreciate just how much work must've gone into this instead of just having two people talk at each other for 10minutes. Hopefully there's more in the future
2 dudes having a fact-filled, civil debate. Well done.
Much better than US Senate
This actually makes me better informed and switched from supporting legalization to decriminalisation
@@minhluong4596 Honestly decriminalization is pretty chill, as long as you can grow it yourself and use it with no one caring that's fair. The only problem as stated again, is the illegal markets. But even when it is legal, the illegal markets sell it for cheaper in most cases so they are still prominent. Hard problem to tackle.
@@sickna-sty3244 that’s true, the black market will always exist. Here in Canada, where cannabis is legalized, the rate is still around 50/50 for the sales of both legal stores and black market. But then the legal market also gradually gained more, plus you get taxes from them. So legalizing kinda helps
Rare gem
Personally I was anti drugs and anti legalisation my whole life until I looked at the objective facts. Then I conceded and realised my issues were really with the criminal and health consequences and that restricting civil liberties were in fact an exacerbating not ameliorating factor. I hadn't considered the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation. Food for thought!
The smell is awful
@@ANJIN-p4q good take
Same here! I was in the ALL DRUGS ARE BAD camp until maybe 2015 or so, haha.
Love the growth 👏🏽
The criminal consequences are mostly because it is an illegal substance, and there is zero cases of cannabis overdose worldwide.
Love this format but wish we had more time with each fact
Yes! Make it longer, cmon, some people still do have longer attention span than a goldfish.
Exactly, one of the response was “you know how capitalism works”.
This is an amazingly done video. Great work. Love the format
This was a very clever debate format. It forces sides to concede points, and while it might not change peoples positions, it allows them to better understand where the other side is coming from.
Yeeeeees!!!!
Agreed
As soon as you stop trying to change peoples minds in debates and instead do more of this stuff, that's when you actually start to win people over. No one wants to be convinced over and over.
@@Sivvester you can only be convinced once, otherwise it's just preaching
@@Sivvester I feel like the potential isn’t exactly winning people over but creating a space where people can arrive at a consensus and craft a solution that may not be perfect but somehow addresses the key concerns of various stakeholders!
This format is incredible. You have made something truly impressive.
The set and the editing as well as the base idea is incredible.
We must have this for many more controversial issues.
Please can we get this syndicated onto some news shows?
The only people that will agree to each others facts are the people that wont have problems debating without these restrictions.
pretty naive to assume this would work exactly the same for more controversial issues lol
I agree, fact checking is super important and I wish all debates were fact checked.
But I couldn't help notice that this video contains at least 8 logical fallacies.
If you're interested, I actually made my own video responding to them.
I love this. It feels less like a heated fuss and what an actual debate should feel like!
I really liked how they all bring up legit issues and no one is right or wrong. Its complex and shouldnt be a yes or no approach.
This was incredible! Thank you, Vox! I would love to see as many of these as possible. I’m afraid that, when it comes to the “thornier” issues, it’s going to be difficult to find two good faith experts who will agree on 5 facts.
The reason this debate was so pleasant is because the two sides both have legitimate points and are actually pretty similar to each other to a certain degree. Once you bring on anyone farther to the right than a social democrat the format will be untenable.
@@nashjonas yes but fact checkers in other debates can confirm or deny objective facts, such as those based on numbers and data
Agreed entirely. Really really good format.
I feel like thornier issues are rarely decided by facts, they come down to underlying values and beliefs, so I think this format would be a great way to really get down to the real reasons people disagree.
what issues
This is a really effective and informative format for a debate, especially one that is so sensitive. Would be interested to see something similar about relevant topics!
Lets say more relevant topics to you personally. :-)
The format is known as a civil debate , it is really the only true form of debate , every other so called format is simply a discourse , an argument , or a fight . A civil debate is done with the facts as know by both individual sides , and almost always leads towards the clarification and knowledge of the true facts in the end . Civil debates used to be the standard for agreeing on any fact , but not for quite some time now .
@@timc333 while this was a civil debate, this format of submitting statements the opposing side must regard as true is the format that interests me. As far as i know this format is not named.
