Open to Debate
- Folgen
- 485
- Erscheint
- wöchentlich
- Letzte Folge
- 6. Nov. 2026
Über den Podcast
America is more divided than ever—but it doesn’t have to be. Open to Debate offers an antidote to the chaos. We bring multiple perspectives together for real, nonpartisan debates. Debates that are structured, respectful, clever, provocative, and driven by the facts. Open to Debate is on a mission to restore balance to the public square through expert moderation, good-faith arguments, and reasoned analysis. We examine the issues of the day with the world’s most influential thinkers spanning science, technology, politics, culture, and global affairs. It’s time to build a stronger, more united democracy with the civil exchange of ideas. Be open-minded. Be curious. Be ready to listen. Join us in being Open to Debate. (Formerly Intelligence Squared U.S.)
Folgen 485
Should We Stop Trusting AI Agents with Our Information?
Would you hand a stranger access to your bank accounts, private messages, and personal information? What if that stranger were an AI agent? Advocates argue these tools could revolutionize productivity and …
Shownotes
Would you hand a stranger access to your bank accounts, private messages, and personal information? What if that stranger were an AI agent? Advocates argue these tools could revolutionize productivity and convenience, and benefits shouldn’t be dismissed because of possible risks. Others warn that granting AI agents having sweeping access to sensitive data threatens privacy, undermines encryption, and creates security vulnerabilities. In partnership with the Masters of Scale Summit, we debate: Should We Stop Trusting AI Agents with Our Information?
Arguing Yes: Meredith Whittaker, President of Signal
Arguing No: Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy at the Abundance Institute
Jeff Berman, CEO of WaitWhat and Co-Host of Masters of Scale, moderates
After you’ve listened to the debate, let us know where you stand on the motion!
VOTE HERE: https://bit.ly/OTDVOTE
Vote before Thursday, November 12 at 5 pm ET. Results will be announced in our Substack newsletter, so make sure to subscribe.
Enjoyed this episode? Follow Open to Debate on Apple Podcasts or Spotify to hear new episodes every week.
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.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more debates, highlights, and perspectives. Follow us on Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing live debates.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Age Limits for Congress?
Congress is getting older: 24 members are 80 or older. Yet with few exceptions, older incumbents have beaten back younger challengers in primary after primary. Critics warn that a gerontocracy is making …
Shownotes
Congress is getting older: 24 members are 80 or older. Yet with few exceptions, older incumbents have beaten back younger challengers in primary after primary. Critics warn that a gerontocracy is making Congress less functional and less representative of the people it serves. But a mandatory age cap smacks of ageism, and voters keep rewarding experience at the ballot box. As the midterms approach, we debate: age limits for Congress?
Arguing Yes: Maya Kornberg, Senior Research Fellow and Manager of Elections & Government program at the Brennan Center for Justice
Arguing No: S. Jay Olshansky, Professor Emeritus in the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago
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/OTDVOTE
Vote before Thursday, November 5th at 5 pm ET. Results will be announced in our Substack newsletter so make sure to subscribe.
Enjoyed this episode? Follow Open to Debate on Apple Podcasts or Spotify to hear new episodes every week.
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.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more debates, highlights, and perspectives. Follow us on Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing live debates.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Should Cities Pull the Plug on Flock Cameras?
From packed city council meetings to protests outside city halls, a growing backlash against Flock Safety cameras capturing images of passing vehicles and license plates to help police investigate crimes is …
Shownotes
From packed city council meetings to protests outside city halls, a growing backlash against Flock Safety cameras capturing images of passing vehicles and license plates to help police investigate crimes is sweeping across America. Those wanting to keep them argue they’re valuable crime-fighting tools that only require stronger oversight, while critics raise concerns about privacy, government overreach, and the potential for mass surveillance. Now we debate: Should Cities Pull the Plug on Flock Cameras?
Arguing Yes: Benn Jordan, YouTube Educator and Activist
Arguing No: Ramin Fatehi, Norfolk Commonwealth's Attorney in Virginia
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/OTDVOTE
Vote before Thursday, October 29 at 5 pm ET. Results will be announced in our Substack newsletter so make sure to subscribe.
Enjoyed this episode? Follow Open to Debate on Apple Podcasts or Spotify to hear new episodes every week.
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.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more debates, highlights, and perspectives. Follow us on Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing live debates.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Should Extinct Animals Stay Extinct? (Encore)
Once a sci-fi fantasy explored in films like “Jurassic Park,” some biological and technological breakthroughs indicate that reviving extinct creatures could become a reality. Proponents argue that the benefits …
Shownotes
Once a sci-fi fantasy explored in films like “Jurassic Park,” some biological and technological breakthroughs indicate that reviving extinct creatures could become a reality. Proponents argue that the benefits include correcting mistakes of the past by bringing back extinct ecosystems and organisms. Others argue it's not ethical or even feasible. Now we debate: Should humans bring extinct creatures back to life?
