There were several issues brought up during the debate. As stated in the description, topics such as the limits of political power and human rights were brought up, but the debate took a more modern direction and the three debaters related issues of political power to not only their personal experience, but to the American experience, which was insightful.

The debate began by Kristof and Brzezinski talking about our current involvement in foreign affairs and the negative toll that it has had on our image. The debate shifted at this point to the war in Iraq and the damage that has been created and the delicate balance that exists between “hard power” as well as “soft power.” Possible suggestions were offered by Brzezinski, such as quick-acting rejection of corrupt policies (i.e., Guantanamo Bay). Interestingly enough, the message of his suggestion was centered on demilitarizing and depoliticizing the country and its policies as a method to remedy the relationship that the United States has with the rest of the world. In a sense, it almost seemed counterintuitive, but the logic behind his argument was the fact that the lesser the military involvement the more that both parties will benefit from such a relationship.

An intriguing question posed to Mary Robinson was the one of how she maintained enthusiasm when meeting certain individuals (well-known for their crimes against humanity) and how she had not fallen victim to cynicism or nihilism. Robinson responded by saying that her empathy was great and that although one could concentrate on only verbalizing the bad, the entire picture is not captured in that manner. Survivors, she said, were the most resilient ones and one was to “harvest resources to solve problems” in order to solve their situation. Along the same vein of thought, Kristof stated that in the worst atrocities, the best that humanity has to offer is displayed. I thought this was specially meaningful being that a lot of the material that I am reading right now deals with humankind and its potential for cruel and selfish actions, always an emphasis placed on the darkest aspects of individuals.

A very relevant comment was also made by Kristof when asked for techniques he used to engage a self-centered audience regarding remote topics. He stated that the method he used to grab these people’s attention was through empathy and surprisingly he admitted that the process was not only irrational, but difficult. He also stated that his method is constantly remodeled due to its complexity. The writer brought up how social psychology (!) has attempted to tackle such an issue and the fact that individuality seems to be valued more than the group. I found this especially relevant because as writers, our projects, although specialized, should still be appealing to the general public, something that I have not made a priority. In addition, to hear such a skilled and experienced writer admit that the process was difficult and never-ending, made me realize that this is an issue that is faced constantly and no panacea exists for it. As writers, one might have to sacrifice certain aspects in order to let others shine.

Overall, the talk was informative and useful. I enjoyed it and was delighted that the debaters ventured into challenging topics.