@@davidtagliaferri submitting evidence that the other side can see and agrees to allow is the basis of court cases
I really appreciate that this debate was fact checked. I wish all debates were fact checked.
However, I couldn't help but notice 8 logical fallacies in this video.
If you're interested, I actually made my own video responding to them.
More of this please. Go into religion in schools and hard hitting topics
Religion in government, not just schools!
@@fitshamerI don’t think religion should be in government either
@@fitshamerneither
It was really an eye-opener to think about the consequences of legal marijuana when it comes to marketing. We would hate to see a repeat of the vaping debacle with companies illegally targeting teens with their ad campaigns. Makes me think medical marijuana might be the best way to go. I'd love to see a world where the FDA has to approve any claim made by a company selling marijuana. Though that would take a lot of funding for research.
You could just have a total ban on advertising/marketing for cannabis/cigarettes/alcohol etc.
Don't you think that only having medical marijuana would lead to almost no change in the situation? People who want to use it recreationally, which presumably is the majority of people, will still obtain it illegally and be charged with crimes.
Noooo, medical marijuana is a lot worse in ways, there's a lot of ways it can be exploited & abused by the state at the expense of the consumers to where they may not even receive the maximum potential benefits of medicalized weed. I'm currently living in a medical state, u remember that episode south park episode poking fun at medical weed? Even tho that's satire it's not too far off w/ the absurdity you may find w/ medical states. It best to simply legalize and REGULATE any companies that may attempt to sell it, including advertisers, especially
@@Dust514rocksright. Its currently medical in Ohio and has been for a small bit yet this Nov we're already voting on recreational. Medical seems barely accessible.
I'm with you there on most of it accept the only medical part, but it's such a thinker to try and find the best way to make it legal/commercial. I'm for it but I want us to really think about the long-term consequences and outcomes it can bring along with how we set ourselves up now for the best case scenario in the future.
When two people are forced to live in the same reality, they don't disagree on much. Well done.
That’s because there’s always one side, the other side, and the truth. When the truth is shown there is no debating it.
@@Bossman50. What if a debate is purely about emotions. Then there's no 'truth' to speak of anymore.
@@soheil5710 A debate purely based on emotions wouldn't be a debate. It would just be a quarrel or an arguement.
@@notrandoman I think a quarrel/argument implies a heated exchange, which isn't always the case.
@@soheil5710According to "Oxford Languages," the definition of an argument is "an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one." While plenty of quarrels/arguments have heated elements, it is not at all necesarry to be considered as such.
Looking at the definition of debate, it does not say that it is required to be on facts. However a debate do require opposing arguments, and most people aren't going to listen to a bunch of people heatedly expressing what they believe without having fact to base it off of. :)
I think there is a third alternative. In my country, Norway, alcohol products like wine and spirits are heavily regulated, and only allowed to be sold in by one store chain that is rund and controlled by the government. In addition, advertisements for alcohol and tobacco products are illegal. A similar system for weed would remove the negative effects of letting businesess sell and market, while also creating a regulated and safe market. But of course, this might be a bit too "socialist" for the US...
the possibility for alcohol and particularly tobacco companies to use addiction for profit is still in place even if regulations are used to prevent advertisements. There would have to be policies preventing using addiction for profit, unfortunately my knowledge on the subject doesn't go far enough to understand how this would be done
Some US STATESalso have state run liqour stores, if Cannabis stores were run in the same manner, it would not be good.
the state of virginia does a similar thing with alcohol, but to a lesser extent -- only one store, the ABC store, is allowed to sell liquor in the entire state. it definitely helps a bit (i couldn't get liquor without asking my brother when i was teenager, lol), but if it was taken a little further (e.g. no ads) it could have some more meaningful effects
honestly, i think will in this video convinced me toward decriminalization instead of legalization, since i never really knew the difference until now. i'd be interested to see how it would've turned out in my community if alcohol had a system like this
@@mrinconsistent5951 that's the point of the state running it. They don't care about profit.
