The Intelligence Squared debate results are in. I performed near the peak of my ability, but my very best was not good enough for the live audience. Not by a long shot: Our side actually lost 4 percentage-points, and the other side gained 28 percentage-points, for a net difference of 32 percentage-points. 

My chief fear going into the debate was that many people would initially vote based on whether they identify more with the “pro-immigration” or “anti-immigration” side, rather than the actual resolution. Since a New York audience largely thinks of itself as “pro-immigration,” we initially got a ton of “for” and “undecided” votes for our radical position. During the debate, however, the radical nature of the resolution became obvious, and the audience based its final vote on this realization. 

If you disagree, please highlight any arguments the “against” side made that wouldn’t have been obvious to anyone who paid attention to the actual wording of the resolution at the time of the initial vote.