Controversy Corner

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of this publication.

Welcome to Controversy Corner! I'm your commentator, Anthony Judd. Through this column, I will initiate fruitful discourse and establish a space to rationalize beliefs. The column’s format will go as follows, the initial issue comes with a prompt, my position and a place to respond. In the following month’s issue, I will present a couple responses I feel most oppose my position and will rebut them, along with a new prompt. Let us foster the same fruitfulness as the debates among our Founding Fathers created, to learn from each other, seek truth and navigate this complex political landscape we inherited!

Give me ideas for topics here

A New Direction for Controversy Corner: A Commitment to Balance, Clarity, and Rational Discourse

As I look back on my first year running Controversy Corner, I’m struck by how much this journey has shaped me, both personally and professionally. When I first embarked on this project, my goal was simple: to create a space where important, often divisive, issues could be explored openly, with courage and conviction. What I didn’t fully anticipate, however, was the profound impact this column would have on my own understanding of the world and my approach to journalism.

The first year was a period of growth — both in terms of the scope of the issues I addressed and the depth of my thinking. I started out with the intention of shining a light on important topics, presenting my views clearly, and inviting others to engage in the conversation. But as the months passed, I realized that simply providing a single viewpoint or rebutting opposing arguments didn’t allow for the level of nuance and thoughtfulness that these issues deserved. I began to recognize that journalism is not just about offering an opinion or taking a stand, but about helping people see the full spectrum of an issue, understanding why people believe what they do, and offering them the clarity and tools to make their own informed decisions.

A Shift Toward Balanced Exploration

This realization marks the beginning of a new direction for Controversy Corner. Moving forward, my focus will be on balanced exploration of the most contentious issues, providing both sides of the debate with the dignity and attention they deserve. I will take a more methodical approach, breaking down complex issues into voting issues — clear points of decision that help you evaluate where you stand based on the facts and values at play. The goal is not to win an argument or promote a single side, but to empower you with the tools to engage in rational discourse and articulate your beliefs with clarity.

Reflecting on my first year, I understand that the journey toward presenting a fully balanced view is one that requires humility and growth. I entered this column with a sincere desire to engage with the issues of the day, but I’ve come to realize that I must do so in a way that is more inclusive, more nuanced, and ultimately more transparent. This shift is a direct response to the lessons I’ve learned from my early efforts and my commitment to providing something greater than just a simple opinion piece.

Owning My Shortcomings: A Commitment to Growth

I have always approached this column with a good heart and the best intentions, but I now recognize that my earlier approach, though well-meaning, sometimes oversimplified the issues. I admit that I didn't always take the time to deeply explore both sides of the debate in a fair and thorough manner. There were moments when I presented an argument without fully considering the ethical dilemmas, nuances, and human experiences behind the opposing viewpoints.

Through this process of reflection, I’ve come to realize that true journalism requires a commitment not just to presenting facts but to fostering understanding. It’s about giving voice to multiple perspectives and being willing to sit in the discomfort of complex debates. I am committed to this growth and to ensuring that my future work is better aligned with the standards of fairness, clarity, and respect that I now understand are necessary to truly serve my readers and the community.

A Pledge to Serve with Integrity and Openness

As I embark on this new direction, I know that maintaining a balanced, thoughtful approach will require vigilance and accountability. My mission is to present issues clearly, thoughtfully, and in a way that provides you with the necessary tools to make rational, informed decisions. To safeguard this mission, I will:

• Thoroughly research each topic, using credible sources to ensure factual accuracy and depth.

• Remain open to feedback from you, my readers, as your perspectives help guide my understanding and inform my approach.

• Acknowledge my own biases and openly work to counteract them in order to give both sides a fair hearing.

• Focus on clarity, presenting issues in a manner that breaks them down into their core voting issues, allowing you to approach complex topics with confidence and reason.

Reflections on Year One: A Journey of Growth

In my first year as the writer of Controversy Corner, I’ve seen firsthand how journalism can evolve. What began as an effort to shed light on complex issues has now matured into a commitment to clear, balanced, and thoughtful discourse. The lessons I’ve learned about intellectual rigor, fairness, and the duty to understand both sides of any argument have reshaped my approach to writing and to journalism as a whole.

The column has grown not just in terms of its scope but in the depth of its engagement. I’ve learned to see these issues through a broader lens, understanding that to truly illuminate a topic, you must delve into the reasons why people believe what they do, rather than simply dismissing opposing views. I am proud of the progress I’ve made, but I also know there is still much more to learn. As I move into this next phase, I am committed to continuing this journey of growth, always striving to be a more fair, clear-headed, and articulate voice in the discourse.

Conclusion: A Commitment to a Higher Standard

I pledge to be a better journalist, one who works tirelessly to provide both sides of every issue with fairness, clarity, and respect. I am committed to serving you, my readers, with integrity, transparency, and a focus on truth. This is my promise to you as I move forward into the next chapter of Controversy Corner.

Thank you for joining me on this journey. Together, we will continue to explore the most pressing issues of our time with a focus on rational discourse, balanced understanding, and a commitment to truth. Let’s build a stronger, more informed community — one that engages with these issues thoughtfully and articulately.

Chasing the American Spirit

The desire to accurately represent our history and honor the individuals and groups who stood on the right side of it is a noble and necessary goal. These men and women, all of them champions of liberty deserve recognition for their profound contributions to the American story. Their sacrifices, bravery, and dedication to the American spirit of liberty and justice for all. However, the method by which we choose to honor them must align with these ideals, fostering unity rather than division.

Heritage months such as Black History Month and Hispanic Heritage Month, while born from noble intentions, ultimately fail to foster inclusivity and unity. They isolate contributions as separate rather than essential to the broader American narrative. This separation reinforces distinctions that contradict the unity we aspire to achieve as fellow Americans.

This argument does not discount the noble goal of honoring those who have shaped our nation. Recognizing the contributions of individuals is vital, as is acknowledging the unique hardships they faced. Misdeeds such as Jim Crow, slavery, the Chinese Exclusion Act, and others must be acknowledged. However, these injustices were the product of individuals and systems that betrayed American ideals, not the true spirit of liberty, unity, and justice for all. To honor the virtues of the American spirit, we must separate these contradictions from the principles of unity and justice that define our national identity, whether acted through the government or not.

The Melting Pot: Embracing Diversity in Unity:

America thrives on diversity, but it is a unified diversity that strengthens us, not a fragmented one. Just as a great dish brings together a variety of ingredients to create a harmonious flavor, our nation is enriched by the unique traditions, heritages, and cultures that each group contributes. Our differences are beautiful, yet they become even more meaningful when blended into a shared culture rooted in liberty, justice, and equality.

Heritage months, however, interrupt this blending process by keeping the ingredients distinct. They reinforce separations that run counter to the idea of a cohesive national identity. While it is essential to honor the varied experiences and traditions that enrich our society, it is equally important to remember that we are all Americans, united by shared values. By isolating history by race or ethnicity, we risk losing sight of the bonds that tie us together as one nation.

Uplifting Universal Values Over Divisions:

We must honor the achievements of individuals like Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, César Chávez, Fred Korematsu and countless others, not as representatives of separate groups but as true Americans worthy of imitation, who shaped our collective history by embodying true American virtues despite the injustices and malpractice at the time. While it is true that the heroes of these movements disproportionately belong to certain races due to the unique challenges faced by their communities, their race or ethnicity was not the guiding force behind their actions. What drove them was their commitment to justice, equality, and freedom.

Defining individuals by their race alone is reductive and contradicts the dream expressed by Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who envisioned a nation where people "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." By framing these extraordinary individuals as mere representatives of a race rather than as virtuous Americans united by shared values, we undercut this dream and perpetuate divisions instead of fostering unity.

These extraordinary individuals, despite the circumstances they faced, rose against the darkness of their times. Chávez championed the rights of farmworkers, driven by his belief in fairness and the dignity of labor. Harriet Tubman risked her life to lead enslaved individuals to freedom, motivated by her unwavering belief in liberty. Douglass advocated for abolition and equality because he upheld the principle that all men are created equal. Korematsu challenged the injustice of Japanese American internment during World War II.  These figures inspire us to focus on what unites us rather than what divides us.