Yeah, the only problem with that, is that most Americans value the idea of laissez faire/distrust the govt. A lot of people would rather buy their weed illegally than trust the govt essentially. For good reason too, history should not be ignored. The American govt has proved time and time again that absolute power corrupts absolutely. If weed were to be solely run and controlled by the Govt, the people would just go right back to the black market. Those are my thoughts/opinions on it at least 👍
This was an incredible format! Debates are too often filled with one side sharing slanted/incomplete versions of facts, and the other side interrupting with some context to undercut their opponent’s argument. I really liked how this format skipped all the argumentative nonsense and allowed each side to present their argument, secure in the knowledge that the other side would respond in good faith. I truly learned something from the side I disagreed with today, and this added some nuance to my stance on marijuana legalization.
this is SUCH a good style of video. fact-checking debates online should be the norm
Will just seems to not want to make the same mistake we've made with tobacco companies profiting off of making people incredibly unhealthy and addicted to their products. I'd love to hear more of what he ha to say.
I feel like Barcelona(or maybe the entirety of Spain these days) took an excellent approach to this problem in a way that would satisfy both viewpoints. There is absolutely no public sale, advertisement or consuming of marijuana allowed, but it's not illegal to grow or consume privately. There are social clubs where for a membership fee you may receive it as gifts, but it's not allowed to leave the club with it, which is really difficult to enforce and nobody really cares. Really similar to tobacco products in a lot of countries, not banned but not advertised.
I think the main critique of this point is that to maintain consistency, we would then need to look at alcohol as well, and have a similar policy for that. The problem with that is how involved alcohol is in culture at least in the us
Funny how we don't hold processed food companies to the same standards. Obesity is a huge health problem in America.
@@hibbo1351 right? Somehow they are against legalization but don't bother to go after any other industry.
i feel like canada has taken a great approach. we have no advertisement other than physical, so it may be a sign saying there’s a dispensary there but it won’t say like there’s a sale or name strains or anything, and it’s working incredibly
I would love to watch more of this format of debate. I felt as though I could trust both speakers more because of the fact-checking and homework they provided ahead of time.
The one caveat I would add is that I don't think two sides is enough for this debate. The anti-weed gentleman in this debate actually wasn't that anti-weed. I think we might have wanted at least one more side - someone who actually believes that weed should be criminalized in all fifty states.
@@intheovaloffice i guess that wouldn't work. The known facts definitely speak for a decriminalisation for all the reasons mentioned, like unnecessary police work, impure drugs and serious consequences for consumers lifes only for possession, not for something they "did". The pros of decriminalisation and consequently a humane treatment idea of consumers would be too heavy
I'd love to see this in a longer form if possible! This is a very novel approach (getting both parties to agree upon the facts that will be debated), and one that is greatly appreciated!
From a long time reader, best Vox format in ages. In our current age I’d really love to see more of this. It’s very much a “Critical Thinking” oriented format and this should continue being a thing going forward.
this is a great video concept. the editing team did a great job of giving visual representation of the studies being cited, which made it very accessible and even entertaining to watch. i feel like this concept has the potential to reach a broad audience, which would be huge for education in our society. as a student working towards a history ed. degree, this is very inspiring!
Gosh this is such an exciting debate format. Idk if others have done this on RUclips but I’m very interested to see other videos like this!!
Maybe they need to have you on an episode 👀
Please come!!
❤khadija :D
I completely agree, too often people get riled up and lose the integrity of the debate. This was not only fun but informative to watch 👌
it's called politics.
I wished so long for a format that has a bigger focus on facts than on rhetoric and actually makes sure, the audience is not exposed to missinformation. You did such a great job with this show, I am looking forward for more!
In a world filled with falsehood and lies, we direly need more of this fact checked format debate thingy, brilliant job vox, keep em coming !
This is amazing and I love that you were all in a call going over the facts so neither Will nor Sam could backtrack during the debate. All debates should be in this or a similar format so people watching and the debaters themself can actually get something out of the debate. You see people lie or avoid clear answers far to often during important debates and the moderators do nothing and I hate it. Why have a debate if, by the end no one has learned anything or things has just become ever murkier. Once again, well done VOX!
I think the core position for decriminalization having a nationwide cash only black market should have been explored more since it's completely nonsensical. The decriminalization view is taking too small of a picture and trying to poke meaningless holes in the legalization view
Right, there is way too many of these where people just get upset and argue their opinion and never gets anywhere.
I agree. I think all debates should be fact checked.
I also couldn't help but notice at least 8 logical fallacies in this video.
If you're interested, I actually made my own video responding to them.
Please do these sort of videos again! So refreshing to just hear about facts and people’s interpretations to them. Thank you for this!
This was so much better to watch and listen to rather than all of those emotionally charged screaming debates, I absolutely loved this fact checked version. I feel like nowadays people dont have valid well thought out arguments and they just know how to debate well and get people riled up.
People nowadays just dont know how to debate they just know how to argue. The difference is respect for the other debater.
@@gkitty2827 yeah It has turned into a either a screaming contest or just being able to debate well but you dont have to present any valid or thought out arguments
That was an amazing way to debate! I never feel like I can trust what people say because of the way they're reacting to someone else's opinion or fact. This form of debate was something I could actually take notes on!
Huge fan of this debate style! Political debates should definitely be held in the same way. I personally love not having an in-studio audience at key debates. It reduces the need to play for laughs/keep people entertained and puts the focus back where it should be - an honest exchange of ideas and solutions to societal problems.
So refreshing seeing two professionals just talk about something they're passionate about. They both came out better representatives of their cause from this.
fact-checked, civil debate between two opposing parties, who try to convince each other and the viewers about their plans and beliefs about a defined topic and just that one topic? i love it! would love to see more of this format
I don't think it's trying to convince, it's seems more like they're showing their reasoning without dehumanization and thus allowing thoughts to flow in the viewers to at least consider their views reasonable.
As a Political science student, this is one of the best, most fact-based and solution-oriented debate formats I have ever seen. Bravo! I am genuinnely impressed.
As a Senior Criminologist in a University I absolutely love this format, the argument concerning the marketing of weed is incredibly solid and needs to be discussed more. Marketing has a history of exploiting individuals (look at vapes), therefore legalising the marketing and commercial sales of weed could potentially be exploited by the market.
We need far more debates such as these outside of academia and I salute Vox for adopting this structure.
Well said. I feel naive that I've never taken a strong look at that angle before and was purely focused on the criminal aspect. Very well presented and thought provoking. I admit as a supporter of cannabis legalization, I do not support the over-commercialization of it due to the exploitation you mention and other slippery slopes such as shops popping up in the same areas we so often find liquor and gun stores.
Senior Criminologist, huh? Fascinating stuff! I'm an outdoor educator in Yellowstone. I'll give you a deal if I can pick your brain for a while!!!😁
To be honest, this is the only problem I hold with weed myself. Weed is definitely beneficial for its depressant abilities, but the marketing has made it seem like something that everyone needs. Even in my hometown of only a few thousand people there are 10 dispensaries... many people keep buying it here because its claimed to be a miracle drug.
@@spiriten That's interesting to hear, and very similar to my experience. Small town, around 8,000 people, and dispensaries every where, and I see the same "miracle drug" sentiment among many new, elderly often, users. I believe there is value to cannabis consumption. I partake myself, and believe it helps me in some ways. I'm also well aware of consequences that surround it, as well. And I am also far from convinced it's any type of a cure-all. I am definitely concerned with the amount of shops, and the lack of information available about the products. I'm also not thrilled that in my little mountain town, at least two of these shops are owned by a large company out of Germany. I would much prefer to see these as local endeavors, but perhaps that is naive of me.
@@gabrielford3473 Absolutely agreed with everything said. I'm really glad it's legalized and normalized, but I'm not happy with the state of it. Luckily for us all the dispensaries we have are local businesses that buy locally produced weed (truly a booming market here in Michigan, USA)
I am pretty much a pot head but this almost won me over. The ways big business could destroy the industry and cause a lot of issues with advertising/commercialization is really concerning and I hadn’t thought about it.
