Open to Debate

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement that supporters say could strengthen ties, advance normalization, and give Washington greater influence over the kingdom’s nuclear ambitions. Critics warn that without stronger restrictions on uranium enrichment and inspections, assistance could create a pathway toward nuclear weapons and weaken nonproliferation norms. Would American involvement reduce the risks or enable them? Now we debate: Does the U.S.-Saudi Civil Nuclear Agreement Serve America's Interests?  Arguing Yes:  Daniel Poneman, Former Deputy Secretary of Energy; Distinguished Fellow of the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center and Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security  Amos Hochstein, Former White House Senior Advisor to President Biden; Managing Partner at TWG Global  Arguing No:  Sharon Squassoni, Research Professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University; Former Director of Nonproliferation and Prevention at CSIS  Joe Cirincione, Former Director for Non-Proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace   Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  This debate was produced in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations.  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As world attention descends on the United Nations General Assembly, Open to Debate is once again casting a critical lens on this over 80-year-old global organization. To this day, questions are still mounting as to whether the United Nations itself is both ineffective and outdated, or whether an institution created for the world of 1945 is equipped for, and can effectively meet, today's challenges. Now we debate: Is the United Nations Obsolete?   ARGUING YES:  Rajan Menon, Political Scientist & Spitzer Professor Emeritus of International Relations at the City College of New York  Nile Gardiner, Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at The Heritage Foundation  ARGUING NO:  Angela Kane, German Diplomat and Senior Fellow at Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation; Former UN Under-Secretary-General  Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, Scholar & Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mauritania  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What shapes us more: our DNA or the way we’re raised? The “nature” camp points to genetic research and studies of twins raised apart, arguing that traits from personality to abilities are strongly influenced by inherited biology, limiting how much parenting can shape who children become. The “nurture” camp argues upbringing, culture, and parental choices profoundly influence development and behavior. So which matters more? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in November 2019 ARGUING YES:  Robert Plomin, Professor of Behavioral Genetics at King’s College London  Nancy Segal, Professor of Psychology at California State University, Fullerton and Director at the Twin Studies Center  ARGUING NO:  Paige Harden, Psychology Professor at the University of Texas  Ann Pleshette Murphy, Author & Parenting Expert  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Recent twin studies: ⁠Parenting in Childhood Predicts Personality in Early Adulthood: A Longitudinal Twin-Differences Study⁠ (APA, 2025) ⁠Genetics of monozygotic twins reveals the impact of environmental sensitivity on psychiatric and neurodevelopmental phenotypes⁠ (Nature Human Behavior, 2025) ⁠Longitudinal associations between cognitive ability and socioeconomic status are partially genetic in Nature⁠ (Scientific Reports, 2026) Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A century after Henry Ford helped popularize the five-day, 40-hour week, could working 32 hours be next? Supporters say shorter weeks can improve well-being without sacrificing productivity, especially as AI would make workers more efficient. Others warn it would strain industries that require continuous staffing and force Americans to rethink everything from school and healthcare schedules to expectations of around-the-clock availability. We debate: Is America Ready for a Four-Day Work Week?  Arguing Yes: Juliet Schor, Economist and Sociologist at Boston College    Arguing No: Joanne Lipman, Bestselling Author, Journalist, and Former Media Executive  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Capitalism has long been credited with driving innovation and prosperity, yet many Americans increasingly believe the system is no longer working for them. Is the problem capitalism itself or the policies surrounding it? In this debate, an entrepreneur and venture capitalist faces a prominent economist with a competing vision to examine inequality, economic opportunity, and the future of the American economy. Now we debate: Is Capitalism Broken?  Arguing Yes: Nick Hanauer, Entrepreneur and Venture Capitalist   Arguing No: Jason Furman, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  After you’ve listened to the debate, let us know where you stand on the motion! VOTE HERE: ⁠https://bit.ly/podcastcapitalismvote ⁠ We will reveal the results of the vote in our Substack newsletter on Saturday, September 5th, so make sure to ⁠subscribe⁠. Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The dangers of climate change are “no longer over the horizon.” Humanity may soon pass the “point of no return.” These are the phrases U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres used to describe what he called an “utterly inadequate” global response to rising temperatures. But if we were to decisively act and restructure our global economy with the climate in mind, who would shoulder the burden? Or should our collective focus orient more toward humans’ capacity for adaptation?  This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in July 2022. Arguing Yes:   Bjorn Lomborg, Author of the Bestsellers "Cool It" and "The Skeptical Environmentalist"; Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center  Matthew Kahn, Provost Professor of Economics and Spatial Sciences at the University of Southern California  Arguing No:  Michele Wucker, Economic Policy Expert & Founder of Gray Rhino & Company  Kaveh Madani, Environmental Scientist; Former Vice President of the United Nations Environment Assembly Bureau; Former Deputy Head of Iran’s Department of Environment  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Near-death experiences have long challenged our understanding of consciousness and mortality. Some who come close to death report leaving their bodies, encountering vivid visions, or feeling profound peace. Are these experiences evidence that consciousness can survive death — or can they be explained by what happens in a dying brain? This 2014 debate is one we're still thinking about today. We ask whether science can reveal what, if anything, awaits us after we die.  Arguing Yes: Eben Alexander, Former Neurosurgeon; Author of "Proof of Heaven"  Raymond Moody, Medical Doctor; Author of "Life After Life"  Arguing No:  Sean Carroll, Physicist & Writer  Steven Novella, Academic Neurologist at the Yale School of Medicine  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The midterms are coming up this fall, and right now we are in the middle of a contentious primary season, with a lot of new faces challenging incumbents—and many winning. It’s in this context that we revisit our debate from 2022: Are Primary Elections Ruining Democracy?  Arguing YES  Elaine Kamarck, Founding Director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution  Arguing NO  Jed Ober, Former Director of Programs at Democracy International and Former Chief of Staff for Pennsylvania Congresswoman Susan Wild  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As America celebrates 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, the legacy of the Founders is under renewed scrutiny. Were they visionary architects of liberty whose achievements and creations should be celebrated, or has reverence for them sanitized the past, how we think of democracy, and the compromises embedded in the nation's founding? As the U.S. marks its semiquincentennial, we debate: Is It Time to Stop Idolizing the Founders?  Arguing Yes: Osita Nwanevu, Contributing Editor at The New Republic; Columnist at The Guardian  Arguing No: Helena Rosenblatt, Distinguished Professor of History, French, and Political Science, and the MA Program in Liberal Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Fifty years after the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment, the death penalty remains one of America's most divisive issues. Supporters argue it delivers justice for the most heinous crimes, provides closure for victims’ families, and ensures the worst offenders can never kill again. Opponents point to wrongful convictions, racial disparities, and the moral consequences of allowing the state to take a life, arguing that life without parole is enough. Now we debate: Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in April 2015.   Arguing YES:  Diann Rust-Tierney, Executive Director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty  Barry Scheck, Co-Director of the Innocence Project and Professor at Cardozo Law School  Arguing NO:  Robert Blecker, Professor at New York Law School  Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Forget "happily ever after." As marriage and birth rates fall, young adults have less sex, and assumptions about love and commitment are being challenged. In this episode of “Generational Divides,” Reason editor-at-large Nick Gillespie brings together a Gen X-er, a Millennial, and a Gen Z-er to debate these questions about intimacy and love in the 21st century: Should Gen Z have more sex? Is monogamy overrated? Should people have more babies?  For Gen X: James J. Sexton, Divorce Lawyer and Author of "How to Stay in Love"  For Millennials: Carolyn Gorman, Fellow at the Manhattan Institute  For Gen Z: Malavika Kannan, Author and Writer of the "Quarter Life Crisis" Substack  Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason, is the guest moderator.  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After signing a Memorandum of Understanding in June, the U.S. and Iran entered a delicate peace. As negotiators worked toward a permanent deal, one question loomed: Who won the war in Iran — Tehran or Trump? Hours after we concluded a debate on that very question, strikes resumed. By morning, President Trump declared the truce over. Today, we bring you that debate, and the question of who holds the upper hand, and what has been gained and lost, is more pressing than ever.  Note: This debate was recorded on Tuesday, July 7, 2026, before the verbal dissolution of the Islamabad Memorandum and the resumption of military action in the Iran War.  Arguing "Tehran is Winning": Suzanne Maloney, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution  Arguing "Trump is Winning": Matthew Kroenig, Vice President for Geostrategy and Fellows and Senior Director of the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As a bonus, today we’re sharing a special episode of The Blessings of Liberty, a new podcast from Open to Debate debater Jeffrey Rosen and our friends at FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. In celebration of America’s 250th anniversary, Jeffrey sits down with award-winning filmmaker Ken Burns, walking through the Declaration of Independence, clause by clause, to encapsulate the big ideas at the heart of the American story. The Blessings of Liberty is a weekly podcast hosted by Jeffrey Rosen — CEO Emeritus of the National Constitution Center, professor of law at George Washington University Law School, and senior fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Learn more and subscribe on Substack, Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get podcasts. To continue the conversation, visit Open to Debate’s Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The American Dream – the idea that anyone can achieve success in the U.S. through hard work and determination – is under scrutiny, and some worry it’s no longer achievable for the broader population. Those who agree say increasing healthcare, education, and housing costs create difficulty in having financial stability. Those who disagree argue that the U.S. still offers more opportunities for personal and financial growth than elsewhere. Now we debate: Is the American Dream in Decline? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in January 2024.   Arguing Yes: David Leonhardt, Pulitzer Prize-winning Senior Writer for The New York Times and The Morning; Author of “Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream”   Arguing No: Michael Strain, Political Economy Scholar and Director of Economic Policy Studies at American Enterprise Institute; Author of “The American Dream Is Not Dead: (But Populism Could Kill It)”   Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Happiness is a complex emotion and mental state that can be achieved through virtue or pleasure. But should it be for the good of the individual or society? Those in favor of virtue point to the Stoics and the Founding Fathers, saying you should strive for a life of moral virtue and rationality. Those in favor of pleasure say everyone should be able to experience it and define their sources of happiness. Now we debate: The Pursuit of Happiness: Virtue or Pleasure?  Arguing Virtue: Jeffrey Rosen, CEO & President of the National Constitution Center; Author of “The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America”  Arguing Pleasure: Roger Crisp, Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford; Uehiro Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, Oxford  Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator.  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As the Iran war reshapes the Middle East and raises new questions about America’s role in the world, Danielle Pletka and Julia Ioffe join moderator-in-chief John Donvan at the Cascade PBS Ideas Festival for a debate-esque conversation on U.S. foreign policy in President Trump’s second term. From Iran and Russia to global stability and American leadership, they offer competing visions for navigating an increasingly volatile world.  Our Guests:  Julia Ioffe, Founding Partner and Washington Correspondent at Puck; Author of "Motherland"  Danielle Pletka, Distinguished Senior Fellow in Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As democratic governments, universities, and civil society organizations grapple with how to engage China, an ethical question persists: should cooperation with Chinese state institutions, which involve every industry from education to commerce, be pursued as a pathway to gradual, meaningful progress, or does such engagement ultimately legitimize repression and undermine fundamental freedoms? In partnership with the Human Rights Foundation, we debate: Is It Ethical to Cooperate with Chinese State Institutions to Secure Incremental Change?  Arguing Yes: Joanna Chiu, Managing Partner of Nüora Global Advisors; Author of "China Unbound"  Arguing No: Isaac Stone Fish, CEO and Founder of Strategy Risks  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Birthright citizenship guarantees citizenship to anyone born within the United States’ territory, regardless of a parent’s nationality. But should this legal principle be removed from the Constitution? Those arguing it shouldn’t say that it prevents children from being punished for their parents’ status, while encouraging long-term economic and civic contributions. But those calling to end the practice argue it fuels illegal immigration and strains the overburdened immigration system. Now, we debate: Should America End Birthright Citizenship? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in October 2025. Arguing Yes:   Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies  Horace Cooper, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research; Chairman of the Project 21 National Advisory Board  Arguing No:   Kris Mayes, Arizona Attorney General  Chris Newman, Legal Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON)  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

These days, it can feel like raising kids has become a minefield. Somewhere along the way, older generations started looking at younger generations and asking, “Are the parents alright?” In this episode of “Generational Divides", Reason editor-at-large Nick Gillespie and parents from three generations tackle some of the thorniest questions in modern parenting around social media, gentle parenting, and whether kids should be free to roam.  Our Guests:  For Baby Boomers: Lenore Skenazy, Co-founder of the Free-Range Kids movement  For Gen X: Reshma Saujani, Founder of Girls Who Code; CEO of Moms First  For Millennials: Kristin Gallant, Co-founder of Big Little Feelings  Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason, is the guest moderator.  Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Global powers are increasingly shaping markets and taking equity positions in strategic industries. But recently, Washington’s role in the economy has expanded, with stakes in companies like Intel, different from its traditionally hands-off approach. Could strategic government investment be a source of strength and competitiveness—or should it remain a true last resort, preserving a system that allows markets to determine winners and losers? We debate: Government as Shareholder: Proactive Competitive Strategy or Last Resort?  This debate was created in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations and was recorded on May 18, 2026, at 6 PM.  Arguing "Proactive Competitive Strategy":  Laura Taylor-Kale, Senior Fellow for Geoeconomics and Defense at the Council of Foreign Relations and Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy  Richard Falkenrath, Senior Fellow for National Security at the Council on Foreign Relations; MJ Chung Distinguished Chair at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University  Arguing "Last Resort":  Bob Pozen, Distinguished Senior Lecturer at MIT Sloan School of Management; Former President of Fidelity Investments  Yasheng Huang, Epoch Foundation Professor of Global Economics and Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management; Author of "The Rise and the Fall of the EAST”  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Modern science has given us the ability to edit our genes, life-saving vaccines, and glimpse the origins of the universe. But is the same system holding itself back? Critics argue that the pressure to publish and fierce competition for funding rewards safe, incremental work over bold thinking. Others see a system still capable of paradigm-shifting discoveries — one where global collaborations and long-term thinking motivate scientists to pursue grand, ambitious ideas. Now we debate: Is the Scientific Enterprise Too Risk-Averse?  This debate was produced in partnership with the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University, as part of The Hopkins Forum series. Arguing Yes:  Tyler Cowen, Author of "The Great Stagnation"; Economics Professor at George Mason University; Founder of Emergent Ventures; Host of "Conversations with Tyler" podcast   Brandon Ogbunu, Computational Biologist; Associate Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Yale University; Professor at the Santa Fe Institute  Arguing No:   Kate Biberdorf (“Kate the Chemist”), Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at the University of Notre Dame; Science Entertainer  The Honorable Sethuraman Panchanathan, 15th Director of the National Science Foundation; University Professor of Technology and Innovation and Foundation Chair at Arizona State University  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For centuries, museums in Europe and the U.S. built their collections during eras of empire and unequal power. Now, institutions face growing calls to return artifacts taken through colonial rule or war, from the Benin Bronzes to Indigenous objects. Supporters say repatriation corrects historical injustice and restores sacred objects to their communities. Critics argue that museums serve a global public and that these works represent shared human heritage. Now we debate: Should Museums Repatriate Cultural Artifacts? Arguing Yes:   Chika Okeke-Agulu, Artist, Curator, and Professor of Art and Archaeology and African American Studies at Princeton University  Leila Amineddoleh, Art and Cultural Heritage Lawyer; Chair of the Firm’s Art Law Group at Tarter Krinsky & Drogin  Arguing No:   Dominic Selwood, Historian, Author, Journalist, and Barrister  Mario Trabucco della Torretta, Classical Archaeologist  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It turns out your favorite artist is a monster. Say they committed murder, advocated genocide, or engaged in some other act so outside the scope of a dignified, respectable society that it cannot be redeemed. What now? Must you throw the art out with the artists? It's a question at the heart of both pop culture and high art critique. For some, a work of art is an entity in itself. It should be appreciated and revered without regard to the life of its creator. If we disregard all great art for the sins of the artists, we risk losing many of the world's greatest cultural touchstones and masterpieces. But for others, the act of supporting a work of art translates directly affirming its creator's evil acts. In this timeless debate, we ask: Should we separate the art from the artist? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in September 2022. ARGUING YES:  Randy Cohen, Writer & Humorist     ARGUING NO:  Aruna D'Souza, Writer & Art Critic      Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Your doctor tells you that, should you wish to have a child, that child is likely also to carry the disease. But a new gene-editing technology could ensure that your baby is -- and remains -- healthy. Should you do it? Critics say the technology will exacerbate inequality and meddle in the most basic aspect of our humanity. Now, we debate: Should We Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in February 2022. Arguing Yes: Dr. George Church, Geneticist & Founder, Personal Genome Project; Professor, Genetics, Wyss Institute and Harvard Medical School Amy Webb, Chief Executive Officer, Future Today Strategy Group; Professor, NYU Stern School of Business  Arguing No: Marcy Darnovsky, Executive Director, Emerita, Center for Genetics and Society  Françoise Baylis, Distinguished Research Professor, Emerita, Dalhousie University; President, Royal Society of Canada  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Artificial intelligence has ignited one of the most spectacular surges of investment, hype, and technological promise, but some worry that the enthusiasm is resembling a bubble, with valuations racing ahead of fundamentals and enormous compute and energy costs that could undermine long-term profitability. But others note this bubble is different because AI is already embedded across the economy, not confined, and infrastructure is being created to sustain demand. Now we debate: Will the AI Bubble Burst?  Arguing Yes: Ryan Cummings, Chief of Staff at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Arguing No: Magnus Grimeland, Venture Capital Investor; Founder and CEO of Antler  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Even with a fragile ceasefire in place between the U.S., Israel, and Iran, we wanted to revisit this prescient debate from last fall. In the past few weeks of war, autonomous systems, AI-driven targeting, and drones were heavily used by both sides leading some to fear we’re rapidly approaching a future of warfare that takes human decision making out of the loop entirely. Are we ready for that? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in October 2025. Arguing "Human":  Elliot Ackerman, Former Marine Raider Officer and CIA Special Activities Officer; Bestselling Author  Laura Walker McDonald, Senior Advisor for New Technologies & Conflict at the International Committee of the Red Cross   Arguing "AI":   Michael C. Horowitz, Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation at the Council on Foreign Relations; Director of Perry World House and Richard Perry Professor at the University of Pennsylvania  Jack Shanahan, Inaugural Director of Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, Office of the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