A Call to Action: Reuniting America’s History

To honor those who have contributed to our nation’s progress, our approach must reflect the unity we aspire to achieve, not the division of times progressed. History should not be divided by race or ethnicity but taught as one cohesive story that belongs to all Americans, reflecting the ongoing struggle between the virtues we hold dear and the times when those virtues were betrayed. America's darkest moments, such as slavery, segregation, and internment, contradict our nation's creed. Yet, the true American spirit, embodied by those who stood against such injustices, has consistently risen to conquer these dark times, reaffirming the enduring power of those founding principles. Within this story, the only meaningful distinctions are those who upheld the enduring virtues of liberty, justice, and equality versus those who betrayed these ideals.

This is not to downplay the importance of representation but to argue for an inclusive approach. By teaching the contributions of individuals like Chávez, Tubman, and Douglass alongside those of the founding fathers, we honor their legacies in a way that strengthens our shared identity. 

Proponents may argue that heritage months provide much-needed representation for historically marginalized groups and correct historical neglect. While this intention is admirable, overemphasizing specific groups through dedicated months risks perpetuating division rather than achieving the inclusivity we seek. Instead of focusing disproportionately on groups now because they were overlooked in the past, we should aim for accurate and balanced representation as the standard for how we teach history. By making comprehensive inclusivity the norm, rather than an exception marked by specific months, we set a higher bar for our nation and our children. Heritage months, though well-intentioned, undermine this vision by dividing what should be unified.

Critics also may contend that moving away from heritage months risks erasing the wrongs America has committed. However, this proposal does not seek to diminish or deny the injustices of the past. Slavery, Jim Crow, internment camps, and other wrongs must be taught as betrayals of our nation’s ideals, not erased or softened, even if it be the nation itself that committed these atrocities. By embedding these stories into a broader narrative that also highlights the resilience and values that overcame such evils, we ensure a truthful and inclusive account of our history. Heritage months, though well-intentioned, undermine this vision by dividing what should be unified.

To achieve this, we must take actionable steps to integrate these stories into our national identity. This begins with education. By embedding a curriculum that highlights the principles and achievements of figures like Douglass, Chávez, and Tubman alongside other foundational leaders, we create a narrative that unites us as Americans as well as distinguishing true American virtue versus the antithesis of such. These stories should be celebrated not as isolated triumphs of specific racial groups but as shared victories of a nation committed to progress.

I call on you, my fellow Americans, to recognize these individuals as crucial to our nation’s prosperity. Their principles of liberty, equality, and justice must define our collective identity. Let us honor them not for their race but for the values they championed and the courage they displayed. Together, we can move beyond divisions and celebrate the shared spirit that makes America great. By building a shared understanding of our history, we honor not just individuals or groups but the very essence of what it means to be American.

The TikTok Ban: A Constitutional and Necessary Measure

Understanding the Legislation

In recent months, the potential ban on TikTok has sparked fierce debate, with critics decrying it as unconstitutional and likening it to measures enacted by authoritarian regimes. This debate has intensified as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on January 19, 2025. The legislation in question, Senate Bill 686, also known as the "Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act" (RESTRICT Act), was introduced by Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) and Senator John Thune (R-SD). Its primary goal is to address legitimate national security concerns tied to TikTok’s ownership, specifically its connections to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and the risks of data exploitation and cultural subversion. The proposed ban seeks to sever a direct line of influence for a foreign adversary while safeguarding democratic principles.

The Constitutional Foundation of the RESTRICT Act

The RESTRICT Act aligns with the constitutional powers granted to Congress to regulate foreign commerce and address national security threats. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to enact laws to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," which includes measures to counteract foreign threats. Furthermore, the legislation’s focus on a specific, credible adversary—the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—and its use of TikTok as a potential tool for espionage ensures it does not infringe upon domestic freedoms unjustly. Legal precedents, such as Haig v. Agee (1981), affirm the government’s authority to limit certain activities when national security is at stake. By targeting a platform demonstrably tied to a foreign government’s intelligence apparatus, the RESTRICT Act falls well within the bounds of constitutionally supported legislation.

