DiscoverOpen to Debate
Open to Debate
Claim Ownership

Open to Debate

Author: Open to Debate

Subscribed: 24,911Played: 333,010
Share

Description

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.)

382 Episodes
Reverse
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
The ICC has requested an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu concerning possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Israel-Hamas War. Is it fair to put his actions on the same level as Hamas? Those who disagree argue that the ICC doesn’t have legal jurisdiction in this case and it’s politically motivated. Those who agree argue it’s a necessary step in enforcing international law and holding accountability. Now we debate: Is the ICC’s Warrant Against Netanyahu Justified? Arguing Yes: Kenneth Roth, Former Executive Director of Human Rights Watch; Professor at the Princeton School of International Affairs  Arguing No: Eugene Kontorovich, Law Professor at George Mason University; Executive Director of Scalia Law School’s Center for the Middle East and International Law    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
Public schools have in recent years begun incorporating topics around race, sex, and gender into K-12 classrooms. Are public schools moving in the right direction to address students’ needs? Those who say students benefit argue that learning them helps create socially aware, empathetic, and responsible citizens. Those who argue they harm students say children may be learning what should be left to parents to discuss. Now we debate: Wokeness in Public Schools: Helping or Hurting Students?  Arguing Hurting: Ian Rowe, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; Founder of Vertex Partnership Academies   Arguing Helping: Altheria Caldera, Senior Professorial Lecturer in the School of Education at American University  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
While the two-party system has been the standard in the US government, third parties have often challenged this status quo and now advocates to be added to election ballots permanently. Those who agree say third parties offer non-partisan solutions and are more representative of ideologies, unlike the polarized partisanship present now. Those who disagree say the two-party system fosters stability and simplifies voting decisions. Now we debate: Does America Need A Third Party?   Arguing Yes: Andrew Yang, Founder of the Forward Party, Former Presidential Candidate  Arguing No: Daniel DiSalvo, Senior Fellow at Manhattan Institute; Political Science Professor at City College of New York–CUNY Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  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 Professor Emeritus 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  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
American politics today has been marred by increasing levels of “us vs. them” thinking, leading to the destruction of our social fabric and democracy. But critical thinking, facts, and reason can lead us out of that path. In this episode, YouTube sensation, podcaster, and MSNBC contributor Brian Tyler Cohen joins guest moderator and Reason magazine’s Editor-at-Large Nick Gillespie to discuss his book “Shameless”, the future of democracy in America, and advises how to engage young voters.    Our Guest: Brian Tyler Cohen, YouTuber and Content Creator; Author of “Shameless”    Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large of Reason, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
After the October 7th attack, Israel vowed to eradicate Hamas and began its counteroperation in Gaza. Now, after ten months of war, a hostage crisis, and an increasing death toll, Israel and Hamas have been in negotiation talks, which could be complicated by the death of Hamas’s political leader Ismail Haniyeh. Should Israel agree to a permanent ceasefire? Those who think Israel should make peace with Hamas argue that while Hamas’s actions are indefensible, a de-escalation of violence is necessary, and conditions in Gaza need to be improved to prevent starvation and further loss of life. Those who believe Israel should not back down say that Hamas’s desire to kill Israelis will never change regardless of any deal created. They also point out that past ceasefires have been used by Hamas to rearm and regroup, which could happen again and lead to more conflicts.     As the war goes on, we debate the question: Can Israel Make Peace with Hamas?  Arguing Yes: Cenk Uygur, Founder and Host of The Young Turks Network   Arguing No: Mosab Hassan Yousef, Ex-Palestinian Militant, Former Israeli Spy, Son of Hamas Co-Founder, and Author, “From Hamas to America.”   Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
loading
Comments (44)

Tiger Cat Jones

Right-wing clown Doran hit on every right wing baseless talking points. Biden has done nothing for Israel and is possibly collaborating with Iran. Schools need to radically change their allegedly woke curriculum because it's anti Israel. The one fact that wasn't addressed is that Israel is a distinct liability for America and not an ally. America continues to lose its credibility backing Israeli genocide in Gaza and the ongoing takeover and extirpation of the remaining Palestinians.

Oct 13th
Reply

Tiger Cat Jones

While the October 7th attack was horrific the fact remains that this didn't happen in a vacuum, you have to factor in over fifty years of Israeli depersonalization, humiliation, and control of every facet of Palestinian lives, to pretend otherwise is delusional. Israel is engaging in genocide, ecocide, and the erasure of Gaza and The West Bank before the eyes of the word. As capable as the Mossad is I find it hard to believe that they didn't know what was going in a Gaza they exert total control

Oct 7th
Reply (2)

ForexTraderNYC

each side saying stats show their way is better but no real discussion due to political correctioness i felt the passion was misding it was more of a casual political correct discussion with smiles n giggles. a bit cringe

Jul 23rd
Reply

Brett Kelly

I see you have taken my comment down - more confirmation that your position against polarisation is totally fake - you should be ashamed of such dishonesty.

Jul 19th
Reply

Brett Kelly

I listened to this debate which was nothing but an undisguised hit job on Donald Trump. This program has lost all credibility in working against polarisation by being utterly, and viciously partisan. I am ashamed by such cynical hypocrisy and have deleted the program from my favourites. It was appalling advocacy for unthinking political partisanship.

Jul 19th
Reply

Rock78 Rock78

lies

Jul 12th
Reply

Fadil Gera

really great!

Jun 18th
Reply

Smoldering Fox

you think?

Apr 26th
Reply

victoria lisa

💚WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org

Feb 5th
Reply

Ryan Pena

this was a fantastic debate. I came in certain that it was social media causing these mental health problems but I was persuaded that we just don't know yet. correlation is not causation. if the data really doesn't clearly show that there is causation we can't definitely say that it does. we definitely still need to regulate big tech and make it less addictive for a multitude of other reason tho

Jul 28th
Reply

INFJayo

Is there a cat meowing in the background when the debate opens?

Oct 9th
Reply

Levi Speth

I really don't like when they "debate" yet both people are SUPER anti-Trump.

Aug 12th
Reply (1)

Jemi Assefa

my question is, when did cancel culture not exist? book burnings, witch hunts, Jim crow, black codes , housing discrimination, end of segregation.....all these things fall under the category of "cancel culture" ....the only difference now is , power is starting to balance. people have always tried to cancel beliefs, cancel over human beings, cancel change ....what is toxic is the reaction for change

Nov 30th
Reply (1)

Go Billers

that one guy is only talking to people who already voted with him. he's not really compelling.

Oct 3rd
Reply

red snflr

at this point keep "printing"(credit big banks out of thin air) money & spending so my crypto assets keep going up. Fiat currency sprinting towards ot's death, good riddance.

Sep 3rd
Reply

Levi Speth

please go back to people who disagree. for example, when debating the state of the GOP, you had a bunch of left leaning people who don't like the current republican party.

Mar 12th
Reply

Rob Houston

Basically arguing whether being racist is a core GQP principle.

Mar 1st
Reply

Blue Heron

Gas tax is just a way to disproportionately put the burden of taxes on poor working people so rich people who don't even drive can pay less in taxes

Jul 22nd
Reply

Blue Heron

Intelligence Squared is fun, but ridiculously easy to rig. All you have to do is get a half a dozen people or so in the audience who are on your side to agree to vote undecided and then change their vote. I have no doubt the honor system is disregarded in these debates

Jul 22nd
Reply

Kathleen Fuller

The opposing side is correct: patriotism is not the same as nationalism. https://twitter.com/TammyforIL/status/1281415977536815105?s=19

Jul 10th
Reply