At some point, we all ask: “Is this what I’m meant to do?” In this "Think Twice" episode, social scientist Arthur C. Brooks joins Open to Debate's CEO Lia Matthow to explore why meaning feels harder to find. Drawing on research from his book "The Meaning of Your Life: Finding Purpose in an Age of Emptiness," Brooks argues modern life pushes us toward shallow solutions that miss deeper human needs, and offers a path back to purpose, connection, and a life that truly feels lived.  Our Guest: Arthur C. Brooks, New York Times Bestselling Author of "The Meaning of Your Life: Finding Purpose in an Age of Emptiness"; Professor at Harvard University; Columnist at The Free Press   Lia Matthow, CEO of Open to Debate, is the guest moderator.  Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

NASA is preparing for the Artemis II mission — a major step back into deep space to explore the Moon. But as NASA, SpaceX, and other private companies are also working on plans to make Mars humanity’s next frontier, what comes next, and should Mars be the bigger priority? Those arguing “yes” say the U.S. should do it first before China, while opponents say major challenges make colonization unrealistic. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Prioritize Settling Mars? Arguing Yes: Eric Berger, Senior Space Editor at Ars Technica  Arguing No: Shannon Stirone, Freelance Science Writer  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates   Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Sports fans can place bets on their favorite teams and athletes faster and easier than before, thanks to legalized sports gambling. But was it the wrong bet to make? Advocates say it’s been good for fans, the economy, and the sports industry.  Those who say that what’s happened since legalization is a bad thing, say it’s driven a rise in gambling addiction and created a public health crisis. Now we debate: Has Legalizing Sports Gambling Become A Bad Bet? Arguing Yes: Harry Levant, Director of Gambling Policy at the Public Health Advocacy Institute   Arguing No: Bill Pascrell III, Partner at Princeton Public Affairs Group  Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator.  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Where do you watch the latest movie everyone’s talking about—on Netflix at home or in a packed theater? Are theaters the irreplaceable heart of cinema, creating cultural moments and spectacle, or is streaming the future with its convenience and global reach? Two high-level Hollywood insiders, a former president of The Academy versus a film executive, debate in time for the Oscars: The Future of Film: Big Screen or Stream?  Arguing "Big Screen": Hawk Koch, Film Producer; Former President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the Producers Guild of America  Arguing "Stream": Chris Aronson, Former President Of Domestic Theatrical Distribution at Paramount Pictures  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

AI can write code, diagnose diseases, design buildings, and create art. Tools like ChatGPT, Claude and autonomous robots are transforming industries once seen as automation-proof, fueling fears of mass job loss. Some argue that machines will become so efficient that they will one day replace most human labor. Others say AI will augment work, not erase it, and historically, people have feared innovation killing jobs, which arguably hasn't come to pass. Now we debate: Will AI Make Work Obsolete?  Arguing Yes:  Andrew Yang, Founder of the Forward Party, Former Presidential Candidate  Simon Johnson, Nobel Prize-winning Economist; Professor of Entrepreneurship and Head of the Global Economics and Management Group at MIT  Arguing No:  Chris Hughes, Co-Founder of Facebook; Chair of the Economic Security Project; Author of "Marketcrafters"  Rumman Chowdhury, CEO of Humane Intelligence PBC; Former U.S. Science Envoy for Artificial Intelligence  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  The Hopkins Forum is a partnership between Open to Debate and Johns Hopkins University’s SNF Agora Institute. This flagship series consists of live debates in Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, bringing together diverse perspectives to tackle today’s most pressing issues. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Are we in a News Media Golden Age, or a fragmented era? In this “Generational Divides” episode, Reason editor-at-large Nick Gillespie brings together Baby Boomer, Millennial, and Gen Z voices to debate how our media landscape is changing. Are more platforms expanding truth, or blurring the line between news and entertainment? Are journalists accountable to funders, audiences, or the truth? As industry shakeups like recent Washington Post layoffs signal change, what does the future of news media look like?  For Baby Boomers: Kurt Andersen, Novelist, and Former Host of NPR's "Studio 360"; Co-founder of Spy magazine  For Millennials: Nellie Bowles, Journalist & Co-Founder of The Free Press   For Gen Z: Rachel Janfaza, Journalist & Founder of The Up and Up Substack; Contributor to The Bulwark  Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason, is the guest moderator.  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today we're playing you an episode of Smart Girl Dumb Questions, a show hosted by journalist and frequent Open to Debate guest moderator Nayeema Raza. She speaks to Andrew Ross Sorkin about some highly-debated topics, from a looming market crash to AI battles to … whether we actually learned anything from past recessions (especially that one in 2008!).  Get more Smart Girl Dumb Questions on Apple, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get podcasts. Nayeema has compelling conversations with Mark Cuban on if billionaires can save us, Paul Krugman about whether we’re counting the economy wrong, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye about what happened to expertise and science guys and Esther Perel on why it’s harder to fall in love in 2020s vs the 1980s. Guaranteed to make you laugh & learn every Tuesday.  We also highly recommend Andrew Ross Sorkin’s bestselling book ⁠1929⁠. For more insightful conversation, visit Open to Debate's Substack—share your perspectives and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow Open to Debate on Youtube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Your smartphone feels sleek and futuristic—but the supply chain behind it is anything but. In this conversation with moderator-in-chief John Donvan, journalist and “The Elements of Power” author Nicolas Niarchos showcases how lithium-ion batteries rely on cobalt mined under dangerous, exploitative conditions. Tracing a line from colonialism to today’s U.S.–China power struggle, he asks us to Think Twice on this question: what human and environmental costs are hidden inside the technology that powers modern life?  Our Guest: Nicolas Niarchos, Journalist and Author of “The Elements of Power”  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Love in the time of AI? Some people seeking romance or friendship are turning to AI chatbots to fulfill those desires, but could they surpass traditional human relationships? Those who say they can argue that AI can offer empathy and safety, and it’s a solution for those left out of traditional dating. Those saying they can’t argue that intimacy is complicated and cannot be replicated in code. Now we debate: Could Dating an AI Be Better Than Dating a Human?  Arguing Yes: Thao Ha, Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the @HEART Lab at Arizona State University    Arguing No: Justin Garcia, Executive Director & Senior Scientist at the Kinsey Institute; Chief Scientific Advisor to Match.com; Author of "The Intimate Animal"  Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator.  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Greenland has become a geopolitical flashpoint. President Trump wants control of it, or at least sovereignty over some areas for military purposes, arguing that the United States gaining some territorial rights in Greenland is a necessity for U.S. security. But some leaders worry that a power grab could pit NATO against the U.S. and weaken an already fragile world order. Now we debate: Is U.S. Control of Limited Territory In Greenland a Strategic Necessity?  Arguing Yes:  Alexander B. Gray, Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council; Former Deputy Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff of the White House National Security Council  Michael Pillsbury, Senior Advisor for the President’s Office at The Heritage Foundation  Arguing No:  Kori Schake, Senior Fellow and the Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)  Max Boot, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; Columnist at The Washington Post  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In December of 2025, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul announced that after months of negotiations with the state legislature, she was finally ready to sign into law a new bill allowing some patients to request medical assistance in dying, or MAID. That bill is currently sitting on her desk waiting for her signature.  This type of bill has become more and more common. In 1994, Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act, becoming the first state to allows physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Now 12 states plus the District of Columbia have laws on the books allowing physicians to assist patients in ending their life, within limits. Patients must have a prognosis of less than six months to live, and they must take the medication themselves.   As more and more states discuss passing their own versions of these bills, we revisit the debate we had on this very topic in 2014. The motion that we debated: Legalize assisted suicide. While the preferred language has changed to Medical Aid in Dying, the thorny ethical questions and the complicated medical judgments remain unchanged.  Will these laws lead to a slippery slope, where the vulnerable are pressured to choose death and human life is devalued? Or do we need to recognize everyone's basic right to autonomy, the right to end pain and suffering, and the right to choose to die with dignity?  This debate was recorded live in November of 2014 at the Kaufman Music Center in New York. Arguing Yes:   Peter Singer: Co-Founder of the Effective Altruism movement. Professor of Bioethics, Emeritus, Princeton University. Podcast host, "Lives Well Lived" Andrew Solomon: Author of “Far From the Tree”, Professor of Clinical Psychology at Columbia University and Weill Cornell Medical College. He also researches at Yale School of Medicine. Currently writing a book about suicide.   Arguing No:   Ilora Finlay, The Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: Former President of the British Medical Association, Member of the House of Lords. Daniel Sulmasy: André Hellgers Professor of Biomedical Ethics in the Departments of Medicine and Philosophy and Director of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University.   