Debates - University of Pennsylvania Law Review
The University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online is pleased to host debates between respected scholars on current controversies. The format includes an opening statement, a rebuttal, and closing statements by each side. Each contribution is expected to be one to two times the length of an average opinion/editorial newspaper article (i.e., 1,000-2,000 words), and without footnotes. Scholars interested in participating in a Penn Law Review Online Debate should visit our Submissions page.




The Role of Judges in Election Law

Daniel P. Tokaji & Allison R. Hayward

The Future of Mass Torts

Sergio J. Campos & Howard M. Erichson

Targeted Killing: The Case of Anwar Al-Aulaqi

John C. Dehn & Kevin Jon Heller

The Future of the United States Commission on Civil Rights

Lisa Crooms & Dawinder S. Sidhu

The Right to Remain Silent

Charles Weisselberg & Stephanos Bibas

The Argument for Same-Sex Marriage

Nelson Tebbe & Deborah A. Widiss & Shannon Gilreath