The Disturbing Reality of TikTok’s Terms and Conditions

TikTok’s terms and conditions reveal a dystopian level of data harvesting. Like other platforms such as Meta and X, TikTok collects vast amounts of user data, including location, device information, browsing habits, and even biometric identifiers. While such practices are problematic across the board, TikTok’s connection to ByteDance and, by extension, the CCP, elevates the threat significantly. Unlike Meta, where data is primarily sold to advertisers, TikTok’s data harvesting practices raise serious national security concerns. The potential for surveillance, cultural manipulation, and exploitation of this data cannot be ignored.

ByteDance and CCP Control

ByteDance’s ties to the CCP are undeniable, as Chinese law mandates corporate alignment with government objectives. The 2017 National Intelligence Law compels all Chinese companies and citizens to assist the state in intelligence-gathering when requested. Scholars like Dr. Nicholas Eftimiades emphasize that no entity operating within China’s jurisdiction can truly be independent of the CCP. ByteDance’s compliance with these laws leaves little doubt that it operates under the influence of the Chinese government, whether directly or indirectly.

Critics often point to TikTok’s Singapore-based CEO, Shou Chew as evidence of independence. However, Dr. Eftimiades and other experts argue that this leadership cannot act autonomously when Chinese laws demand absolute compliance with CCP directives. The Singaporean leadership’s ability to assert independence is fundamentally undermined by these legal obligations, which prioritize the CCP’s strategic goals over corporate autonomy. Additionally, TikTok’s extensive data harvesting, from location tracking to behavioral profiling, presents significant risks when placed in the hands of a government hostile toward Western democracies. Critics who argue that TikTok operates independently ignore the larger geopolitical reality of China’s strategic objectives.

China’s Past Attempts to Undermine the Western World

The CCP has consistently sought to undermine Western democracies, not through direct military confrontation but through economic, technological, and cultural subversion. China has engaged in intellectual property theft on an industrial scale, targeting U.S. companies and research institutions to advance its own capabilities. Programs like the Thousand Talents Program have been linked to efforts to siphon cutting-edge technology and trade secrets from Western nations. Additionally, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has been criticized for fostering economic dependency in participating countries, leveraging debt-trap diplomacy to expand China’s geopolitical influence.

Culturally, the CCP invests heavily in propaganda through state-run media outlets and Confucius Institutes, which operate under the guise of educational programs but have been accused of spreading pro-China narratives while stifling dissenting views. For instance, the 2015 proposal for a canal through Nicaragua to rival the Panama Canal, ostensibly a private venture, was later revealed to have CCP backing, aiming to increase China’s strategic influence in the Western Hemisphere. These examples highlight the CCP’s multifaceted strategy to erode Western influence. TikTok’s operations must be viewed through a similar lens: an ostensibly private enterprise acting as a proxy for state interests.

Distinguishing TikTok from Past Overreaches

Critics often equate the TikTok ban with historical examples of government overreach, such as McCarthyism, the Espionage Act of 1917, and controversies like federal pressure on platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. McCarthyism weaponized anti-communist sentiment in the 1950s to justify invasive investigations and accusations, creating a climate of fear. Similarly, the Espionage Act, initially aimed at protecting national security, led to widespread suppression of dissent and was later criticized for infringing on freedoms of speech. In recent history, federal pressure on platforms like Meta suppressed narratives such as the Wuhan lab leak theory, some of which were later validated.

Unlike these examples, the government’s actions against TikTok are not about controlling domestic narratives but about mitigating foreign influence. The ban’s goal is to protect national security by addressing a credible threat. ByteDance’s compliance with CCP directives and the app’s invasive data collection practices leave little doubt about the potential for misuse. Blocking TikTok is not about stifling freedom but preserving it from exploitation by adversaries.

Conclusion: Defending the Western World

The proposed TikTok ban is neither an overreach nor an infringement on fundamental freedoms. It is a decisive measure aimed at protecting the Western world from the far-reaching influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). By targeting TikTok, the U.S. is addressing a broader strategy by the CCP to undermine Western values, economies, and security. The stakes extend beyond safeguarding user data; this is a defense of the democratic principles and cultural independence that define the Western world.

Critics must recognize that the balance between freedom and security is delicate but necessary. While history offers cautionary tales of overreach, it also teaches the importance of vigilance in the face of genuine threats. The TikTok ban, far from being an act of suppression, is a defense against an adversary intent on exploiting the very freedoms we hold dear.

Welcome to the first issue of Controversy Corner! I’m Anthony Judd, and I’m excited to dive into one of the most divisive issues facing our nation today: abortion. In the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling in 2022, which overturned Roe v. Wade, the landscape of abortion laws in the United States has dramatically shifted, leaving states to navigate this complex terrain on their own. The magnitude of abortion in the U.S. is staggering; according to the Guttmacher Institute, approximately 1 in 4 women will have an abortion by age 45. In 2020 alone, there were 930,160 reported abortions in the United States (Guttmacher Institute). In this column, I will present my firm belief that abortion, defined as the intentional, unjustified ending of an innocent human life, is inherently wrong with a single exception, that being preservation of the mother. While I am a man, my sex has no bearing on my capacity for logical reasoning or moral judgment. To engage productively and honestly in this discussion, I urge you to focus on the merits of the arguments presented, rather than on the identity of the person making them. Let’s embark on this journey together, exploring the tough questions surrounding abortion and other critical issues that shape our society. Welcome to the conversation!

My argument goes as follows:

Premise 1: A fetus is a human life.

Premise 2: Murder is fundamentally wrong.

Premise 3: Abortion is unjustified; except for the preservation of the mother’s life.

Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is murder; thus, it is immoral.

A fetus is a human life. From conception, scientific consensus affirms that a zygote is a distinct human being with unique DNA (ACOG). This genetic blueprint, different from the mother’s or father’s, signals the start of human life. Early in development, human embryos display cellular organization and metabolic activity—hallmarks of life (NIH). Studies show that around 60% of women who view ultrasound images choose to continue their pregnancies, suggesting that greater awareness may change perceptions of abortion (APA). While some cite severe fetal abnormalities, such as Down syndrome, as grounds for abortion, this raises ethical concerns. As bioethicist Daniel Sulmasy argues, “Every human being, regardless of their potential disabilities, has inherent dignity and a right to life.” Many people with Down syndrome live meaningful lives and contribute positively to society (National Down Syndrome Society). Similarly, in cases of rape or incest, the circumstances of conception do not alter the intrinsic value of a child’s life. Ending these pregnancies based on the situation of conception creates a dangerous precedent—suggesting that some lives are worth less than others. This logic also applies to the notion that personhood begins at viability or birth, as it risks denying the rights of premature infants or those needing medical intervention. Ultimately, abortion based on fetal abnormalities, rape, or personal circumstances fails to justify the intentional termination of the child.

Murder is fundamentally wrong, defined as the intentional and unjustifiable killing of an innocent human being. In contrast, self-defense is an intentional act that is justified when protecting oneself from imminent harm, highlighting the complexity of moral choices. Abortion closely aligns with murder, as it involves the deliberate termination of a life without justifiable reason. The belief that terminating a pregnancy is acceptable based on personal inconvenience undermines the intrinsic value of human life. Notably, 93% of abortions occur within the first trimester (CDC), along with the previously cited drastic 60% decrease in abortion once mothers see ultrasounds; this suggests that many decisions are made with limited reflection on their gravity. The debate often hinges on balancing personal liberty with the value of life. The "Famous Violinist" argument posits that a person should have the right to disconnect from a dependent individual, even if that individual risks dying without that connection. However, this analogy fails to account for the fact that the person is unwillingly connected to the violinist. In contrast, pregnancy often results from consensual sex, where individuals willingly accept the risk of becoming pregnant, even when relying on contraceptives. Additionally, even in cases of non-consensual sex, such as rape, the child conceived still holds intrinsic value. The analogy of the ‘famous violinist’ fails to capture the profound difference between a temporary external connection and the biological reality of pregnancy, which involves a natural dependency between mother and child. Ending the life of the unborn child due to rape would create a second victim, rather than resolving the initial injustice. As philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson pointed out, pregnancy involves a profound relationship between two lives, which differs from the purely hypothetical scenario of the violinist. Thus, the intrinsic value of the life within the womb cannot be equated with that of a temporary connection. This distinction is crucial in understanding that while personal liberty is important, it cannot supersede the right to life. Therefore, it is imperative to convey that the act of abortion represents an unjustifiable choice when considering the inherent value of the human life involved.

Abortion is unjustified, except in the preservation of the mother’s life. Many individuals seeking abortion cite reasons such as financial strain and personal circumstances. In 2020, nearly 75% of women reported financial concerns as a primary reason for their decision to abort (Guttmacher Institute). While these challenges are understandable, they do not justify ending a developing human life. Abortion may be justified only when the pregnancy poses a direct threat to the mother’s life. In such tragic cases, the goal is not to end the unborn child’s life but to save the mother’s, recognizing that both lives hold equal value. This aligns with the principle of double effect in moral philosophy, which allows an unintended harm (the death of the fetus) if it is the only way to prevent a greater harm (the death of the mother). However, in all other circumstances, abortion represents the deliberate ending of a life, which remains unjustifiable. The belief that abortion is acceptable for convenience or personal hardship, such as the trauma from rape, assumes that the child should bear the consequences of tragic circumstances beyond their control. While rape victims face unimaginable pain of which was also beyond their control, it would be morally wrong to transfer that burden to their innocent child, again an articulation of the principle of double effect. Creating systems of support and justice for survivors, rather than ending a life, is a more ethical solution. Similarly, financial pressures and fears about parenting, though real, do not override the moral weight of ending a human life. Adoption remains a life-affirming alternative, with over 1 million families currently waiting to adopt newborns (NCA). This presents a loving alternative for women facing economic challenges, illustrating that life-affirming options exist. Addressing financial and social support for women can lead to more positive outcomes rather than endorsing abortion as a solution. Ultimately, the reasons often cited for seeking an abortion, including inconvenience and psychological burdens, do not provide sufficient justification for taking a life. Engaging in sexual activity inherently carries the risk of pregnancy, and individuals must accept that risk. Contraceptive methods can fail, and abortion cannot be viewed as a responsible solution to unintended pregnancy; instead, it must be recognized as an act that intentionally ends a developing human life.

In conclusion, the debate on abortion involves profound moral and ethical considerations. At the heart of my argument are three key premises: a fetus is a human life, murder is inherently wrong, and abortion is unjustified, except when the mother’s life is at risk. Scientific evidence supports the view that life begins at conception, affirming the value of each human life regardless of its stage of development or the circumstances of conception. While cases of rape, incest, and fetal abnormalities pose complex emotional challenges, these situations do not justify the deliberate ending of innocent life. Instead of shifting the burden of these tragedies onto the unborn, society must focus on compassionate solutions—support systems for survivors, adoption options, and financial assistance. Abortion is not a responsible response to unintended pregnancy, even when contraception fails, as engaging in sexual activity inherently involves accepting the risks associated with it. However, in rare instances where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, medical intervention may be necessary to save her, recognizing that both lives are equally valuable. This approach aligns with the principle of double effect, where an unintended harm, such as the loss of the fetus, is morally permissible only when it is the unavoidable consequence of saving another life. Abortion, in the vast majority of cases, represents an unjustifiable choice that disregards the intrinsic value of human life. As we move forward in this conversation, it is essential to foster thoughtful dialogue, focusing on the dignity of both mother and child. I encourage readers to engage with these difficult questions and explore ethical alternatives that affirm life. Thank you for joining me on this journey in the first issue of Controversy Corner. I look forward to hearing your perspectives as we tackle this and other challenging issues together.

Respond to my argument here

Introducing Controversy Corner: Charting a Path Through America’s Political No Man’s Land

In today’s world, talking about political or social issues can feel like walking on a tightrope. The moment you share an opinion, you risk being labeled or attacked. Instead of conversations, we see arguments, with each side more focused on defending their team than finding common ground.

That’s where Controversy Corner comes in. This column isn’t just a platform for me to share my views on the issues dividing us, but a space for you to respond and, together, explore solutions. My goal isn’t to persuade you to my side; it’s to foster real, respectful discussions where we can learn from each other.

The challenges we face as a society are too big to be solved by division—we need unity, dialogue, and action. This isn’t about winning; it’s about working together as Americans to tackle the tough issues that affect us all. Let’s talk, debate, and most importantly, listen.

Welcome to Controversy Corner.