A few links to articles on the topic:  New York to become latest state to allow aid in dying. What is it? ,USA Today  Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die? New York Times  The country gave its citizens the right to die. Doctors are struggling to keep up with demand. The Atlantic Magazine  Join the conversation on ⁠Substack⁠—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on ⁠YouTube⁠, ⁠Instagram⁠, ⁠LinkedIn⁠, ⁠X⁠, ⁠Facebook⁠, and ⁠TikTok⁠ to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Every click, search, and online purchase feeds the data economy, driving AI, global business, and even political campaigns. But with risks growing in the private and public spheres, is Big Data advancing society or undermining its foundations? Supporters argue Big Data powers innovation by fueling breakthroughs in medicine, public health, and everyday efficiency. Yet critics warn that it erodes privacy, concentrates power, and threatens democracy. In the age of algorithms and analytics, is Big Data a necessary innovation or a dangerous intrusion?  Arguing "Innovation": Kenneth Cukier, Deputy Executive Editor at The Economist   Arguing "Intrusion": Carissa Véliz, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Philosophy and the Institute for Ethics in AI at the University of Oxford  Xenia Wickett, Geopolitical strategist, moderator at Wickett Advisory, and Trustee of Transparency International UK, is the guest moderator.  Join the conversation on our Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Prostitution remains heavily stigmatized and legally complex globally. Those in favor of paying for sex and support decriminalization argue that it’s a profession that deserves as much respect as any other. Those against it, and who support the Nordic Model, argue that prostitution leads to inequities between sex buyers and workers, exploitation, and coercion, and can open the door to human trafficking. Now we debate: Is It OK to Pay for Sex?  Arguing Yes: Kaytlin Bailey, Sex Workers Rights Advocate; Founder & Executive Director of Old Pros and Host of “The Oldest Profession Podcast”   Arguing No: Yasmin Vafa, Human Rights Attorney; Co-Founder and Executive Director at Rights4Girls  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Millions of people have credited Alcoholics Anonymous with helping them stay sober from alcohol, but is it the best path for everyone? Those who say “yes” argue it is easily accessible to all and that its structure through the 12-step program helps people succeed. Those who say “no” argue say the abstinence model doesn’t work for everyone and there may be better alternatives. Now we debate: Does AA Work?   Arguing Yes: Dan Griffin, Expert on Alcoholics Anonymous; Author of “A Man’s Way Through the Twelve Steps”  Arguing No: Adi Jaffe, Founder of IGNTD; Author of “The Abstinence Myth”  Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From the 19th Amendment to the #MeToo movement, the feminist movement has profoundly reshaped society. But have its good intentions backfired? Those arguing it hasn’t note that it’s allowed women the choice of living on their own terms. But critics argue that its culture glorifying full-time careerism and independence can make women feel inadequate if they prefer traditional roles like having a family. Now we debate: Has Feminism Hurt Women?  Arguing Yes: Inez Stepman, Senior Policy and Legal Analyst at the Independent Women's Forum and Independent Women’s Law Center     Arguing No: Wendy Walsh, Relationship Journalist; Host of ”The Dr. Wendy Walsh Show” on iHeart Radio’s KFI AM 640    Xenia Wickett, Geopolitical strategist, moderator at Wickett Advisory, and Trustee of Transparency International UK, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

America is suffering from a loneliness epidemic. Some groups have suggested religious communities may be key to solving it. Could it help? Those arguing “yes” say it gives people regular social contact, support systems, and a sense of purpose that could combat isolation. Those arguing “no” say that secular options would provide better, broad-based solutions. Now we debate: Can Religion Cure the Loneliness Epidemic?    Arguing Yes:   Harold Koenig, Director of Duke University’s Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health   Chris Murphy, Senator from Connecticut     Arguing No:  Ruth Whippman, Author of "America the Anxious: How Our Pursuit of Happiness Is Creating a Nation of Nervous Wrecks" and "BOYMOM: Reimagining Boyhood in the Age of Impossible Masculinity."  Dan Barker, Co-President of the Freedom from Religion Foundation  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Couples have arguments over many topics. However, it’s through resolving conflict that both people in the relationship feel heard and seen. Psychotherapist, relationship expert, and New York Times-bestselling author Esther Perel says conflict when navigated skillfully can lead to growth, resilience, and a stronger bond. In this conversation with John Donvan, Perel shares her experience working with different relationship types, strategies for transforming conflict into a constructive dialogue, and the importance of validating both sides’ perspectives.    Our guest: Esther Perel, Psychotherapist and New York Times bestselling author     Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Has Big Tech become too powerful? Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, Meta, and Microsoft shape how we shop, communicate, and consume information. But has their dominance gone too far? Advocates argue these firms are monopolies that harm competition, exploit consumer data, and wield disproportionate influence over public discourse. Structural reforms would restore fairness and innovation. But critics warn that breakups could damage user experience, slow innovation, and disrupt integrated ecosystems people rely on. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Government Break Up Big Tech? Arguing Yes:   Bharat Ramamurti, Founder of The Bully Pulpit; Former Deputy Director of the National Economic Council   Matt Stoller, Director of Research at the American Economic Liberties Project     Arguing No:   Geoffrey A. Manne, President and Founder of the International Center for Law & Economics  Jennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow in Technology Policy at the Cato Institute    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    This debate was produced in partnership with the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University, as part of The Hopkins Forum series. It was recorded in front of a live audience on Thursday, December 4, 2025 at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Center. Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What does it take to moderate a debate? How do we keep conversations civil when the world feels so polarized? In celebration of our launch on Substack, moderator-in-chief John Donvan joins Nayeema Raza and Reason’s Nick Gillespie for a lively conversation on the craft of moderation and the art of asking questions that reveal rather than inflame. Featuring audience Q&A and behind-the-scenes insight, this episode offers a candid look at how meaningful dialogue is created today.  Our Guests:   John Donvan, Open to Debate's Moderator-in-Chief and Emmy award-winning journalist  Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions"  Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason  Debates Referenced During this Inside Edition  13:03 - Should America End Birthright Citizenship? 19:22 - Is It Time To Break Up With Dating Apps? 20:34 - Replace Private Insurance with Medicare for All 20:38 - Should We Legalize Drugs? 20:41 - Preserve Net Neutrality: All Data Is Created Equal 21:14 - Is America Too Obsessed With Race? 27:04 - Is the American Dream in Decline? 28:35 - The Universal Basic Income Is The Safety Net Of The Future  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Effective altruism is a philosophical and social movement that uses empirical data to maximize the impact of charitable efforts. Those who champion EA praise its methodological framework for maximizing the effectiveness of donations, thus ensuring equal consideration for all individuals. Those who challenge EA argue that its emphasis on measurable outcomes may overlook important yet hard-to-quantify causes, potentially restricting the scope of what's considered beneficial. Now we debate: Does the Effective Altruism Movement Get Giving Right?    Arguing Yes: Peter Singer, Author of “The Most Good You Can Do”; Philosopher and Emeritus Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University   Arguing No: Alice Crary, Co-Editor of “The Good it Promises, The Harm it Does: Critical Essays on Effective Altruism”; University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at The New School for Social Research  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit our Substack to watch more insightful debates and subscribe to our newsletter.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

he Trump administration is taking the War on Drugs in a bold direction, using aircraft carriers, intelligence networks, and direct military strikes to target alleged smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. Supporters of militarization argue that previous strategies to stop cartels have failed, and only aggressive deterrence will stop the crisis. Others warn that militarization usually fails to stop drug flows, risking civilian casualties, and rarely achieves lasting results. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Militarize the War on Drugs?    Arguing Yes:  Sean McFate, Author and Professor of Strategy at the National Defense University and Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service  Andrés Martínez-Fernández, Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America at The Heritage Foundation's Allison Center for National Security    Arguing No:   Will Freeman, Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations  Aileen Teague, Assistant Professor of International Affairs at Texas A&M University's Bush School of Government and Public Service    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit our Substack to watch more insightful debates and subscribe to our newsletter.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We are pleased to share an episode from the Clearer Thinking Podcast featuring Open to Debate Founder Robert Rosenkranz in conversation with Spencer Greenberg. About this episode: What makes a forum truly open-minded rather than performative? When does listening change minds instead of just hardening identities? Are we teaching citizens to separate facts from frames? Do the best debates surface values as well as evidence? How can we reward calm argument over outrage economics? What reforms reduce polarization without dulling real disagreement? Should any topic be off-limits in a free society? Is philanthropy giving back—or building what’s missing? Should generosity optimize impact or express the values we want to grow? How much risk is acceptable when the upside is transformative? Robert Rosenkranz is a dedicated philanthropist, an advocate for intellectual engagement, and respected commentator on philanthropy. He founded Delphi Capital Management and championed the renowned Open to Debate debate series. Robert’s latest book, The Stoic Capitalist, explores the intersection of ancient Stoic wisdom and modern capitalism. When he’s not crafting ideas, Robert dedicates his time to supporting the arts, advancing education, and contributing to public policy through The Rosenkranz Foundation. Learn more about the Clearer Thinking podcast here. Visit our Open to Debate Substack to watch more insightful debates and subscribe to our newsletter. To learn more about our mission and donate, visit Opentodebate.org. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How big is the divide between different age groups? In this inaugural episode of a new Open to Debate series, “Generational Divides,” Reason’s editor-at-large Nick Gillespie brings together a Baby Boomer, a Gen X-er, and a Gen Z-er to discuss Social Security benefits and how they’ll affect future generations, homeownership, and 1950s nostalgia, where they examine the cultural and economic shifts occurring around intergenerational wealth and how each generation views money, opportunity, and the American Dream.  Our Guests:  For Baby Boomers: Joe Nocera, Deputy Managing Editor at The Free Press  For Gen X: Stacey Vanek Smith, Journalist and Reporter; Co-host of "Everybody's Business" at Bloomberg Business   For Gen Z: Kyla Scanlon, Financial Content Creator, Economic Commentator and Author of "In This Economy?"  Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason, is the guest moderator.    Visit our Substack to watch more insightful debates and subscribe to our newsletter.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The U.S. and China are the two largest competitors in the race for semiconductors and in creating the most powerful AI chips. Europe could become a major stakeholder thanks to its demand for tech sovereignty and lithography near-monopoly, while others see the continent as too hampered by regulation, labor, and limited venture capital to get ahead. Now, in partnership with Bloomberg, we debate: Is Europe Too Late to Compete in the Chip Wars? Arguing "Too Late":    Zach Meyers, Director of Research at the Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE)  Geoffrey Gertz, Former Director for International Economics at the White House; Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security     Arguing "Not Too Late:  Cristina Caffarra, Economist & Co-founder of EuroStack  Eric Baissus, CEO of Kalray  Caroline Hyde, Bloomberg Television Anchor and Host of “Bloomberg Technology”, is the guest moderator.    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

At a time when misinformation thrives, institutions crumble, and algorithms mediate truth, trust has become one of democracy’s most fragile foundations. Our team at Open to Debate has been thinking twice recently about trust — how it’s earned, how it breaks, and how it might be rebuilt between one another in a time of deep division. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, the Internet’s encyclopedia with an English-language version that has been viewed 11 billion times alone and allows anyone to contribute and edit a page, says that trust is a living treasure that can and must be cultivated. In this episode, geopolitical strategist and Wickett Advisory moderator Xenia Wickett sits down with Jimmy Wales to discuss his new book, "The Seven Rules of Trust: A Blueprint for Building Things That Last.” In this "Think Twice" episode, the interview explores how Wikipedia leveraged trust to help it become a global authority while the public’s trust in other institutions has faded.  Our Guest: Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation; Author of "The Seven Rules of Trust: A Blueprint for Building Things That Last"    Xenia Wickett, Geopolitical strategist, moderator at Wickett Advisory, and Trustee of Transparency International UK, is the guest moderator.    Substack: https://opentodebate.substack.com/  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Birthright citizenship guarantees citizenship to anyone born within the United States’ territory, regardless of a parent’s nationality. But should this legal principle be removed from the Constitution? Those arguing it shouldn’t say that it prevents children from being punished for their parents’ status, while encouraging long-term economic and civic contributions. But those calling to end the practice argue it fuels illegal immigration and strains the overburdened immigration system. Now, we debate: Should America End Birthright Citizenship?  This debate was recorded on October 9, 2025 at 1 PM at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University in Phoenix, AZ.  This event is part of a new partnership between Open to Debate and Arizona State University’s Institute of Politics to bring live debate programming to ASU’s campus in a special series titled PRO/CONversations. Produced by Arizona PBS in the Arizona State University Media Enterprise—which will air and promote the recorded programs—the series is designed to model civil discourse for students while offering hands-on production experience to ASU journalism students.     Arguing Yes:   Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies  Horace Cooper, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research; Chairman of the Project 21 National Advisory Board    Arguing No:   Kris Mayes, Arizona Attorney General  Chris Newman, Legal Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON)    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today, humanity is thriving, but there are fears the good times will not last. Will tomorrow be better than today? Those arguing “yes” say people have better access to resources and technological advances are making us more prosperous. Those arguing “no” say there are widening socio-economic disparities, our globalized world is bound to collapse, and we’re not doing enough to fight climate change. Now we debate: Will the Future Be Abundant?  Arguing Yes: Peter Diamandis, Founder and Executive Chairman of the XPRIZE Foundation    Arguing No: Peter Zeihan, Geopolitical Strategist  Xenia Wickett, Geopolitical strategist and moderator at Wickett Advisory and Trustee of Transparency International UK, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From ancient battles to modern proxy wars, conflicts have been a constant in human history. But does that mean we are destined to continue treating it as an option? Those saying war is inevitable argue that our global system is anarchic and no overarching authority exists to stop war, so states prioritize survival and power. But others argue that conflict is not the only form of dispute resolution; trade, diplomacy, international law, mediation, and peace treaties can avert war. Now we debate: Is War Inevitable?    Arguing Yes: Dylan Motin, Visiting Scholar at the Seoul National University Asia Center  Arguing No: Gabrielle Rifkind, Conflict Mediator; Director of Oxford Process  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As modern warfare becomes increasingly automated and AI-reliant, questions arise about the use of a “kill switch” overriding autonomous weapons in conflict zones. Should the ultimate decision be in humans’ or AI’s hands? Those arguing for human oversight say moral reasoning, empathy, and legal accountability are essential, especially in wartime. Supporters of AI integration argue that machines can make faster, more precise, and less emotional decisions, which could prove more humane than past approaches. Now we debate: Wartime Kill Switch: Human or AI?  Arguing "Human":  Elliot Ackerman, Former Marine Raider Officer and CIA Special Activities Officer; Bestselling Author  Laura Walker McDonald, Senior Advisor for New Technologies & Conflict at the International Committee of the Red Cross  Arguing "AI":    Michael C. Horowitz, Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation at the Council on Foreign Relations; Director of Perry World House and Richard Perry Professor at the University of Pennsylvania  Jack Shanahan, Inaugural Director of Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, Office of the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It’s been five years since the pandemic began, but was our public health system or society to blame for our country’s failures to stop the spread? Some argue that public health leaders were unprepared, mismanaged the crisis, and provided inconsistent guidance. Others argue the failures were societal, citing widespread mistrust, misinformation, and other guidance, which undermined compliance and effectiveness. Now, in a new format, our debaters argue both sides of this nuanced and complex question: Was COVID a Public Health Failure or Did Society Fail Public Health?    Dr. Tom Frieden, Former Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); President and Chief Executive Officer at Resolve to Save Lives    Doctor Mike Varshavski, Board-certified family medicine physician, UNICEF Ambassador, and Influencer     Dr. Jerome Adams, 20th Surgeon General of the United States    Dr. Dara Kass, Practicing ER physician and medical news contributor during the COVID pandemic, Former Regional Director in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Men are falling behind in our society, and some point to traditional ideas of masculinity as the cause. What does it mean to “be a man” today, and how do labels like toxic masculinity impact that question? For some men, masculinity is a continually evolving identity that goes beyond narrow definitions placed upon it. For others, it's a rigid set of expectations that results in emotional isolation and other negative outcomes. Now we debate: Is Masculinity A Prison? Arguing Yes: Lux Alptraum, Writer, Journalist, and Sex Educator  Arguing No: Mike Pesca, Host of "The Gist" Podcast    Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator.    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It’s Back to School season, and TikTok has been taking a larger role in helping students learn — but should it? Some teachers argue that using TikTok can help make whatever subjects they study more digestible and adaptable to different types of learners. Others call the app distracting and capable of undermining classroom authority and prioritizing entertainment and short attention spans over education. Now we debate: TikTok in the Classroom: Enhancing or Eroding the Teaching Profession?  Enhance: Phil Cook, Education Influencer and High School Chemistry Teacher    Erode: Adrian Dingle, Second Schoolteacher and Education Consultant    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In some policy circles, the idea of the U.S. electing a CEO-style dictator running the country like a company is gaining momentum. But should the idea be embraced? Those proposing the Dictator CEO, like Curtis Yarvin, argue it would challenge existing institutions and deliver cutthroat efficiency. But democracy advocates, like E. Glen Weyl, argue that consolidating power under one leader undermines the core values fundamental to America’s political system. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Be Ruled by a CEO Dictator?  Arguing Yes: Curtis Yarvin, Anti-democracy theorist and Tech Entrepreneur  Arguing No: E. Glen Weyl, Co-Founder of the RadicalxChange Foundation, Plurality Institute, and the Faith, Family and Technology Network  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