Arguing YES:
Dr. Ross MacPhee, Curator of the Department of Mammalogy, Division of Vertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History
Dr. Lynn J. Rothschild, Evolutionary Biologist & Astrobiologist
Arguing NO:
Stewart Brand, Co-Founder of Revive & Restore & Founder of Whole Earth Catalog
Dr. George Church, Professor of Genetics at Harvard and MIT & Founder of the Personal Genome Project
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates
Attend a live debate in Baltimore on October 27th. We'll be debating the impacts of AI in higher ed at Johns Hopkins University as part of our Hopkins Forum series in partnership with the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Agora Institute. Reserve your seat now!
https://bit.ly/ai-college-future
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
Think Twice: Navigating the Election Cycle & Civic Power with Eric Liu
Amid deep political division and ahead of the midterms, what does good citizenship require? In his new book, “Live Like a Citizen,” Citizen University’s Eric Liu argues that democracy depends on citizenship as …
Shownotes
Amid deep political division and ahead of the midterms, what does good citizenship require? In his new book, “Live Like a Citizen,” Citizen University’s Eric Liu argues that democracy depends on citizenship as an everyday practice — learning to listen, participate, disagree, change our minds, and remain committed to one another despite our differences. John Donvan sits down with Liu to explore what he has thought twice about regarding citizenship since he moved from Washington, D.C. to "the other Washington," the city of Seattle, specifically, sharing his eight habits for rebuilding civic life and why changing America may require changing ourselves.
Our Guest: Eric Liu, CEO and Co-Founder of Citizen University; Author of "Live Like A Citizen"
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates
Attend a live debate in Baltimore on October 27th. We'll be debating the impacts of AI in higher ed at Johns Hopkins University as part of our Hopkins Forum series in partnership with the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Agora Institute. Reserve your seat now!
https://bit.ly/ai-college-future
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
Should We Phase Out Social Security?
Social Security has long been a cornerstone of American retirement, but as the trust fund grows closer to depletion by 2032, should the system be repaired or replaced with new standards? Those advocating for …
Shownotes
Social Security has long been a cornerstone of American retirement, but as the trust fund grows closer to depletion by 2032, should the system be repaired or replaced with new standards? Those advocating for phasing it out argue its unsuitability for the modern economy and should only be available for those needing it most. Others argue it’s still a good anti-poverty tool and Congress should take action and make changes to its finances. Now we debate: Should We Phase Out Social Security?
Arguing Yes: Romina Boccia, Director of Budget and Entitlement Policy at Cato Institute
Arguing No: Teresa Ghilarducci, Professor of Economics and Policy Analysis and Director of the Wealth Equity Lab at The New School
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
Does the U.S.-Saudi Civil Nuclear Agreement Serve America's Interests?
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 …
Shownotes
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
Is the United Nations Obsolete? (Encore)
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 …
Shownotes
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
Is Parenting Overrated? (Encore)
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 …
Shownotes
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
Is America Ready for a Four-Day Work Week?
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 …
Shownotes
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
Is Capitalism Broken?
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 …
Shownotes
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
Can Humans Adapt to Climate Change? (Encore)
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 …
Shownotes
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
Is Death Final? (Encore)
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 …
Shownotes
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
Are Primary Elections Ruining Democracy? (Encore)
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 …
Shownotes
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
America 250: Is It Time To Stop Idolizing the Founders?
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 …
Shownotes
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
Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?
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 …
Shownotes
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
Generational Divides with Nick Gillespie: Are We Overcomplicating Love and Sex?
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 …
Shownotes
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
Who Is Winning the Iran War: Tehran or Trump?
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? …
Shownotes
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
BONUS: The Blessings of Liberty: Jeffrey Rosen & Ken Burns on America’s 250th
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 …
Shownotes
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
Is the American Dream in Decline?
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 …
Shownotes
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
The Pursuit of Happiness: Virtue or Pleasure?
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 …
Shownotes
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
World on the Brink?
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 …
Shownotes
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
Is It Ethical To Cooperate With Chinese State Institutions To Secure Incremental Change?
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 …
Shownotes
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
Should America End Birthright Citizenship?
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 …
Shownotes
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
Generational Divides with Nick Gillespie: Are the Parents Alright?
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 …
Shownotes
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
Government as Shareholder: Proactive Competitive Strategy or Last Resort?
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 …
Shownotes
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
Is the Scientific Enterprise Too Risk-Averse?
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 …
Shownotes
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
Should Museums Repatriate Cultural Artifacts?
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 …
Shownotes
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
Should We Separate the Art from the Artist?
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 …
Shownotes
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
Should We Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies?
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 …
Shownotes
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
Hier stehen die neuesten 40 von 485 Folgen. Ältere Folgen findest du im Feed des Podcasts.
Ähnliche Podcasts
Mehr Bildung-Podcasts
Ist das dein Podcast?
Bestätige es mit einem Eintrag in deinem Feed: Du bekommst hier einen Code, trägst ihn als podcast:txt in den Kanal deines Feeds ein, und wir prüfen ihn. Danach steht dein Podcast als „verifiziert“ bei SoundNode.