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.




Medicare: Did the Devil Make Us Do It?

David A. Hyman & Jill R. Horwitz

Light at the End of the Pipeline?: Choosing a Forum for Suspected Terrorists

Amos N. Guiora & John T. Parry

Baze-d and Confused: What's the Deal with Lethal Injection?

Alison J. Nathan & Douglas A. Berman

Collaborative Environmental Law: Pro and Con

Eric W. Orts & Cary Coglianese

Voter ID: What’s at Stake?

Bradley A. Smith & Edward B. Foley

Can Handguns Be Effectively Regulated?

James B. Jacobs & David Kairys

Consumer-Directed Health Care

Kristin Madison & Peter D. Jacobson

Congress's Power To Compel the Televising of Supreme Court Proceedings

Bruce G. Peabody & Scott E. Gant