More Americans are moving away from eating meat toward a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. But is continuing to eat animals a personal choice—or an ethical failure? Those favoring a plant-based lifestyle argue that eating animals is morally indefensible when plant-based alternatives can provide the same nutrition without pain. But meat lovers argue there’s more to eating meat than seems obvious and caution against vilifying meat consumption. Now, we debate this motion: Don’t Eat Anything With A Face.  Arguing Yes:  Neal Barnard, Clinical Researcher, Author of "21-Day Weight Loss Kickstart"  Gene Baur, President and Co-Founder of the Farm Sanctuary  Arguing No:   Chris Masterjohn, Nutritional Sciences Researcher; Blogger at The Daily Lipid  Joel Salatin, Farmer & Author  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Take our podcast listener survey here: https://bit.ly/opentodebatesurvey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Fast fashion has taken over the fashion industry, but is less expensive, trendy clothing really worth the purchase? Those who say to “stop” argue fast fashion harms the environment in many ways and exploits workers in countries with lax regulations. Those who say “keep shopping” argue it’s up to shoppers to choose, as fast fashion offers affordable options, supports jobs, and boosts local economies. Now we debate: Fast Fashion: Shop or Stop?  Arguing Stop: Kenneth Pucker, Former COO of Timberland; Professor at The Fletcher School at Tufts University   Arguing Shop: Katherine Mangu-Ward, Editor-in-Chief at Reason    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The pressure to constantly be productive and achieve has become an aspiration one should aspire. But is this mindset worth the effort? Those claiming it’s toxic argue it creates impossible standards, opening the door for anxiety, burnout, and disconnection. But some argue the problem isn’t productivity itself, but how we’ve come to define success — and the unrealistic expectations that come with it. Now we debate: Is Our Productivity Culture Toxic?    Arguing Yes:     Jennifer Moss, Workplace Culture Expert; Author of "The Burnout Epidemic"    Rahaf Harfoush, Digital Anthropologist and New York Times Best-Selling Author    Arguing No:     David Allen, Creator of the "Getting Things Done" Time Management Method and Author   Amy Edmondson, Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Take our podcast listener survey here: https://bit.ly/opentodebatesurvey  Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Pope Leo XIV’s accession could mean a new opportunity to reform the Catholic Church by allowing women as ordained deacons. Those advocating for this change argue that allowing women would represent a return to early Church tradition and showcase an evolving Church ready for modernity. Those against this argue that it would blur theological lines and that women already play substantial leadership roles within the Church. Now we debate: Is It Time for the Catholic Church to Ordain Women as Deacons?  Arguing Yes: Casey Stanton, Co-director of Discerning Deacons  Arguing No: Pia de Solenni, Theologian; Former Chancellor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange in California  Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator.  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Take our podcast listener survey here: https://bit.ly/opentodebatesurvey  Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The shocking 2022 murder of four University of Idaho students have resulted in a life sentence for the killer and still-unanswered questions — about new genealogy tech, media exposure, lessons for law enforcement —worth Thinking Twice about. John Donvan sits down with journalist Vicky Ward, who co-authored with James Patterson “The Idaho Four: An American Tragedy,” and discuss what drew her to the case, how collaborating with Patterson changed her process, and reconsidering elements of the criminal justice system.    Our Guest: Vicky Ward, Co-Author of "The Idaho Four: An American Tragedy"    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Take our podcast listener survey here: https://bit.ly/opentodebatesurvey  Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Love in the time of AI? Some people seeking romance or friendship are turning to AI chatbots to fulfill those desires, but could they surpass traditional human relationships? Those who say they can argue that AI can offer empathy and safety, and it’s a solution for those left out of traditional dating. Those saying they can’t argue that intimacy is complicated and cannot be replicated in code. Now we debate: Could Dating an AI Be Better Than Dating a Human?    Arguing Yes: Thao Ha, Associate Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University    Arguing No: Justin Garcia, Executive Director & Senior Scientist at the Kinsey Institute; Chief Scientific Advisor to Match.com   Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator.    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Take our podcast listener survey here: https://bit.ly/opentodebatesurvey  Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump has officially signed the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act into law. There is debate among conservatives about whether it will end up driving economic growth or increasing our debt. One side argues that ordinary Americans will pay the price and the long-term fiscal outcome is terrible. Another side argues these policies will encourage investment, growth, and job creation. Now, two conservatives debate: Is the Big, Beautiful Bill a Disaster?    Arguing Yes: Jessica Riedl, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute  Arguing No: Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy at The Heritage Foundation  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Trump administration enacted severe actions against Harvard University that threaten its endowment, funding, and ability to enroll international students, based on accusations of antisemitism. Do these actions go too far? Prominent voices long affiliated with Harvard – former university president Larry Summers and law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz — engage in a nuanced debate and provocative discussion: Did Harvard Have It Coming?  Arguing Yes: Alan Dershowitz, Emeritus Professor of Law at Harvard Law School   Arguing No: Lawrence Summers, President Emeritus of Harvard; Former Secretary of the Treasury   Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court for almost three decades, Stephen Breyer was no stranger to hearing arguments for different sides in major cases. In this episode, our moderator-in-chief, John Donvan, and Chief Content Officer, Lia Matthow, interview Justice Breyer and discuss his book “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, not Textualism.” He discusses how he used this philosophy to guide his decisions and why he thinks jurists should choose this approach.    Our Guest: Stephen Breyer, Former United States Supreme Court Justice    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan and Lia Matthow, Chief Content Officer of Open to Debate, moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Open to Debate, in partnership with the Human Rights Foundation and the Oslo Freedom Forum, is examining a strategy employed by many countries to respond to aggressive or authoritarian regimes. In recent years, these have been levied against countries such as Russia, Venezuela, and Iran, which have ranged from freezing assets and trade bans to travel restrictions and full embargoes. But do sanctions work in deterring repression? Those arguing that they’re effective claim that they’re a nonviolent way to force change and serve as a deterrent for other countries. Those who are skeptical about the efficacy of sanctions say they are leaky, don’t lead to regime change, and can harm civilians and exacerbate humanitarian crises.     Now with this background, we debate the question: Are Sanctions an Effective Policy Tool?    This debate was produced in partnership with the Human Rights Foundation and was recorded at the Oslo Freedom Forum in Oslo, Norway, on May 26, 2025.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Under President Trump, America’s role on the global stage is being redefined — but can other countries trust its allyship under his leadership? Critics argue his transactional approach and threats to abandon allies undermine trust and force nations to reconsider their security. Supporters counter that demanding more from partners is “tough love” that will lead to stronger, more balanced alliances. Now we debate: Is Trump’s America a Reliable Ally?  Arguing Yes:   Joshua Shifrinson, Associate Professor at University of Maryland's School of Public Policy; Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute   Kelly Grieco, Senior Fellow with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program at the Stimson Center    Arguing No:   Liana Fix, Fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations  Charles Kupchan, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The new Trump presidency has led to pressure on the First Amendment, and the lines between free expression and political enforcement are blurring. Those who say speech is now freer argue that his actions are restoring viewpoint diversity. Those who argue it’s more restricted argue it’s a crackdown on speech that doesn’t align with the administration’s views, especially in Harvard’s case. In partnership with the Cascades PBS Ideas Festival, we debate free speech’s evolution in the Trump 2.0 era. Nadine Strossen, Senior Fellow at FIRE; Former President of the ACLU  Brandi Kruse, Host of "unDivided with Brandi Kruse”  Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason, is the guest moderator.    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In light of today's breaking news—Israel’s targeted airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, and Iran's retaliation—we are re-releasing our episode that confronts one of the most urgent questions of our time. Originally aired in January 2025, this debate has only grown more relevant, with our two experts offering insights critical for understanding the road ahead. Iran is getting closer to developing its first nuclear weapon. With tensions rising in the Middle East, should the U.S. and its allies take a stand? Those calling to stop Iran now argue this is a “now or never” moment for the region. Those calling for tolerance say while it’s not ideal, it is manageable, and maintaining diplomacy should be the focus. Now we debate: Can America and Its Allies Tolerate A Nuclear Iran, or Is It Time to Stop Them Now?    Arguing STOP NOW: Behnam Ben Taleblu, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies  Arguing TOLERATE: Barbara Slavin, Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Center  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As he did in this first presidential term, President Trump has continued to signal closer alignment with Vladimir Putin. This included a tense February Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, where he claimed Ukraine was responsible for the war.   The U.S. also joined Russia in voting against a UN resolution condemning Russia’s action in Ukraine and Vice President Vance has called for a re-evaluation of the U.S.'s relationship with NATO. Could these actions, and others, help chart a return to a state of improved U.S.-Russia diplomatic relations or lead America toward defeat in the region and beyond? Those who argue that Trump’s actions signal a return to normalcy say that European security should be Europe’s responsibility, which could lead to a stronger, more self-sufficient NATO, and that recent years of antagonism have failed to alter Russian behavior. The Trump administration could help bring U.S.-Russia relations into constructive focus at a high-stakes moment.  However, those who declare this a defeat for America argue that Trump warming up to Putin will only encourage Russian aggression, hurt Ukraine, and erode our allies’ trust.     With this background, we debate Trump’s Russia Policies: Return to Normalcy or Defeat for America?  