Marketing of marihuana can always be banned as part of legalization.
I like this debate format, and it should be explored more. But none of the arguments against legalization hold up in my opinion. They all have (easy) solutions, solutions that either have been implemented in other countries or from other existing regulations f.i. on tobacco.
You can say the exact same thing about the alcohol and tobacco industry, yet they are allowed to operate unimpeded comparatively. It is possible to legalize but also impose restriction on how these companies conduct their businesses (i.e. either no or limited advertisement). And like Paul said, you can't impose regulations and rules on something that is unregulated. Instead of American companies (or the government) profiting off of the sale of these products, you have billion-dollar criminal organizations that fill the void.
this video just oozes maturity. it doesn't even feel like a debate most of the time, it just feels like a productive conversation. maybe we should all start taking notes.
Paul wearing green and being Pro-Cannabis is the visual storytelling I’m here for.
the synergy , i peeped that too.
they’re both in favor of cannabis
It's a green shirt, just settle down.
@@averyj.steele1074 wow...
@@averyj.steele1074 I was being semi-ironic so my resting state was chill the whole time.
It would be nice to see something like this from more contrasting standpoints. Don't get me wrong, these guys have different end goals, but they are looking at maybe 60% common ground as decriminalization is ones ideal and the others baseline.
Edit: To be clear, I love this format and everything about it
I think that the format requires them to have common ground. Usually politicians don't try to find the shared truth but discredit them. Only if our politicians were required to debate like this in congress...
Most people actually do share about 60% common ground on political issues. Studies have been done on this- people often consider themselves 70/30 on controversial issues, but consider their "opponents" to be 90/10 or 100%.
The thing is for this topic (and many others) is that if they had someone that was anti-weed they would have no fact checked evidence to support them.
Compared to jubilee and they discussions they facilitate I feel like this is much more productive and give a chance for the facts to be accurately presented and heard. I really appreciate this
This is facts
Love how productive this conversation is. More of this please!
I love this format. It was a really interesting discussion and made me curious about some of these topics. As a Canadian, legalizing Marijuana isn't something I'm doing much debating over anymore, but it's still neat to see otbers' perspectives on it.
I can’t wait to see more of this format! This is very refreshing and good way to form solid opinions on facts from both sides of topics! Please do more of this with more subjects!
You must be pretty boring
They both made fantastic points throughout and provided very succinct summaries at the end that held a viable base for each argument. Wonderful people to have on the show and definitely know what they're talking about!! Loved this
Great points, Will. Why don’t you bring those to the alcohol industry first considering the amount of deaths directly caused by it on a DAILY basis, but let’s make sure that’s in almost every store.
One thing that I didn’t hear mentioned was taxation. Legalisation allows for marijuana to be taxed which can cover the costs of treatment for addiction. Also knowing the purity and strength is very important for informed drug use.
True, but--counterpoint--the tax rate can be (really, is) so high that it keeps the price of legal cannabis high (no pun intended), which keeps black market cannabis at lower prices. Black market weed is still available in legal states.
There are people who prefer the black market. With legalization you have three choices: dispensaries, legally growing plants at home and the black market.
@@julietardos5044 yeah I agree that the black market doesn’t go away but currently and with only decriminalisation all weed would be sold through the black market so no taxes are being generated.
@@James_Haskell That's a good point. Why not have the best of both worlds. Decriminalise and legalise so people can buy from the dispensaries, buy off the streets or grow at home. Generating tax but with other options of attainment. Everybody is happy.
@G Mac yeah, why?
I've never seen such a debate before! It's... It's making my brain itch...! I-I'm thinking...! I'm thinking! I'm actually processing facts and weighing them against my own viewpoints on this subject! I didn't think this was possible!
Please, on behalf of everyone out there, do more debates like this! I thoroughly enjoyed this!
This was a FANTASTIC format for a debate. Please do more!
This is a brilliant format of a debate. For the first time I'm actually watching a debate and genuinely understanding both sides and not just waiting for the cliché's to come out. Definitely need more of these!
I really liked this format and I would love to see it applied to gun safety/regulation and also the regulation of social media and data collection by tech companies.
♥
Gun control and gun safety are not the same thing. Gun safety is the individual safe use of firearms has nothing to do with regulation.
@@TheAmericanCatholic Not entirely true. You could have regulation that temporarily/completely remove firearm from individual who are found to be; suicidal, have anger issue and what not.
I agree. Fact checking should be a standard in all debates of all types of issues.
But I couldn't help noticing at least 8 logical fallacies in this video.
If you're interested, I actually made my own video responding to it.
send
It's cool that Will brings the focus back to public health cost again and again. I think his fight is really about how America bends over backwards for capitalism. As long as businesses can get their way any way they want for larger profit margins, then "exploitation by addiction for profit" is going to win a great majority of the time. Products/Services that have little element of addiction are redesigned to have greater addictive aspects for the profits of business at the expense of people. Videogames and social media are examples of that.
I don't disagree, I guess my question is whether this battle is the best use of his resources.
For example, doesn't alcohol or gambling have a worse social impact on communities than weed?
Or, does he think bigger issues like those are near impossible to win, so he's focusing on an attainable goal?
Or, is he trying to draw media attention toward the issue/ raise awareness?
Like Andrew Yang and Automation, UBI, etc.
I think he may be particularly interested in the impact of weed because of the changes happening to laws surrounding weed right now. In the US, the past decade has seen lots of discussion about the legalisation of weed and it's happening in real-time, the same is not true for laws surrounding alcohol and gambling.
I do agree that alcohol has a terrible social impact that is often ignored in favour of issues such as weed. @@bp8718
@@bp8718i believe he wants to prevent big companies marketing marijuana to society, because of how it may affect us. Especially when he mentioned big tabaco and alcohol companies put profit before the health of people.
I was very interested to note that there was no mention of Canada's 3 years of legalized cannabis, which surely has produced some data that could be used in a debate like this!
October 2018, so 4 years. It’s been successful, even the pearl clutching conservative types have stopped panicking, lol.
My guess as to why it wasn't included is it's not possible to draw long-term conclusions from it.
Canada did a huge road test study before legalizing cannabis ... people drove slower and safer and cared more for the outcome when tested for cannabis and driving
@@randylahey7343 No it's not. It's just as Will Jones said - it's not only being sold, but businesses are also promoting and profiting from cannabis. I can walk down a street and see *advertisements* for cannabis - individuals can choose to do what they want themselves, but allowing the promotion of harmful substances is evil
they are americans, it is a bit much to expect them to use data outside of their own great nation ;)
If news channels had production like this we would have solved all divisive political issues already
That was great body language. Each was attentive and leaning close to the other. I find fascinating fights and discussions where opposing parties are truly interested in hearing what the other has to say. I'd want to see more talks similar to this one. We need facts that everyone can agree on in a world full of unknowable truths.
They did that because they knew every point had been fact-checked, and thus without a good counterargument a point would stand against them.
Which is actually a testament to this debate format. Another great idea from Vox.
I used to order from bmwo.
@@maximumkillmtg I would argue that they agreed to be in this video because they are both clearly the sort of person who wanted to have a debate like this. You can't just force anyone into this format, the individuals matter.
Universal Healthcare vs Private Healthcare? I would recommend other topics, but my only other ideas are really incendiary and already talked about a lot, and maybe not necessarily what this series would need to thrive lol. This was a great video!
*YES* UP UP UP!
I need more of this for all debates please!!! This should be the standard and I think it will be in the future. Please keep creating these!
What a great format! A respectful, engaged discussion with great editing and a clear background.
I love this format! I feel like this was a real adult discussion of an important topic rather than the fights that pass for debate these days. ❤❤❤ Please do more!
This is fantastic, I always wanted a format of discussion where each side has to recognize and respond to the strongest arguments of the opposing side. Having a prearranged set of facts that are agreed upon for discussion is amazing
More power to you and this format! A debate which don't mix opinions into facts, but seperate opionios and facts is the way it should be in a public debate!
This is a really interesting format. Love it!
Two sides to every coin. It was great how they both used each others' facts and articles for their own arguments because it shows the complexity of the issue and how these two opposing viewpoints generally want the same thing but in different ways, all while leaving pretty much no room for emotionally charged responses since everything brought up was fact-checked and agreed-upon to be used in this discussion. Absolutely brilliant.
This is how an issue should be presented-though it would have been more useful to hear from a third or fourth distinct opinion on the issue to show that the issues in our country can be addressed in more than 2 ways/2 sides of an issues. Phenomenal structure, thank you Vox for this incredibly responsible way to disseminate information.
This was so fantastic as a format, I feel like we actually had a debate and I’m actually aware of the nuances in these views. You can see by the comments this discussion is just so much more substantially an actual exploration of views and not the garbage debates we see on main stream media.
One thing that industry has brought to the pot world that I love is the THC levels and strain right on the box. Those make huge difference on experience and enjoyment and are something you wouldn't be confident in with backyard weed even if you grew it yourself.
I fully agree! I’ve had a pleasant experience in Oregon and knowing exactly what I’m getting and knowing the expectations of my experience are highly important in my use.
You obviously don’t understand how those numbers are obtained
@@maxp10 unless the numbers are obtained by staring at a plant and guessing, it's better than I can do.
For sure, as well as knowing generally where it came from and that there aren't mystery contaminants.
Yes. Please, more debates like this. In a world of unknown truths, we NEED agreed upon facts.
Great debate format ! A breath of fresh air
this is the best debate format ive seen
This is much more informative than most debates. I would really like to see more debates done in this fashion. I'm sure it's a ton of work but the value the episode provides is high.
Fun Fact: Will's Organization, Smart Approaches to Marijuana, was founded in part by David Frum and has Berry McCaffrey (Clinton's Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy) as an advisor. Effectivly it's a DEA front lol.
Sources? Gotta fact check this too ;)
@@mikerich32 It's on their website learnaboutsam. Can't link it because of RUclips's filter
But even then, Will concedes that the current federal policy of retaining marijuana as a Schedule I drug continues to be a problem for the US as a whole, so is it possible to argue that he's biting the hand that feeds him?
Totally! But in fairness to the big picture, all of this is up-front for anyone with access to Google. The whole point is not to reduce the possibility of civil discourse to left vs. right labels.
The fact that they initiate by stating they have opposing views and then clearly work hard in good faith to find common ground is the kind of story we need right now.
How could something be a front for the Drug Enforcement Administration? DEA is a government agency; it doesn't have opinions; it just enforces laws.
mate.. literally make this into a series!! such a good video!! atleast they got on common ground.... atleast decriminalise weed at a federal level
Very well put together and seriously made me re-think everything I knew and I needed to take a long minute to really consider my stances and why I have them. This is fantastic, Vox.
I love this format, and would love to see a long ongoing series on many topics!
Where is Mike D:
Where are you Mike :(
What a fantastic format, can't imagine how much work you had to do behind the scenes to create this.
I guess that's the issue though isn't it? It's so easy and cheap to get two random talking heads together to bicker in a non-informed way. You can then edit it and chuck it out as content. It takes 10x as long to do what you've done here... find the right people to hold the debate, fact check them, encourage them to "play nice" etc. yet the RUclips algorithm counts them as equally valid content blocks...
Please make more of these! I would love to watch a whole series of these style debates.
Beautiful set.
Would love to see more debates with this sort of set.
Having each person sit in what seems like their own home, really gives each persons ideas more weight.
You get a more personal feel for the individual’s thoughts on the matter.
The set is awesome, yeah!
This has been the best debate on any topic I've ever seen. I've never seen anything like it and I never found both sides of a debate to be so reasonable, relatable, well argued and thought out. More please.
That was unironically one of the best videos I have seen in a very long time. No winner - No Loser - Just a debat with fact checked points on subjects where there is no clear line.
Please do more of these! Really liked the concept and the discussion of a fact checked debate! Definitely something that should become more main stream and common in RUclips debates