If you’ve never watched a Munk Debate, you are in for a real treat. Whatever the topic is about, the audience and (live only and you must be a member) internet viewers are asked which side they support before the debate. There is also a poll as to how many are “willing to change their opinion.” (I’m always surprised at how many people are not willing to change their view – shouldn’t we always be open for new realities and if not, why the hell are they at the debate?) Anyways, the debate begins.
Panelists debated the topic of government surveillance. Former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz argued in favor of the resolution, “State Surveillance: Be it resolved state surveillance is a legitimate defence of our freedoms.” Journalist Glenn Greenwald and Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian argued against. The thirteenth semi-annual Munk Debate was held at Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto, Canada. A clip of a video statement made for the debate by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden was shown. (Hi-Rez can be seen at CSPAN: http://www.c-span.org/video/?319161-1/munk-debate-state-surveillance)
(Note the YouTube header reads, “Glenn vs Alan.” This is the FULL DEBATE)
In conclusion, I thought Hayden did an excellent job with his debate points. Professor Dershowitz just got on my nerves with his whiny voice. What did you think? Did you start out on one side and move to the other? Did you stay on one side throughout the whole discussion?