Arguing "Defeat for America":  Bill Browder, Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign   Alina Polyakova, President and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA)  Arguing "Return to Normalcy":   Jeffrey Sachs, Economist, Public Policy Analyst, and Professor at Columbia University  Thomas Graham, Distinguished Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; Co-founder of Yale University’s Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies Program     Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Coming off the long weekend, an early release of this week's episode: The first 2024 presidential debate was a turning point in President Biden’s candidacy. In this episode, moderator-in-chief John Donvan and chief content officer Lia Matthow sit down with CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios’s Alex Thompson to discuss the book that has Washington buzzing: “Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.” They discuss what transpired before, during, and after that debate and what it might mean for the future of journalism, the Democratic party, and politics overall.    Our Guests:    Jake Tapper, News Anchor; Host of CNN's "The Lead"  Alex Thompson, National Political Correspondent at Axios    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan & Lia Matthow, Open to Debate's Chief Content officer, moderate    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With Trump’s return to office, some have high hopes for his relationship with Israel. But amid the Gaza war, will his policies help? Those arguing “yes” say Trump has given Israel unprecedented backing and would continue shifting U.S. policy in favor of Israeli sovereignty and security. Those arguing “no” are concerned that his policies would result in trouble for Gaza and make a two-state solution less feasible. Now we debate: Is Trump Good for Israel?  Arguing Yes: Einat Wilf, Former Member of Israeli "Knesset"; Co-author of "The War of Return"  Arguing No: Jeremy Ben-Ami, Founder and President of J Street  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The AI revolution is underway, and the U.S. and China are racing to the top. At the heart of this competition are semiconductors—especially advanced GPUs that power everything from natural language processing to autonomous weapons. The U.S. is betting that export controls can help check China’s technological ambitions. But will this containment strategy work—or could it inadvertently accelerate China’s drive for self-sufficiency? Those who think chip controls will work argue that restricting China’s access gives the U.S. critical breathing room to advance AI safely, set global norms, and maintain dominance. Those who believe chip controls are inadequate, or could backfire, warn that domestic chipmakers, like Nvidia and Intel, also rely on sales from China. Cutting off access could harm U.S. competitiveness in the long run, especially if other countries don't fully align with U.S. policy.  As the race for AI supremacy intensifies, we debate the question: Can the U.S. Outpace China in AI Through Chip Controls?  Arguing Yes:   Lindsay Gorman, Managing Director and Senior Fellow of the German Marshall Fund’s Technology Program; Venture Scientist at Deep Science Ventures   Will Hurd, Former U.S. Representative and CIA Officer     Arguing No:  Paul Triolo, Senior Vice President and Partner at DGA-Albright Stonebridge Group   Susan Thornton, Former Diplomat; Visiting Lecturer in Law and Senior Fellow at the Yale Law School Paul Tsai China Center  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  This debate was produced in partnership with Johns Hopkins University.  This debate was recorded on May 14, 2025 at 6 PM at Shriver Hall, 3400 N Charles St Ste 14, in Baltimore, Maryland.  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The first 100 days of President Trump’s second term have come with a wide range of changes for the nation’s economy and global supply chains. Could these changes lead to a more prosperous America, or hardship for individuals and businesses? In partnership with Bloomberg, five renowned economists look at President Trump’s economic agenda during his first 100 days and discuss tariffs as a strategy, whether deregulation is good for growth, and whether the President's "medicine" means a recession.  Jason Furman, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government    Allison Schrager, Economist, Bloomberg Opinion Contributor & Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute    Stephen Moore, Former Senior Economic Advisor to President Trump; Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation; Co-founder of Unleash Prosperity    Mariana Mazzucato, Professor of Economics at University College London; Author of "Mission Economy"  Jeff Ferry, Chief Economist Emeritus at the Coalition for a Prosperous America; Previous Tech Executive  Mishal Husain, Editor-at-Large for Bloomberg Weekend, is the guest moderator.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From modest beginnings to a distinguished career, Robert Rosenkranz, the chairman of Delphi Capital Management and founder of Open to Debate, has used Stoic wisdom to navigate challenges, innovations, and business relationships. In this conversation, John Donvan speaks with Rosenkranz about his new book, “The Stoic Capitalist: Advice for the Exceptionally Ambitious,” how ancient philosophy shaped his pivotal moments, why he launched Open to Debate, and how disciplined thinking can unlock enduring accomplishment and serve as a guide for anyone seeking success and a life well lived.    Our Guest: Robert Rosenkranz, Author, Chairman of Delphi Capital Management, and Founder and Chairman of Open to Debate    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For decades, China has been central for global supply chains and a primary U.S. trade partner, but as China’s influence grows, should the U.S. cut economic ties, or stay engaged? Those in favor of decoupling say it is vital for protecting national security and reducing reliance on China’s supply chains. Those against decoupling argue doing so would harm U.S. businesses, stall innovation, and deepen global divides. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Decouple from China? Arguing Yes:   Derek Scissors, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute      Isaac Stone Fish, CEO and Founder of Strategy Risks    Arguing No:   Benn Steil, Senior Fellow and Director of International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations    Susan Shirk, Research Professor and Director Emeritus of the 21st Century China Center at UC San Diego School of Global Policy    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The U.S. has long balanced military strength with soft power in the Middle East through agencies like USAID. With the Trump administration reversing these policies, is this a necessary realignment—or a costly retreat? Those against these changes argue this will boost rivals like Iran and China and harm America’s image. Those hailing them argue it’s a necessary correction, favoring clear, transactional geopolitical goals over costly diplomacy. Now we debate: Was Trump Right to Be Hard on Soft Power in the Middle East?        Arguing Yes: Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, President & Founder of Ideas Beyond Borders   Arguing No: Jeffrey Gedmin, President & CEO of the Middle East Broadcasting Networks    Xenia Wickett, Geopolitical strategist, moderator at Wickett Advisory, and Trustee of Transparency International UK, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

NASA, SpaceX, and other private companies are working on plans to make Mars humanity’s next frontier. However, should settling Mars be one of America’s priorities? Those arguing “yes” say the U.S. should do it first before China does, and it would lead to new advances in science and technology. But those against doing so say there are big issues that would make colonization difficult for humanity. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Prioritize Settling Mars?    Arguing Yes: Eric Berger, Senior Space Editor at Ars Technica  Arguing No: Shannon Stirone, Freelance Science Writer    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For decades, objectivity has been cited as journalism's gold standard, promising that journalists would stick “to the facts" and deliver both sides of the story, excluding their personal views. Those in support say it builds trust and gives newsreaders the information they need to form their own opinions. Those against say it suppresses certain valuable viewpoints and that some issues don’t merit the "both sides" treatment. Now, we debate: "Is Objectivity Essential in Journalism?”    Arguing Yes: Bret Stephens, Opinion Columnist at The New York Times    Arguing No: Leonard Downie, Jr, Former Executive Editor of The Washington Post    Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today we’re bringing you an episode of Smart Girl Dumb Questions, the new podcast by one of our frequent guest moderators, Nayeema Raza. Nayeema asks the questions we’re all thinking to big thinkers in this new show. It is brimming with curiosity, open-mindedness and a willingness to learn – values we hold dear at Open to Debate.  As fertility rates plummet, and Millenials and Gen Z increasingly cite climate change and the state of the world as reasons they’re not having children, Nayeema asks: is the future really too bleak to have babies? Her guest is journalist Cleo Abram, a YouTuber who has amassed over 5 million subscribers as she tells optimistic tech stories. Nayeema and Cleo break down quantum, the rise of robots and how technology shifts from IVF to artificial wombs will change not just if, but how, we have babies. Also on the agenda: the media’s bias – not toward left or right, but toward negativity and the opportunity for more curious, independent and fact-based journalism. If you like this episode, you’ll enjoy Nayeema’s episode with Mark Cuban about capitalism, Neil deGrasse Tyson about physics, and two members of Gen Alpha about screen time. Follow Smart Girl Dumb Questions on Apple, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.  The Guest: Cleo Abram, an independent tech journalist behind Huge If True The Host: Nayeema Raza, journalist and host of “Smart Girl Dumb Questions”  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Reporter and podcaster Derek Thompson says we’re better at recognizing problems, but our ability to solve them has not improved. How can we make sure meaningful progress occurs? In this conversation with Open to Debate guest moderator Nayeema Raza, Thompson will discuss his new book “Abundance,” rethinking yesterday’s issues to address today’s problems, and what both sides of the political aisle should learn to ensure we have a more abundant society.    Our Guest: Derek Thompson, Staff Writer at The Atlantic; Author of the "Work in Progress" Newsletter    Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

American women are, on average, paid 84 cents for every dollar men make, according to the Department of Labor. This wage gap has persisted despite near-record rates of women’s participation in the labor market, with wage gaps even larger for women in minority populations, and it’s estimated that pay parity will not be achieved until 2052. Should policy interventions address these disparities, or is it more important to recognize and honor women's personal decisions and find another way to look at the gap Those in favor of fixing the gap see it as a point of fairness and equity that would bring economic benefits, such as enhanced family incomes and increased productivity, and say that new policies are needed urgently to dismantle systemic barriers stopping women from earning more. Those who aren’t in favor argue wage disparities reflect individual choices regarding career paths, work-life balance, and tenure, rather than systemic discrimination. They also point out that when adjusted for factors like job type, hours worked, and career breaks, the gap significantly narrows.      Against this backdrop, we debate the question: Should We Address the Gender Wage Gap?  Arguing Yes: Kadie Ward, Commissioner and Chief Administrative Officer of the Pay Equity Commission of Ontario  Arguing No:  Allison Schrager, Pension Economist, Bloomberg Opinion Contributor & Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute    Nayeema Raza, Journalist at New York Magazine and Vox, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

UNRWA and other peacekeeping forces in the Middle East play an important role in the Israel-Palestine conflict, but do they do enough? Those saying they help argue that they act as buffers between warring factions, preventing wider regional escalation. Those saying they hurt argue they fail to maintain neutrality. Now we debate: UN Efforts in the Middle East: Helping or Hurting?    Arguing Helping: Richard Gowan, UN and Multilateral Diplomacy Director at the International Crisis Group  Arguing Hurting: Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch     Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have taken on a contentious role in the new Trump administration, which has affected federal agencies and thousands of workers. But are DOGE’s actions legal? Those arguing they aren’t worry it is overstepping and violating the Constitution. Those supporting DOGE’s actions say it is operating under strict oversight while fulfilling its mandate. Now we debate: Is Musk’s DOGE Dodging the Law?    Arguing Yes: Laurence Tribe, University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School  Arguing No: Michael W. McConnell, Former Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; Law Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Are you ready to change the clock on Sunday? Is springing forward or falling back still an idea worth practicing? Those ready to end Daylight Savings argue it is inconvenient and has negative health and productivity effects. Those who want to keep Daylight Savings argue the time change’s effects are temporary and helps improve our quality of life. Now we debate: Is It Time to End Daylight Savings Time?      Arguing Yes: Joan Costa-i-Font, Health Economist at the London School of Economics   Arguing No: Binyamin Appelbaum, Member of the New York Times Editorial Board    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Note: We have employed the colloquial ‘Daylight Savings Time’ phrasing used by our debaters and moderator. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump recently enacted a ten percent additional tariff on Chinese imports, and China has enacted retaliatory tariffs in response. Those affirming the tariffs are necessary argue they will encourage citizens to buy more domestically produced products. Those against the tariffs argue they will also create a trade war, harming both economies and global supply chains. Now we debate: Was Trump Right to Increase Tariffs on Chinese Imports? Arguing Yes:    Scott Paul, President of the Alliance for American Manufacturing  Stephen Moore, Economist, Author, and Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation; Co-founder of Unleash Prosperity    Arguing No:   Jennifer Hillman, Senior Fellow for Trade and International Political Economy at the Council on Foreign Relations   Rana Mitter, ST Lee Chair in US-Asia Relations at the Harvard Kennedy School    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

America is suffering from a loneliness epidemic. Some groups have suggested religious communities may be key to solving it. Could it help? Those arguing “yes” say it gives people regular social contact, support systems, and a sense of purpose that could combat isolation. Those arguing “no” say that secular options would provide better, broad-based solutions. Now we debate: Can Religion Cure the Loneliness Epidemic?    Arguing Yes:   Harold Koenig, Director of Duke University’s Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health   Chris Murphy, Senator from Connecticut     Arguing No:  Ruth Whippman, Author of "America the Anxious: How Our Pursuit of Happiness Is Creating a Nation of Nervous Wrecks" and "BOYMOM: Reimagining Boyhood in the Age of Impossible Masculinity."  Dan Barker, Co-President of the Freedom from Religion Foundation    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How’s your love life? With platforms like Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, and OkCupid offering endless opportunities to connect, many people searching for The One think signing up for a dating app should be a go-to for finding their match. However, new research is showing some users are signing off, including ninety percent of Gen Z users.  Those staying on the apps point to their ease of use, accessibility, and the countless success stories of happily coupled friends who met that way.  Others say dating apps aren’t offering authentic connections. A paradox of choice has also developed, with a belief there’s always someone else who you can connect with, which has made people less satisfied with their options.  Before we continue to swipe right, we debate the question: Is It Time to Break Up with Dating Apps?  Arguing Yes: Maria Avgitidis, Matchmaker and CEO at Agape Match    Arguing No: Melissa Hobley, Global Chief Marketing Officer of Tinder    Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In recent years, multiple proposals have been made to change how the U.S. Supreme Court operates in its current form. Would these reforms help – or hurt? What is the future of the highest court in the land? In partnership with Johns Hopkins University as part of our inaugural “Hopkins Forum”, our featured guests will discuss term limits, expanding the Supreme Court, and whether external ethics codes should be applied.  Our Guests:  Ambassador Jeff Flake, Former Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee   Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law at Columbia Law School; Supreme Court Commentator  Cristina Rodríguez, Former Co-Chair of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States; Professor at Yale Law School  The Honorable Jeff Sessions, Former U.S. Attorney General and Senator    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Sports fans can place bets on their favorite teams and athletes faster and easier than before, thanks to legalized sports gambling. But was it the wrong bet to make? Advocates say it’s been good for fans, the economy, and the sports industry.  Those who say that what’s happened since legalization is a bad thing, say it’s driven a rise in gambling addiction and created a public health crisis. Now we debate: Has Legalizing Sports Gambling Become A Bad Bet? Arguing Yes: Harry Levant, Director of Gambling Policy at the Public Health Advocacy Institute   Arguing No: Bill Pascrell III, Partner at Princeton Public Affairs Group    Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro have opened doors for people to lose weight. Should everyone have the option to take it? Those arguing “yes” say obesity needs to be treated using every available tool, especially for people for whom diet, lifestyle changes, and exercise aren’t enough. Those arguing “no” are concerned about its side effects and the risks if people don’t take them as directed. Now we debate: should prescription weight loss drugs be available for all?    Arguing Yes: David Allison, Obesity Researcher; Dean and Distinguished Professor at the Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington  Arguing No: Stuart W. Flint, Associate Professor of the Psychology of Obesity at the University of Leeds    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the 2024 election, the Democrats did not have messaging that resonated with men, some say and is part of the reason Kamala Harris lost. Could leaning into identity politics to engage men work for future elections? Those arguing “yes” say focusing on men-related issues could help the Dems reconnect with a demographic that feels left behind. Those arguing “no” say focusing on gender and identity politics divide voters rather than unite them. Now we debate: Could Identity Politics Help Democrats Engage Men?  Arguing Yes: Jackson Katz, Educator, Author, and Co-Founder of the Young Men's Research Institute  Arguing No: Thomas Chatterton Williams, Staff Writer at The Atlantic; Visiting Professor of Humanities at Bard College; Nonresident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The clock is ticking on TikTok. The popular video sharing app is facing a looming deadline of January 19th, when the law effectively banning it in the U.S. is set to go into effect. Unless, that is, the Supreme Court steps in to save it this week. While we wait, we revisit our 2023 debate that asked this prescient question: Should the U.S. Ban TikTok?   Arguing Yes: Kori Schake, Senior Fellow and Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute  Arguing No: Milton Mueller, Professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy; Founder and Director of the Internet Governance Project Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Iran is getting closer to developing its first nuclear weapon. With tensions rising in the Middle East, should the U.S. and its allies take a stand? Those calling to stop Iran now argue this is a “now or never” moment for the region. Those calling for tolerance say while it’s not ideal, it is manageable, and maintaining diplomacy should be the focus. Now we debate: Can America and Its Allies Tolerate A Nuclear Iran, or Is It Time to Stop Them Now?  Arguing STOP NOW: Behnam Ben Taleblu, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies  Arguing TOLERATE: Barbara Slavin, Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Center    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Millions of people have credited Alcoholics Anonymous with helping them stay sober from alcohol, but is it the best path for everyone? Those who say “yes” argue it is easily accessible to all and that its structure through the 12-step program helps people succeed. Those who say “no” argue say the abstinence model doesn’t work for everyone and there may be better alternatives. Now we debate: Does AA Work?   Arguing Yes: Dan Griffin, Expert on Alcoholics Anonymous; Author of "A Man's Way Through the Twelve Steps" Arguing No: Adi Jaffe, Founder of IGNTD; Author of "The Abstinence Myth" Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Co-Host of the Semafor Podcast "Mixed Signals", is the guest moderator. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How long would you like to live, and could science and technology make it possible?  Longevity science aims to extend our healthy years through advancements in CRISPR, cellular reprogramming, and drug development. While private companies and philanthropists invest heavily in these innovations, should the government be responsible for funding these efforts? Those who say yes to government funding say that longevity research could revolutionize public health, keep aging populations productive in the workforce, and reduce the economic burden of age-related illnesses. Those opposed to public funding of longevity science say that true life extension beyond a decade might be unachievable, and it will take years before results are measurable. They argue that when and if these advances become available, they may only be for a smaller, affluent population. They also argue that long-known behavior choices like good nutrition and sleep should be adopted by all now, instead of chasing uncertain longevity advancements.     With this context, we debate the question: Could Longevity Science Extend Your Health Span By Decades? Should the Government Fund It?   Arguing Yes: Peter Diamandis, Founder and Chairman of the XPRIZE Foundation; Announced the XPRIZE Healthspan Competiton; Author of "Longevity Guidebook"    Arguing No: Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Bioethicist; Vice Provost for Global Initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices