Quality debate between vividly recognisable human types.
Briefly putting the case, we have William F. Buckley Jr., longtime programme host, immediately supported by decorated Marine colonel John Ripley, a man of immense credibility, with traditional America visibly embedded within him. He is followed by a reformed hippie, David Horowitz, coming across with all the zeal of the convert, and the articulate right-wing polemicist Elaine Donnelly to make up four.
On the other side are the equalities and human rights lobby, clearly led by the redoubtable Wilma Vaught, a brigadier for whom combative would not be the word, backed by equally confrontational civil libertarian Ira Glasser, the telegenic congresswoman Pat Schroeder and the undeniably charming and persuasive Secretary of the Air Force, Heather Wilson.
The Affirmatives seem to be saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The Negatives lean a lot of weight on individual qualifications and 'the best candidate'. Ripley, in particular, questions what is meant by 'best', while Vaught questions what is meant by 'combat', and Donnelly criticises the weighting of test-scores in the interests of perceived equality - interestingly cited by Horowitz as a possible cause of sexual harassment by way of protest.
By mentioning the Israelis briefly in passing, Buckley misses his chance to remind us that their uniquely experienced army has proved, in battle, that you cannot train male soldiers to abandon a wounded female comrade.