Open to Debate

Donald Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, but legal scholars question whether it could be overturned in an appeal or due to a new Supreme Court ruling. Those arguing for New York say no individual, even a president, is above the law. Those arguing for the defendant say his actions were within the scope of his official duties. Now we debate: Mock Trial: Should Trump’s Conviction Stand? For the Appellee: Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law For the Appellant: Randy Zelin, Trial Attorney; Adjunct Law Professor at Cornell Law School Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Biden continues to dismiss concerns about seeking re-election. But after a disappointing debate performance, some Democratic leaders are increasingly concerned about whether he’s still fit to lead. Those in support of Biden argue his withdrawal would fragment Democrats and they don’t want to risk losing undecided voters to Trump. Those calling for him to step aside argue that a new candidate could re-energize the Democratic base and improve election chances. Now, we debate: Should Biden Step Aside? Arguing Yes: Michelle Goldberg, Opinion Columnist at The New York Times Arguing No: Dmitri Mehlhorn, Co-Founder of Investing In US Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Please note: This discussion was recorded on July 11th before the assassination attempt on former President Trump. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From AI to the political climate during an election year, our modern world is constantly changing and facing more polarization than before. How can we combat it and adapt to a changing America? CNN host and bestselling author Fareed Zakaria says you have to be open-minded and embrace compromise. In this conversation with John Donvan, Zakaria discusses our current revolutionary times, how past revolutions can help us understand our present, and why despite everything, he’s still hopeful. Our Guest: Fareed Zakaria, Host of CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS; Author of "Age of Revolutions: Progress and Backlash from 1600 to the Present" Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What George Carlin jokes would be deemed offensive today? What makes us laugh has come under scrutiny. Old jokes or skits are often off-limits in today's context, leading to public apologies and cancellations. Some argue political correctness stifles comedic creativity, thus affecting their ability to tackle tough subjects. Those who disagree say comedy has always evolved with changing norms and it can still flourish within wokeness. This week we revisit one of our favorite debates from the past year: is Wokeness Killing Comedy? Against this background, we debate the question: Is Wokeness Killing Comedy? This debate will take place in front of a live audience, on Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at The Comedy Cellar’s Village Underground in New York City. Warning that this content is not made for kids. Arguing Yes: Lou Perez, Comedian, Producer, Author of "That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore" Arguing No: Michael Ian Black, Actor and Comedian Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large of Reason, guest moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Marriage has long been considered a goal to aspire to and a conventional path to happiness. But over the last few decades, the traditional view of marriage as the cornerstone of adult life has been questioned. Changes in economic conditions, gender roles, and cultural values have fueled a reevaluation of whether marriage is still desirable or necessary for personal fulfillment and social stability. Those who believe it’s better to get married argue that married individuals report better physical and mental well-being, compared to single adults. They also experience economic and social benefits. Those who believe it’s better to be single say singledom helps promote independence, allows individuals to make decisions freely, makes it likely to create broader social networks and communities, and feel more fulfilled than they would if they felt pressured to be partnered. Whether you are in a relationship or not, we debate the following prompt: Married or Single? Arguing Married: Jonathan Rothwell, Principal Economist at Gallup Arguing Single: Bella DePaulo, Social Scientist and Author of "Singled Out" and "Single at Heart" Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Though they share similar values, guidelines, and principles, Islam and Judaism have a long, complicated relationship that has led to tension recorded within the Quran that might engender antisemitism. Those who agree argue that certain Quranic verses could be used to justify some people’s hostility towards Jews. Those who disagree say that references to Jews must be understood in their historical and textual contexts and there have been multiple periods of Muslim-Jewish tolerance. Now we debate: Is Islam Antisemitic? Arguing Yes: Tim Dieppe, Head of Policy at Christian Concern Arguing No: Reza Aslan, Iranian-American Religion Scholar; Bestselling Author of "Zealot" Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Supreme Court will soon decide on a case whether government interference on social media is coercive and suppresses free speech. Those who argue legitimate cooperation say that where misinformation threatens public health or safety, they are justified to protect the public. Those argue coercion believe that increased content moderation could lead to authoritarian control over public discourse online. Now we debate: Mock Trial: Free Speech, Government, and Misinformation on Social Media Platforms. Plaintiff: Charles "Chip" Miller, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Free Speech Defendant: Rylee Sommers-Flanagan, Founder and Executive Director of Upper Seven Law Cross examiners: Nina Jankowicz, CEO of The American Sunlight Project; Former Executive Director of the Department of Homeland Security's Disinformation Governance Board Matt Taibbi, Best-selling Author and Journalist; Writer and Publisher of Racket News Eric Schurenberg, Business Journalist and Media Executive; Founder of the Alliance for Trust in Media Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Prostitution remains heavily stigmatized and legally complex globally, ranging from full decriminalization to controlled regulation like the Nordic Model, where only purchasers of sex, not sellers of sex are penalized. This model has been implemented in eight countries, including Sweden, Iceland, Canada, and France, as well as in the U.S. state of Maine. Those who argue that it is ok to pay for sex say that it’s a profession that deserves as much respect as any other and that those who do it for a living have a right to do with their bodies as they please. They also argue that decriminalizing the profession is the only method to reduce violence against sex workers. Those who say that it is not ok to pay for sex and support the Nordic model are concerned about inequities present between sex buyers and sex workers that are rooted in oppression and power imbalances, as some sex workers choose the profession under economic or social duress. They are also concerned about exploitation and coercion, which can sometimes open the door to human trafficking. With this background, we debate the following question: 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

China recently conducted two days of military exercises around Taiwan as a “punishment” for “separatist acts” by Taiwan’s new president. Beijing sees Taiwan as territory that needs to be “reunified” with the mainland, while the U.S. is Taiwan’s strongest backer. Some argue that China’s military presence is too large to stop and the island nation is indefensible. Those who disagree argue that American credibility is on the line and they should stand by their political posturing. Now we debate: Is Taiwan Indefensible? With this background, we debate the question: Is Taiwan Indefensible? Arguing Yes: Lyle L. Goldstein, Research Professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute at the U.S. Naval War College; Charlie Glaser, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University Arguing No: Elbridge Colby, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense; Elizabeth Larus, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at University of Mary Washington Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Two days. Four questions. Ten judges and high school students participating in the national championship run by Incubate Debate, the U.S.’s fastest-growing high school debate league. This is what civil debate in the public square looks like — and what it can be across the country. Join us as we follow eight students who debate the following questions: “Should College DEI Programs Be Abolished?” and “Is Climate Change An Emergency?” 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

The Supreme Court will soon decide on a case surrounding a medication used for abortion, mifepristone, and whether the drug should continue to be available based on claims of safety and ethical considerations. Those in favor of restrictions argue that the FDA fast-tracked its approval without considering health impacts. Those against restriction argue the FDA made its decisions based on safety and efficiency, and it’s being targeted to further infringe on women’s rights. Now we debate: Should the Courts Restrict Access to the Abortion Pill? Petitioner: Julia Kaye, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project Respondent: Catherine Glenn Foster, Senior Fellow in Legal Policy at the Charlotte Lozier Institute Judge's Chair: John Donvan, Moderator-in-Chief and Emmy award-winning journalist Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Many colleges during the pandemic decided to make their applications test-optional, but new research has elite colleges rethinking that policy. Those in favor of reinstating say the SAT is the best way to bring talented students from all socioeconomic levels into the fold. Those against it say it favors the affluent and argue that admissions decisions should be based on a holistic, more inclusive review that considers a wide range of factors Now we debate: Should Elite Universities Reinstate the SAT? Arguing Yes: John Friedman, Professor and Chair of the Economics Department at Brown University Arguing No: Ben Nelson, Founder of Minerva University Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Tensions have been ramping up at universities across the country as students continue to protest the war in Gaza. Reports of antisemitism, islamophobia, and harassment have led to concerns that some students have crossed a line into hateful and threatening speech that requires intervention. Others contend that efforts to clamp down on protests in the name of campus safety suppresses free speech. Within that context, we revisit this debate on adjacent issues from a few years back to see what lessons that can be applied to the current situation: Is Free Speech Threatened on Campus? Arguing Yes: John McWhorter, Linguist and Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University; Wendy Kaminer, Writer and Lawyer Arguing No: Shaun Harper, Founder and Executive Director of the USC Race and Equity Center; Jason Stanley, Professor of Philosophy at Yale University Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Former criminal offenders in the United States face challenges reentering the job market after incarceration and so-called “Ban the Box” policies aim to fix this. This criminal justice initiative calls for removing questions about criminal history from job applications and delaying background checks. Those against "the box" argue former offenders shouldn’t continue to be punished and it prevents societal reintegration. Those in favor of early screening argue employers have a responsibility to ensure their business’s safety and make informed hiring decisions. Those who are against it argue former offenders shouldn’t continue to be punished and it prevents societal reintegration. Now we debate: Ban the Box: Should We Banish the Criminal History Check Box from Job Applications? Arguing Yes: Beth Avery, Senior Staff Attorney at the National Employment Law Project Arguing No: Jennifer Doleac, Executive Vice President of Criminal Justice at Arnold Ventures Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The U.S. has provided more than $75 billion in aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia. Some Congress members question whether we have done enough to help, and they say increased funding sustains strategic interests and demonstrates support of democratic values. Those who say we should stop funding the war, argue that Ukraine can’t win and additional U.S. dollars will prolong the loss of human lives and territory. Now we debate, in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations: Should Congress Stop Funding the War in Ukraine? Arguing Yes: John Mearsheimer, Political Science Professor at the University of Chicago; Daniel L. Davis, Retired Lieutenant Colonel, Senior Fellow and Military Expert at Defense Priorities Arguing No: Heather Conley, President of German Marshall Fund of the United States; Paula Dobriansky, Former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs; Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Vice Chair, Atlantic Council Scowcroft Center for Strategy & Security Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Religion has long shaped human civilization, and many have wondered whether it’s good for society. Those who argue “yes” say it offers a sense of identity and belonging and provides a moral compass to do good acts. Those who argue “no” say that religious beliefs are a source of historical and conflict and discrimination and can hinder social progress that clash with modern values. Now we debate: Is Religion a Force for Good? Arguing Yes: Shadi Hamid, Columnist and Editorial Board Member of The Washington Post; Assistant Research Professor of Islamic Studies at Fuller Seminary Arguing No: Annie Laurie Gaylor, Co-Founder and 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

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released new guidelines to address childhood obesity, affecting over 14 million children, including recommendations for weight loss medications and surgery. Those who consider the guidelines good medicine say that it is a step forward in recognizing obesity as a condition requiring a range of medical interventions. Those who think the guidelines are too extreme worry these approaches could impact mental health and body image, contributing to weight stigma and shame. Now we debate: Childhood Obesity Guidelines: Good Medicine or Too Extreme? Arguing "Good Medicine: Dr. Julia Nordgren, Pediatric Lipid Specialist at Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Attending Physician at the Stanford Weight Clinic Arguing "Too Extreme": Dr. Janna Gewirtz O'Brien, Pediatrician and Assistant Professor at University of Minnesota Medical School Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With one billion active users across more than 150 countries, TikTok is by many measures one of the world’s most successful video apps — and half of Americans use it. The House of Representatives has passed a bill that could ban the social media company in the U.S. if its parent company, Bytedance, does not divest from it and requires TikTok to be bought by a country that is not a U.S. adversary. Those supporting such a move often point to a ban on another Chinese tech giant, Huawei, as an effective means of limiting China’s influence and bring up concerns the app could be used to leak Americans’ data to China for surveillance, making it a security risk. Those who argue against it say a ban would undermine what has become an important tool in the video marketplace, and that such efforts are not only politically motivated but are also easily bypassed. In that context, we debate the 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 Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Taylor Swift achieved her billionaire status because of her talent, work ethic, and support from her fans. But some question whether any individual should be able to accumulate so much wealth. Those arguing they should point to philosopher Robert Nozick, who says if someone acquires wealth through just means, they are entitled to it. Those arguing “no” say that luck and systemic advantages often play a role, sometimes involving exploitation, and that billionaires have an outsized influence on policy. Now we debate: Does Taylor Swift Deserve Her Billion Dollar Fortune? Arguing Yes: Jessica Flanigan, Political Philosopher and Chair in Ethics and Democratic Values at the University of Richmond Arguing No: Ingrid Robeyns, Chair in Ethics of Institutions at Utrecht University's Ethics Institute; Author of "Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth" Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 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

In a high-stakes presidential election year, in partnership with the Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, Open to Debate is taking a look at more than a decade of the Citizens United Supreme Court case. The 2010 landmark decision that ruled the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofits, labor unions, and other associations, changed the landscape of political spending in the U.S. This gave rise to Super PACS and an increase in election campaign spending. Since then, there have been questions about whether the decision has harmed our democratic process. Those who support the decision argue it upholds free speech, allowing diverse voices in the political arena, and broadens the range of discourse by enabling groups to freely express their views and support candidates or policies. Those against it argue that it allows a disproportionate influence from corporations and special interest groups, and leaves the voices of ordinary citizens overshadowed by the financial resources of a few, eroding the principles of equality and fair representation. With this context, we debate the question: Has Citizens United Undermined Democracy? This debate is presented in partnership with the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law as part of the Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series. It will be recorded live in person on Wednesday, February 21, 2024, at the Thorne Auditorium at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. Arguing Yes: Francesca Procaccini, Assistant Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School; Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Professor of Law at Stetson University Arguing No: Floyd Abrams, Senior Counsel at Cahill Gordon & Reindel; Eric Wang, Partner at The Gober Group, pro bono Senior Fellow at the Institute for Free Speech Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

During Black History Month, we reflect on a debate that confronts America’s complex history with racial and social inequality. How can we ensure fair treatment for all in the workplace, on campuses, and in our personal interactions? Is it possible to imagine a future beyond race? As we honor this month of remembrance and celebration, we revisit a conversation that confronts the challenges of our past and the promise of a future that aspires to secure equitable opportunities for all. Arguing Yes: Jamelle Bouie, Columnist for the New York Times Arguing No: Coleman Hughes, Host of the “Conversations with Coleman” podcast and Contributing Writer at The Free Press Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Iran’s regional role has changed post-October 7, but is Iran a bigger global threat than we think? In partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations, National Security Council and State Department veterans will debate in our Unresolved format Biden’s Iran diplomacy, Iran's use of proxies in the Middle East, its nuclear ambitions, and whether Iran now poses a threat to the global order. Michael Doran, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at the Hudson Institute Barbara Slavin, Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Center Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations 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 discusses her new online course, 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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Whoever wins the 2024 election will soon face a critical decision about extending four trillion dollars in tax cuts expiring next year. Whether taxes will be raised, or cut is in question, against the backdrop of 34.1 trillion dollars in federal debt. For the past few decades, the Republican Party has embraced the belief that lower tax rates and less government spending boost the U.S. economy. However, there is disagreement among conservative thought leaders about the way forward on taxes for the Republican Party. Specifically, some argue that preferences for tax cuts ignore the looming deficit and that refusing to raise taxes further imbalances the federal budget. However, others continue to argue that our debt is caused by government overspending and will actually be helped by tax cuts and that these same cuts also help promote a flourishing economy. With this background, we debate the question: 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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Right now, climate engineers are working on new technologies, called solar geoengineering, that would reflect the sun’s rays away from Earth as a way to cool the planet. Those in favor argue it would be inexpensive and effective, and could buy us time to get carbon emissions down before the worst impacts of climate change. But others argue it would distract from the underlying issues of climate change and express concern about who would control such a powerful technology. So we debate: Is Engineering Solar Radiation A Crazy Idea? 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

Debate is a form of conflict that is played out through civility, and the capability to exchange ideas with people we disagree with. But what leads leaders and countries to fall into conflict? In this conversation with Retired U.S. Army General David H. Petraeus and historian Lord Andrew Roberts, guest moderator Xenia Wickett speaks with them about their new book, the nature of military conflict, and how civil debate and conflict are intertwined. Our Guests: General David H. Petraeus, U.S. Army Retired General; Chairman of the KKR Global Institute; Former CIA Director Andrew Roberts, Biographer, Historian, and Member of the U.K. Parliament 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

After the 2020 election, former President Trump discredited the election results. The January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and Trump’s federal indictment on four charges are tied to his claims. The defense claims proof is needed he had planned to commit a crime and he conducted himself under legal advice. The prosecution argues his actions showed criminal intent to defraud the U.S. and was done knowingly. Now we debate: Is Trump Guilty in the January 6th Case? Prosecutor: Lanny Davis, Attorney and Former Presidential Advisor Defense Attorney: Sara Azari, Criminal Defense Lawyer; Legal Analyst for NewsNation Judge's Chair: John Donvan, Moderator-In-Chief and Emmy award-winning journalist Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With polarization rising within our society and two wars encouraging division, people are feeling more afraid to engage with people who have differing perspectives. How can we solve that issue, build deeper connections, and get to know someone? New York Times columnist David Brooks says you help them feel seen and understood. John Donvan sits down with Brooks to discuss his book “How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen”, how to foster connections in daily life, and offers a solution to a society in need of appreciating each other’s differences. 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

In response to a surge in migrants and asylum seekers at America’s borders, the Secure the Border Act of 2023 aims to enforce stricter limitations on immigration, migrants, and more. Those arguing for passage say it is a necessary response to improve national security and modernize border security infrastructure. Those against it are concerned about the humanitarian impact and question its effectiveness. Now we debate: Should Congress Pass the Secure the Border Act? Arguing Yes: Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies Arguing No: Kristie De Peña, Senior Vice President for Policy and Director of Immigration Policy at Niskanen Center Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From AI-generated paintings to writing scripts and novels, AI is challenging our endeavor to create, innovate, and connect. Will the human touch be obsolete? Those arguing yes say since AI-created art can’t experience human emotions, it will lack depth, and it will come at an economic cost for human artists. Those arguing no say it’s another tool in a toolkit and will help express talent like never before. Now we debate: Will AI Kill the Future of the Creative Arts? Arguing Yes: Jonathan Taplin, Author; Director Emeritus of the Annenberg Innovation Lab at the University of Southern California Arguing No: Rebecca Fiebrink, Professor at the University of the Arts, London's Creative Computing Institute Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The centrist group No Labels is planning a bipartisan nominating convention, leading to speculation that they may promote a third-party candidate for voters who don’t support Donald Trump or Joe Biden. Those who agree say a third-party ticket will affect the election by helping Trump get more votes and diluting opposition. Those who disagree say voters may like the third-party candidate better, reducing Trump’s chances. Now we debate: “How Would A No Labels Presidential Candidate Change the Outcome in 2024?” Arguing Yes: Rahna Epting, Executive Director of MoveOn Arguing No: Ryan Clancy, Chief Strategist of No Labels Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How can you have meaningful conversations in increasingly divided times, whether it’s against the backdrop of American politics or the Israel-Gaza war? To author Mónica Guzmán, it’s by asking yourself, “What am I missing?” John Donvan sits down with Guzmán to talk about her work at Braver Angels, staying hopeful in times of conflict or during world events, and why using curiosity to navigate today’s polarized landscape is easier than you think. Mónica Guzmán is the author of "How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times" and Senior Fellow for Public Practice at Braver Angels. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Are we the true authors of our actions – or are we guided by a preordained fate? From the days of Greek philosophers to the present, the notion of free will and the question of whether humans can make their own choices is as captivating as ever. Those who think that free will exists consider it foundational to a rules-based society since it holds individuals accountable for their actions. Those who don’t believe in it argue everything that happens to us, and our actions and choices, is determined by prior existing conditions. Though we may feel in control of our actions, they are influenced by factors outside of our control, like upbringing, societal pressures, and biological predispositions. With this background, we now debate the question: Do We Have Free Will? Arguing Yes: Roy Baumeister, Social Psychologist, Author of “Free Will and Consciousness: How Might They Work” Arguing No: Robert Sapolsky, Neuroscientist; Professor at Stanford University Nayeema Raza, Journalist at New York Magazine and Vox, is the guest moderator. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, or Eddie Murphy jokes would be deemed offensive by today’s standards? From comedy specials to TV shows and movies, what makes us laugh has come under scrutiny. Some old jokes and racy skits are considered off-limits in today's context, leading to public apologies, cancellations, and backlash. While society wants more inclusivity and awareness, comedy has now become a cultural battleground. Some argue that political correctness will stifle comedic creativity and worry it will affect comedy’s ability to tackle tough subjects, leading to self-censorship and lack of depth or free speech. Those who disagree say comedy, like all art forms, has always evolved with changing societal norms and it can still flourish without relying on harmful stereotypes or tropes. Instead, acting more sensitive or woke will refine and elevate comedy. Against this background, we debate the question: Is Wokeness Killing Comedy? This debate will take place in front of a live audience, on Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at The Comedy Cellar’s Village Underground in New York City. Arguing Yes: Lou Perez, Comedian, Producer, Author of "That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore" Arguing No: Michael Ian Black, Actor and Comedian Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large of Reason, guest moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

More American colleges are adopting DEI as a core value, affecting professors' tenure, hiring, and promotion. Has what was intended as solidarity turned into a “loyalty oath”? Those who agree say evaluations based on DEI statements harm professors who may not embrace an agenda, affecting academic freedom. Those disagreeing say the statements aren’t intended to push a viewpoint but to reward a professor’s actions. Now we debate: “Are DEI Mandates for University Faculties a Bad Idea? Arguing Yes: Randall L. Kennedy, Professor at Harvard Law School Arguing No: Brian Soucek, Law Professor and Chancellor's Fellow at University of California, Davis Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Zionism — the belief that the Jewish people have a right to statehood in Israel — has been debated for decades. But facing increased anti-Semitic violence around the world, some argue that criticizing it is anti-Semitic and Israel has a historical and political right to self-determination. Others say their concerns about Israel’s actions— particularly regarding Palestinian rights and sovereignty — are legitimate. Now we debate: Is Anti-Zionism the New Anti-Semitism? (Note: This debate was originally released in 2020 and does not reflect current events.) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Economic growth is a central goal of many economies, but there are questions about how sustainable relentless growth is. Those arguing “yes” say the right measurements aren’t being used for societal well-being and how much it costs the environment, and call for a new economic model for more equitable and sustainable futures. Those arguing “no” say growth drives today’s prosperity, brings public good, and fuels advancements. Now we debate: Does Economic Growth Cost Too Much? Arguing Yes: Peter Victor, Environmental Studies Professor Emeritus and Senior Scholar at York University Arguing No: 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

Modern art, runway fashion, and music today are in the middle of a cultural reckoning, where artists must find a balance between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation. Those in support of borrowing say placing restrictions on what artists can be inspired by may stifle artistic expression. Those against it say doing so erases a tradition’s context while echoing past mistreatment. Now we debate: Should Artists Be Allowed to Borrow From Cultures Besides Their Own? Arguing Yes: Yascha Mounk, political scientist, author, and associate professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies Arguing No: C. Thi Nguyen, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Utah; Author of "Games: Agency as Art" Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, economic sanctions led to frozen Russian assets abroad inaccessible and could be relocated to Ukraine. Those arguing yes say it would serve as restitution for Russia’s aggression and compensate for damages and economic disruptions. Those arguing no say relocating the frozen assets could set a concerning precedent, leading to escalated tensions and retaliatory actions. Now we debate: Should Ukraine Get Russia’s Frozen Assets? Arguing Yes: Lawrence H. Summers, Former Secretary of the Treasury Arguing No: Benn Steil, Senior Fellow and Director of International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations Gillian Tett, Editorial Board Chair and Editor-at-Large US of the Financial Times and Incoming Provost at King’s College Cambridge, guest moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Under prime minister Narendra Modi, pro-Hindu nationalism and civil rights issues have led to India’s downgrade to an electoral autocracy (according to V-Dem Institute), and many question whether better times are ahead. Those who agree with Modi’s leadership highlight the new strong economic growth as well as his efforts to improve India’s global influence. Those who disagree point to increasingly divisive policies and their effects on the non-Hindu population. Now we debate: Is Modi’s India Heading in the Right Direction? Arguing Yes: Sameer Lalwani, Senior Expert in South Asia Programs at the United States Institute of Peace Arguing No: Prerna Singh, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Brown University Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 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

According to an October 2022 Pew survey, “88% of US adults say that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use.” While marijuana legalization is gaining more and more cultural acceptance, effectively regulating drugs has long flummoxed policy and lawmakers. Some are even starting to have second thoughts, especially when it comes to how to practically enforce legal sales. In fact, voters in Oklahoma – one of the nation’s leading weed markets –overwhelmingly rejected recreational legalization earlier this year, even though voters backed medical marijuana legalization by a double-digit margin in 2018. Those who argue “Yes” for marijuana legalization say legalization creates more problems for our legal system because it requires extra enforcement to crack down on already robust illegal markets to make way for new, regulated, and legal markets. Additionally, competition from illegal weed markets is undercutting legal sales, which means the expected revenue stream from a legalized industry is far lower than expected. Those who argue “No” say legalization can reduce the burden on law enforcement and criminal justice systems, allowing resources to be redirected to more pressing issues. They also highlight marijuana’s medical benefits, such as for pain management and treatment of certain health conditions, which have made a difference in people’s lives. With this context, it’s time to debate — and reconsider — “Is Legalizing Marijuana A Mistake?” Arguing Yes: Paul J. Larkin, Jr, Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation and Teresa Haley, senior policy advisor at the Foundation for Drug Policy Solution Arguing No: Toi Hutchinson, CEO of the Marijuana Policy Project; former member of the Illinois Senate, and Cat Packer, Director of Drug Markets and Legal Regulation at Drug Policy Alliance 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 executive producer and co-host of Vox Media’s "On with Kara Swisher" podcast, is the guest moderator. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Similar to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, neurotechnology techniques like decoded neurofeedback open the possibility of modifying or erasing memories that aren’t pleasant or beneficial to our well-being. Those in favor argue it could help offer a path to a mentally healthier and happier life. Those against it say that tampering with memories could be dangerous to our sense of self and undermine our experiences. Now we debate: Should We Erase Bad Memories? Arguing Yes: Nita Farahany, Author of "The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology", Professor at Duke University, and the Founding Director of the Duke Initiative for Science & Society Arguing No: Sigal Samuel, Senior Reporter for Vox Future Perfect and co-host of the Future Perfect podcast Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When you think about the world’s most intractable problems, racial inequality is among the most challenging. Societies have grappled not just with how to treat community members equitably in public spaces, but how to judge individuals based on qualities that extend beyond race in personal interactions. For many decades, some have pointed to “color blindness,” or treating people without regard to race or ethnicity, as the best way to promote equal opportunity. But, there are many who believe the approach downplays racial bias and silently maintains discrimination. Arguing YES is Jamelle Bouie, Columnist for the New York Times Arguing NO is Coleman Hughes, Host of the “Conversations with Coleman” podcast and Contributing Writer at The Free Press Emmy Award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the wake of the Russian invasion, Ukraine has applied on a fast-track membership bid to join NATO. Those who argue “yes” say admitting Ukraine would keep the country protected, affirm its sovereignty, and solidify alignment with the West. Those who argue “no” say it will provoke Putin, escalate the conflict, and that it doesn’t yet meet NATO’s standards. Now we debate: Should NATO Admit Ukraine? Arguing Yes: Garry Kasparov, Founder of the Renew Democracy Initiative and former World Chess Champion Arguing No: Charles Kupchan, Senior Fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations and Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University Gillian Tett, Editorial Board Chair and Editor-at-Large US of the Financial Times and Incoming Provost at King’s College Cambridge, moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices