Open to Debate

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

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 at New York Magazine and Vox, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Some scientific studies have shown evidence that psychedelic drugs, when used in controlled therapeutic settings, may help patients with their mental health — but should they be recommended by your doctor? Those advocating for psychedelic use argue that it could be a welcome relief for patients who don’t respond to traditional medicine. Those against its use argue we don’t yet understand their long-term effects. Now we debate: Psychedelics for Mental Health: Help or Hype?    Arguing Help: Ismail Ali, Director of Policy and Advocacy at MAPS  Arguing Hype: Kevin Sabet, President and CEO at the Foundation for Drug Policy Solutions    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From economic turbulence and the dilemmas posed by artificial intelligence to the big-picture challenges of our time, the pillars of money, truth, and power shape the complex global landscape. In partnership with the Future Investment Initiative (FII), join us as twelve of the world’s greatest thinkers debate: “Clash of the Titans: Three Grand Challenges Facing Humanity,” “What is Europe’s Economic Outlook?”, and “Will AI-Generated Entertainment Replace Human Creativity?”  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan, Open to Debate CEO Clea Conner, and moderator and journalist Edie Lush moderate. 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    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In 2000, New York Times bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell released the groundbreaking book “The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference”, which explored how small ideas can create lasting changes in everyday life through social engineering and the “tipping points” phenomenon. Two decades after the book’s original publication and in the spirit of an organizational mission that values a second look at seminal ideas, we speak with Gladwell about what he has learned and, in some cases, reconsidered. In this conversation with Open to Debate guest moderator Nayeema Raza, Gladwell discusses his sequel “Revenge of the Tipping Point: Overstories, Superspreaders, and the Rise of Social Engineering”, which looks at the darker side of social epidemics, what he thinks might have been wrong with some of his original theories, and how such thought evolution is a sign of growth.   Our Guest: Malcolm Gladwell, Bestselling Author; Co-Founder of Pushkin Industries    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

Whether to extend four trillion dollars in tax cuts or raise them next year is in question, with 34.1 trillion dollars in federal debt hanging in the balance. Some argue that tax cuts don’t do enough to pay off the debt and not raising taxes imbalances the federal budget. Others argue our debt is caused by government overspending and will be helped by tax cuts that help promote a flourishing economy. Now we debate: Is the Republican Party’s Refusal to Raise Taxes Fiscally Irresponsible?  Arguing Yes: Oren Cass, Executive Director of American Compass    Arguing No: David McIntosh, President of the Club for Growth  Nayeema Raza, Journalist at New York Magazine and Vox, is the guest moderator.  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?    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 at New York Magazine and Vox, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

At the moment of this episode’s release, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are neck-and-neck in election polls. How do you embrace risk, make informed decisions, and be prepared for any possible changes? In this episode, FiveThirtyEight founder and author of “On the Edge” Nate Silver discusses with Reason magazine’s Editor-at-Large Nick Gillespie his thoughts on which direction the 2024 election may go and the ways risk-takers cultivate power and drive change.  Our Guest: Nate Silver, Leading Political Forecaster; Best-Selling Author; Founder and Former Editor-in-Chief of FiveThirtyEight    Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large of Reason, is the guest moderator.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Five American presidents — two in the last 20 years — have assumed office without winning the popular vote. As the nation gears up for another contentious presidential election, some are calling for an end to the Electoral College. They argue that the college subverts the will of the American people by unfairly prioritizing rural and swing states over the nation’s majority. But others say the Electoral College, which the Founders established in the Constitution, is necessary to ensure voters in less populous states have a voice in picking our president. Has the Electoral College outlived its usefulness? This debate is presented in partnership with the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law as part of the Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series. Motion: The Electoral College Has Outlived Its Usefulness For the Motion: Jamelle Bouie - Columnist, New York Times Kate Shaw - Law Professor & Supreme Court Contributor, ABC News Against the Motion: Tara Ross - Author, "Why We Need the Electoral College" Bradley A. Smith - Law Professor & Former Chairman, Federal Election Commission Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Would Vice President Kamala Harris or Donald Trump be better for America? In a unique twist on political debate, two comedians, Pete Dominick, host of the “Stand Up! With Pete Dominick” podcast, and Fox News host Jimmy Failla, step into each candidate’s shoes where they will debate hot-button issues like the economy, immigration, and foreign policy that have defined the 2024 election.  Arguing for the Left: Pete Dominick, Stand-Up Comic; Activist and Advocate; Host of "Stand Up! With Pete Dominick" Podcast; Warm-Up Comedian for “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver”  Arguing for the Right: Jimmy Failla, Host of FOX News Saturday Night (Saturday, 10 PM/ET on FOX News Channel) and FOX News Radio’s FOX Across America (weekdays, 12-3 PM/ET)  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

Tensions between Iran and Israel have escalated in recent months and are at a low point after a series of assassinations and rocket strikes. Is it time for a larger military response? Those who urge Israel to strike argue Iran is an existential threat to their survival. Those who are against striking Iran in an unprecedented way say that there are high risks and better options. Now we debate: Should Israel Strike Iran?    Arguing Yes: Michael Doran, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at the Hudson Institute    Arguing No: Shira Efron, Senior Director of Policy Research at the Israel Policy Forum    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Israel-Hamas War has led to increasing death tolls and instability in the Middle East. Was Israel’s response to October 7th justified? Those who believe Israel’s actions have been disproportionate point to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, including a rising civilian death toll. Those who argue in support of Israel's response argue Israel had the right to defend itself when under attack, secure the safety of the hostages taken, and must do all it can to defeat Hamas. Now we debate: Were Israel’s Actions in the Gaza War Justified?  Arguing Yes: Eylon Levy, Former Spokesperson for Israel in the October 7th War; Co-Founder of the Israeli Citizen Spokespersons' Office; Host of the “State of a Nation” Podcast  Arguing No: Mehdi Hasan, Founder, Editor-in-Chief, and CEO of Zeteo; Host of Al Jazeera’s “Head to Head”; Award-Winning Journalist   Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

During election seasons, Democrats and Republicans leverage identity-based platforms to engage voters. Those who think identity politics isn’t holding us back argue identity politics offers a pathway for inclusion and empowerment for historically-sidelined groups. Those who believe it does hold us back argue it prevents constructive dialogue on solutions that benefit everyone, and risks alienating large segments of the population. Now we debate: In the 2024 Presidential Election, Are Identity Politics Holding Us Back?  Arguing Yes: Coleman Hughes, Host of the “Conversations with Coleman” podcast and Contributing Writer at The Free Press   Arguing No: Alicia Garza, Founder of Black Lives Matter and Black Futures Lab    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Over 103,000 people need organ donations in the U.S. Some economists and health experts wonder whether creating a free or regulated market would resolve this. Those in support argue that with proper regulations, it can be safe, ethical, and financially beneficial for both sellers and buyers. Those against this have ethical concerns and point out the risk of abuse and undermining of the medical system. Now we debate: Should We Legalize the Market for Human Organs? Arguing Yes: Sally Satel, Psychiatrist, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Lecturer at the Yale University School of Medicine  Arguing No: Jeremy Chapman, Editor-in-Chief of The Transplantation Journal and Past President of the International Transplantation Society    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices