Open to Debate

Social media platforms have become an integral part of the modern digital landscape, shaping how young individuals connect, communicate, and perceive the world around them. However, concerns have been raised regarding the potential negative consequences on children's mental well-being. Even recently, the US Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy released an advisory stating there’s a risk of profound harm to children and adolescents' mental health and well-being. Those who agree claim that excessive social media usage can make children experience low self-esteem and negative body image. They also highlight cyberbullying and online harassment, which can contribute to increased stress, anxiety, and depression. Those who disagree say that when used responsibly and with proper guidance, social media can enhance social and creative skills, foster a sense of belonging, provide access to valuable educational resources, and help support communities. They also note that studies measuring social media’s impact on kids’ mental health don’t always take into account other prominent factors. With this context, we debate the question: Is Social Media Bad for Kids’ Mental Health? Arguing “YES” is Jim Steyer, founder and CEO of Common Sense Media. Arguing “NO” is Candice Odgers, Professor of Psychological Science and Informatics at University of California, Irvine, and Director of Research and Faculty Development at University of California, Irvine’s School of Social Ecology Emmy Award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) needs to approve safe and effective drugs as quickly as possible to patients who need them, it must also maintain the diligence and rigor necessary to prevent harm. Two health experts look at the pace of FDA approvals and argue about whether the agency is getting it right on keeping the public safe or stifling health innovations. Now we debate: Is the FDA Too Cautious? Arguing Yes: Colin Hill, CEO & Co-Founder, Aitia Arguing No: Peter Lurie, President and Executive Director of Center for Science in the Public Interest Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the US, misdemeanors count for 80% of cases filed annually, but district attorneys around the country are implementing policies stating they’ll no longer prosecute certain low-level, nonviolent crimes. Those who argue “yes” say it keeps communities safe and not strengthening sentencing will let violent criminals back in public and increase crime. Those who argue “no” say it doesn’t deter criminals and distracts from better solutions. Now, we debate: “Should Prosecutors Pursue Minor Crimes?” Arguing Yes: John Milhiser, former US attorney for the Central District of Illinois Arguing No: Paul Butler, former federal prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The oldest members of the Millennial generation are reaching their forties and feel they’ve been left behind emotionally and financially. Those who agree say Millennials pay more for basic items, leading them unable to afford to buy a home or have children. Those who disagree say that not buying a house or having kids are their choices and they will soon be doing well financially. With this context, we debate: Will Millennials Be Left Behind? Arguing Yes: Jill Filipovic, Journalist, lawyer, and author Arguing No: Scott Winship, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center of Opportunity and Social Mobility at the American Enterprise Institute Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large of Reason, is the guest moderator. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The age of eligibility for full Social Security benefits is currently 67, but the cash reserves behind it are expected to run out by 2034. Those arguing “yes” to raising the retirement age say people these days are living longer, and it will lead to more economic growth. Those arguing “no” say not everyone is able to work longer and it’ll make large benefit cuts. Now we debate: Should the Government Raise the Retirement Age? Arguing Yes: Marc Goldwein, Senior Vice President and Senior Policy Director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Arguing No: Teresa Ghilarducci, Irene and Bernard L Schwartz Professor of Economics and Policy Analysis at The New School Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Originalism is a way of interpreting the Constitution that could help it be understood through either framer’s intent or what the public would’ve intended at the Constitution’s ratification. Supporters say the Constitution needs modern interpretation, even if some pre-existing circumstances are nonexistent. Others argue it doesn’t make sense to keep our laws limited to what society back then would’ve valued. In this context, we debate: Should the Supreme Court Focus on the Original Meaning of the Constitution? Arguing Yes: Randy Barnett Arguing No: Prof. Thomas Colby Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The US has more than $31 trillion in national debt. If it is breached, the government may go into default, leading to national and global consequences. Supporters in favor of abolishing the debt ceiling say it is counterproductive, leads to political drama, and an economic threat. Those arguing “no” say it’s an effective tool of governance that allows discussion about national spending and keeps lawmakers accountable. Now we debate: Should Congress Abolish the Debt Ceiling? Arguing Yes: Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics Arguing No: Parker Sheppard, director for Center of Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Since his 2022 re-election, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has introduced plans for a new judiciary reform, leading to large-scale public protests. Supporters say these changes will better balance the power between lawmakers and judges and bring Israel’s judiciary system closer to other countries. Others argue these reforms will undermine the judiciary branch’s independence and affect the country’s relationship with the U.S. and Palestinians. So we debate: Is Netanyahu’s Government Heading in the Wrong Direction? Arguing Yes: Jeremy Ben-Ami, President of J Street and Executive Director of JStreetPac Arguing No: Caroline Glick, Former Senior Contributing and Chief Columnist for the Jerusalem Post and Senior Columnist for Maariv Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Are certain books beyond reproach? It’s a fundamental question making its way across America’s school boards. Those who argue “yes” say schools should not expose children to topics they deem inappropriate like gender, sexuality, and race. Others say that reading controversial books fosters critical thinking, encourages empathy, and that professional educators should be involved in guiding students through such literature. In this context, we debate: Should Certain Books Be Banned in School? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How can we argue in good faith? How can we communicate with confidence? How can we uncover new ideas through the art of debate? Journalist, broadcaster, and best-selling author Mehdi Hasan has made a career out of doing just that. Named one of the 100 'most influential' Britons on Twitter, and included in the annual global list of 'The 500 Most Influential Muslims' in the world, Hasan has become a bit an expert on deconstructing arguments and nudged disagreements toward mutual understanding. His book, "Win Every Argument," seeks to sharpen those skills among its readers, and relay the intrinsic value—and pleasure–of debate. John Donvan sits down with Hasan to go over the tricks of the trade, and examining methods of rooting out truths through argument. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When it comes to carbon dioxide, last year was a record year. The world emitted more of the climate-warming gas in 2022 than in any year since scientists began recording levels in 1900. The culprit, says the International Energy Agency, is society’s voracious appetite for fossil fuels, and the need to burn them. So … what can be done to prevent dangerous levels of warming? One potential method is called carbon capture and storage, a technology in which CO2 is extracted and stored in underground facilities. In fact, as recently as February, Exxon Mobil announced that it will use Honeywell technology in Texas to capture some seven million tons of carbon dioxide per year. Other companies, meanwhile, have followed suit. But it is not without controversy. Critics say the technology is not cost effective, is unreliable in large scales, and that the level of carbon removal needed to help the planet is well beyond current capacity. As such, they say, it is a dangerous distraction in the broader fight against climate change, potentially diluting the urgency in reducing emissions. Others say these systems are ever more adept at capturing gases from the air, and that they have the potential to become a critical tool in the battle against rising emissions. It is in this context that we debate the following question: Is Carbon Capture Essential to Fighting Climate Change? Arguing “YES” is Katherine Romanak, Research Scientist, Bureau of Economic Geology Arguing is “NO”: Mark Zachary Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, Director of its Atmosphere/Energy Program & Co-founder of The Solutions Project Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Last year was a banner year for those trading the New York chill for the Florida sun. Thirty-nine percent of Empire Staters packed up and moved to the Sunshine State, more than any year in history. In fact, recent census data revealed 1.6 million former New Yorkers (or 8% of Florida’s total population) now call Florida home — and it’s not just retirees. Favorable tax policies are fueling Florida’s popularity, attracting top businesses, budding entrepreneurs, and so-called one-percenters, such as Donald Trump and Carl Icahn. Does that mean Florida is a better bet? Those who argue “yes” say New Yorkers are heading south where their money can last longer, their health can benefit from warmer climates, and their sense of safety can markedly improve. Others say that ‘blue state’ policies are a better choice in the long run and that as the effects of the pandemic recede, New York will once again rise in popularity. They also say the state’s inclusive practices and cultural diversity will pull people back to New York. It is in this context that we debate this question: Is Florida Eating New York’s Lunch? Arguing Yes: Reihan Salam -- Conservative Political Commentator, Columnist and Author, president of the Manhattan Institute Arguing No: Bill de Blasio – Mayor of New York City from 2014 to 2021 Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When the Great Recession struck, it was the start of the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. A slumping housing market revealed vulnerabilities of huge numbers of mortgage-backed securities and derivatives. In the aftermath, unemployment soared to 10%. GDP dropped by more than 4%, and federal authorities unleashed a series of unprecedented fiscal and monetary policies aimed at stemming the bleeding. When the dust finally settled, legislators and regulators pushed through a series of reforms meant to prevent the repeat of such a calamity. Fast forward to 2023 and the global banking system may be facing its most significant crisis since 2008. Within a short span, a run on deposits at Silicon Valley Bank quickly led to the third-largest bank failure in U.S. history, with Switzerland's Credit Suisse later seeking government lifelines. A second US regional bank — Signature Bank — failed, and a third — First Republic Bank — was propped up. To some, these are signs of the kinds of broader risks the global economy stared down in 2008. A combination of factors, including an eroding of regulations, sharp interest rate rises, mismanagement at banks, coupled with the overarching uncertainty of volatile crypto landscape, have raised new questions about the scale of turmoil that could confront markets. This cocktail of risks, some argue, has added such dangers to banking systems that it is no longer safer than it was in 2008. Others disagree. As bad this recent crisis appears to be, they say, regulatory reforms and liquidity requirements have made significant strides since the days of 2008. The system also effectively contained the contagion, something that required far greater government intervention in 2008. In that context, we debate the following question: Is the Banking System Safer Than It Was in 2008? Arguing YES: Jason Furman, Former Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers Arguing NO: Gillian Tett , Editor-at-Large, Financial Times (U.S.) Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

By several measures, men are in trouble. Women outnumber them in college enrollment. And even once there, men are not as likely to graduate. Men also face higher levels of substance abuse, higher numbers of overdoses, higher incarceration rates, lower life expectancies, and suicide levels that are nearly four times more likely than women. In this context we debate the question: Are Men Finished and Should We Help Them? Arguing Yes: Richard Reeves, Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Arguing No: Hanna Rosin, Award-Winning Journalist and Podcast host Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Defund the police. Abolish ICE. Redistribute the wealth. These are but a few of the one-liners that have emanated from the liberal wing of the Democratic party in recent years. With the emergence of “The Squad” in 2018 – or what began as four Democratic congresswomen who sought to push their party further left – liberal lawmakers have grown more prevalent in recent election cycles. And with just a slim 51-49 Democrat majority in the Senate, progressives are now eyeing 2024 as a way to strengthen their broader influence. By doing so, some say, the party risks aligning itself with ever more extreme politics, alienating moderate voices, and straying from what made it successful in the past. When President Bill Clinton was in office, they note, only 25 percent of Democrats described themselves as liberal; another 25 percent called themselves conservative, while an overwhelming 48 percent were self-described moderates. The equating of liberalism with Democratic policies, they argue, is a recent and dangerous trend, which makes governing more difficult. Others argue that the party is finally poised to make good what constitutes the reemergence of the political left, long stymied by the compromising influence of Washington and beltway politics. What’s more, they argue, this renewed focus on issues such as race, climate, income inequality has not only begun to address in earnest issues once paid only superficial notice, but is also electrifying the nation's progressive base in ways that can win elections. It is in this context that we debate the following question: Is The Democratic Party Too Far Left? Arguing Yes: Coleman Huges (Conversations with Coleman), Ruy Teixeira (American Enterprise Institute) Arguing No: Congressman Jamaal Bowman (NY-16), Alicia Garza (Co-founder of Black Lives Matter) Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Sixty years ago, in the sweltering August heat of Washington D.C., the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his most iconic speech, and a defining moment of the civil rights movement. "I have a dream,” he said before a crowd of some 250,000 people, pressed up to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, “that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." It is a sentence that has been repeated countless times in classrooms and lecture halls. And yet recently, King's words are more actively being parsed and debated about the appropriate place of race in America. With disparities in wealth, education, employment, housing, mobility, health, and rates of incarceration, some argue that King – who spoke during a period of more open bigotry – would not have wanted a “color-blind” society within these lingering racial inequalities. A raised consciousness plays an important role, they say, in recognizing and correcting such imbalances. Others argue that America has become overly concerned with race, to a level of obsession, pointing to things like critical race theory and diversity, equity, inclusion programs, which they fear could ultimately prove detrimental to the nation’s more egalitarian aspirations. Further, they argue, notions of race are often too broad to be useful, while the fixation on it divides those who might otherwise find common ground. In this context, we debate the following question: Is America Too Obsessed With Race? Arguing “YES” is Kmele Foster, co-host of The Fifth Column podcast and the co-founder and executive producer of the media company Freethink. Foster was one of the signatories of the Harper's Letter on justice and open debate, alongside more than 150 people, including Salman Rushdie, J.K. Rowling, and Noam Chomsky. He is an outspoken libertarian critic of cancel culture, the Black Lives Matter movement, and political orthodoxy. Arguing “NO” is Nsé Ufot, activist, community organizer, and former chief executive officer of the New Georgia Project, a voter support and legal action nonprofit organization founded by Stacey Abrams in 2013. In 2021, Ufot was named one of Time's 100 Next, a ranking of emerging leaders thought to define the next generation of leadership. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This year, the Federal Trade Commission decided shake up the labor market, proposing to ban non-compete clauses for the tens of millions of workers they affect. The clauses are essentially contracts between employers and employees that prohibit the former from competing with the business after the employment has ended. As many as 30% of all U.S. private sector workers have signed such agreements, which actually find their roots all the way back in 15th century England. Those who defend such clauses say employers need these contracts to protect their investments in training workers, not to mention safeguarding their trade secrets. The contracts, they say, represent not only a fair exchange, but also serve as an important fortification for businesses within the broader economy. The FTC, they say, is overextending. But opponents argue that such contracts prevent workers from starting their own businesses, locking them into undercompensated positions, and depress labor mobility and wage growth, while contributing to race and gender gaps. It is in this context that we debate the following question: Should the FTC Ban Non-compete Clauses? Arguing Yes: Arguing “YES”: Heidi Shierholz, Economic Policy Institute President and former Chief Economist to the U.S. Secretary of Labor. Arguing No: Neil Bradley, Executive Vice President, Chief Policy Officer, and Head of Strategic Advocacy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What’s it take to change a mind? It turns out there is a science to it. That’s at least according to David McRaney, a journalist, author, and host of the You Are Not So Smart podcast. The first step, he says, is don’t overtly try to win. In any argument, an attempt to defeat the opposing party is not nearly as effective as leading the person along in stages, which eventually align with your own thinking. In fact, mere exposure to different ideas, according a recent Pew study, does not generally change most Americans’ perspectives on a given issue. Understanding techniques to communicate successfully and proactively active listen, is ultimately thought to be a more effective approach. Intelligence Squared US, since 2026, has made fostering intellectual openness in dialogue a core part of its mission. In that context, and to get a sense of what other methods are out there, John Donvan sat down with David McRaney on the science of changing minds. 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 the world’s most successful video app. Nearly one in three Americans have an account. It is the most downloaded app since 2021. And like virtually all of social media, user privacy concerns abound. But TikTok adds an extra layer. Owned by Chinese company ByteDance, there are worries that U.S. data could be transmitted to China’s government, despite assurances from the company that it is not. Those concerns prompted President Joe Biden to ban Tiktok from government phones. More than half of U.S. states have similar controls in place. But with increased tensions between Beijing and Washington, and mounting questions of Chinese surveillance, some are calling for the U.S. to go further and ban the technology outright. Those supporting such a move often to point to a ban on another Chinese tech giant, Huawei, as an effective means of limiting China’s influence and potentially extractive technological efforts. Those who argue against it say a ban would essentially undermine what has become an important tool in the video marketplace, and that such efforts are not only political motivated, but are also easily bypassed. In that context, we debate the following: Should the U.S. Ban TikTok? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It’s poised to “change our world.” That’s according to Bill Gates, referencing an advanced AI chatbot called ChatGPT, which seems to be all the rage. The tool, which was developed by OpenAI and backed by a company Gates founded, Microsoft, effectively takes questions from users and produces human-like responses. The "GPT" stands "Generative Pre-trained Transformer," which denotes the design and nature of the artificial intelligence training. And yet despite the chatbot’s swelling popularity, it’s also not without controversy. Everything from privacy and ethical questions to growing concerns about the data it utilizes, has some concerned about the effects it will ultimately have on society. Its detractors fear job loss, a rise in disinformation, and even the compromising long-term effects it could have on humans’ capacity for reason and writing. Its advocates tout the advantages ChatGPT will inevitably lend organizations, its versatility and iterative ability, and the depth and diversity of the data from which it pulls. Against this backdrop, we debate the following question: Will ChatGPT do more harm than good? Arguing "Yes" is Gary Marcus (Author of "Rebooting AI: Building Artificial Intelligence We Can Trust" and Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Neural Science at New York University) Arguing "No" is Keith Teare (Entrepreneur, Author, and CEO & Founder at SignalRank Corporation) Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Take our podcast listener survey here: tinyurl.com/IQ2podcastsurvey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This was supposed to be the “Chinese century.” In just a few decades, China transitioned from a developing economy to the world’s second largest. Measured in purchasing power parity, it actually surpassed the U.S. economy in 2014, and has since expanded its military, monetary, infrastructure, and soft power capacities in ways that all seemed to point to long-term advantages as a rising power. At the Communist Party’s five-yearly congress in October 2022, Xi Jinping cemented his place as the country’s “helmsman” and its most powerful person since Mao Zedong, with an unprecedented third term as party chief. And yet the failure of China’s zero-COVID policy, a slumping economy, apparent supply chain vulnerabilities within its technology sector, and a problematic demographic profile have all raised questions about the scope of China’s future power. Those who say it has peaked say the Chinese system is facing significant economic headwinds, uneven innovation, a heavy debt burden, as well as mounting frustrations among its younger populations with regard to upward mobility and censorship. Those who say it hasn’t peaked argue that while the nation’s economic growth has indeed slowed, massive Chinese spending in infrastructure, defense, and technology will nonetheless allow it to enlarge its global power projections well into the future. Against this backdrop, we debate this question: Has China’s Power Peaked? Arguing “Yes” is Michael Beckley, formerly of the Harvard Kennedy School, the US Department of Defense, the RAND Corporation, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is the author of “Unrivaled: Why America Will Remain the World’s Sole Superpower,” has a PhD in political science from Columbia University, and is currently associate professor of political science at Tufts University. Arguing “No” is Ian Bremmer, president and founder of Eurasia Group, a leading global political risk research and consulting firm. He is also a founder of the digital media firm GZERO Media. Bremmer is the foreign affairs columnist and editor-at-large at Time magazine, where he writes about China, U.S. foreign policy, and geopolitics. He has published ten books, including “Superpower,” “The Power of Crisis,” and the national bestsellers “The End of the Free Market” and “Every Nation for Itself.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Sexual violence is arguably the most devastating kind. But the sex offender registry has come under increasing scrutiny. Some suggest that it actually encourages further criminal offenses by making it virtually impossible for offenders to reintegrate into society. Others say that reducing such a proactive approach and tool will endanger communities. In this context, we debate the following question: Does the Sex Offender Registry Do More Harm Than Good? Arguing "YES" is Emily Horowitz, a sociologist who researches sex offense law and policy, and the author of "Protecting Our Kids? How Sex Offender Laws Are Failing Us" and "From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear." Arguing "No" is Cary Federman, author of "Democracy and Deliberation: The Law and Politics of Sex Offender Legislation" and associate professor at Montclair State University who focuses law and jurisprudence, free speech, democratic theory, prisons and prisoners’ rights. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What shapes us more: our DNA, or the way we’re raised? This debate, commonly recognized as “nature versus nurture,” has drawn disagreement for thousands of years. So which one matters more? Emerging genetic research indicates that the scale may be tipping toward biology – but not all trust the research. Proponents of the “nature” camp argue it is DNA that determines who we are, as evidenced by identical twins and triplets who are separated at birth and, once reunited, show remarkable similarities despite different upbringings. Rather than trying to identify the perfect parenting style, they argue, caregivers should look to their children’s DNA to identify natural strengths and challenges to promote overall health and well-being. But others strongly disagree, saying that parenting is very important, and the individuals who rear us influence our development, growth, and, ultimately, our lives. The “nurture” camp also points to studies that show how beliefs and behaviors are not innate, as evidenced by stark differences in the expression of adolescence and other life stages across different cultures. Are they right? Or is parenting overrated? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

These days, the bird’s the word. Since shelling out $44 billion for Twitter, critics say Elon Musk is knocking the social media giant off its perch. Under his guidance, a slew of firings, a resurgence of unsavory Tweeters, and a bevy of on-again, off-again bans, have all raised questions about the platform’s long-term viability. Some investors have labeled Musk an albatross around Twitter’s neck, calling for him to stay focused on Tesla and SpaceX. Others say Musk is actually freeing the bird from anti-conservative censorship, which will engender more open discourse. His moves, they say, are all a part of a broader business acumen that has proven successful in the past. In that context, we ask the timely question of whether Elon Musk is killing Twitter. Kara Swisher, Host of “On with Kara Swisher,” Co-host of “Pivot” Podcast, and Editor-at-large of New York Magazine Anthony Scaramucci, Founder and Managing Partner of SkyBridge, Former White House Communications Director, Host of the new podcast "Open Book" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For a period of time, going global just seemed to make sense. But with China’s rise, Covid-19, and the war in Ukraine, words like “localnomics,” “friends-shoring,” and “decoupling” have helped codify a growing movement that calls for less interdependence between economies. Those in favor of a more “deglobalized” system of trade argue that it is not only more environmentally friendly and responsive to regional needs, but also less of a driver of income inequality. Indeed, globalization’s three-decade trend of trade growing at twice the speed of the world economy has not lifted all boats, they argue. For many, including middle income populations in the industrialized west, it has backfired. Deglobalization is a welcome a shift. Others disagree. Globalization’s virtues are unmistakable, they say, resulting in less poverty and higher incomes across the world. People once cut off from markets benefit from new connections in commerce, culture, and communications. For them, it has not backfired. In fact, in the face of political challenges and volatile markets, more regionally-focused trade constitutes a dangerous circling of the wagons. In this context, we ask the question: Has Globalization Backfired? John Donvan, Host and Moderator, Intelligence Squared U.S. Arguing “YES” – Rana Foroohar, Global Business Columnist, Financial Times; Author, “Homecoming: The Path To Prosperity In A Post-Global World” Arguing “NO” – Parag Khanna, Founder & CEO of Climate Alpha and Founder & Managing Partner of FutureMap Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

By now it is clear, the Red Wave election-denying candidates had hoped to ride left most still waiting on the beach. Those who questioned the outcome of the 2020 election lost key midterm races, which seemed to calm the nerves of many of those fearful as to where the Republic itself was headed. But as the parties begin to prepare for their respective presidential runs, a bigger question looms; one that has taken its cues from President Biden himself. Shortly after the January 6th attacks on the capitol — which were prompted by unfounded messaging about the election’s illegitimacy — Biden sought to convey the severity of what had just happened. “The insurrection was an existential crisis — a test of whether our democracy could survive,” he said. Now, on the heels of the midterms, many not only openly wonder whether that democracy crisis is over, but also question if the words Biden chose were overblown in the first place. It is in that context, and as the 2024 elections come into focus, that we debate this question: Was January 6 an existential threat to American democracy? On December 15th, Andrew Keen, Internet Entrepreneur, Author, and Host of the “How to Fix Democracy” podcast, squares off against Election Strategist, Managing Partner at CAE Strategies, and Vice President of the Fair Elections Center, Rebekah Caruthers, as part of the “No Laughing Matter” series at the Comedy Cellar at the Village Underground in New York. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What does it take to admit you’re wrong? And why is it so difficult? Cognitive psychology and neuroscience studies reveal that human decision-making relies on a host of factors that don’t always lead to objective evaluations. Opinions can form as a result of fear, anger, pleasure, and other emotions that not only contribute to bias, but can also harden over time. The resulting misconception often then rattles through every aspect of our lives, from our work to our politics to the very relationships we hold dear. But what if there were a way to break out of that process? Three luminaries in the field of business, psychology, and debate sit down for a fascinating discussion on how to argue well, and how to be open to changing your mind. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

2022 has finally ended. Some of it bad, some of it splendid. There was Russia’s invasion. And Ukraine’s self-defense. The west lobbed isolation against Moscow’s offense. This was also the year America closed the door despite a generation of fighting its 20-year-war We saw economic turmoil And those who could not tweet We debated inflation And whether small investors could beat the street We debated food, SATs, and if the Classics were overrated Aliens, and whether Britain’s Monarchy should be abated Affirmative action, cancel culture, and if Trump should be indicted, Unions, public radio, and what information disorder has ignited. Gene editing and digital dollars were fresh to the palette. We debated adaptation, and whether your Tesla helps the planet, And of course there was Roe, and if AI does more harm than good, Kissinger, Covid, and just how we all withstood midterms elections and if globalization backfired soft landings, and cities, and if democracy is mired in existential threat. OK...hold on, that’s not cheery. We can’t end this year leaving you tired and weary. So here’s to you listeners and watchers of debate Who at times may have wondered what is the fate Of a discourse that is broken Or at least a bit hobbled. When listening to a nation that yells and a people who squabble. Fear not, dear listeners, we say with some hope. We do in fact have a way you can cope. Real debate and discussion offers intellectual cheer. And so with that we wish you safe holidays…. … and a happy new year. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With the wealth gap widening, some Americans are starting to consider socialism as a viable economic and political model. Supporters of capitalism claim that no other system has been as effective in creating value, increasing prosperity, and producing the wealth that has lifted billions of people out of poverty. The free market, they argue, encourages competition and human ingenuity, values individual choice, and organizes society in a fair and just way. Critics of capitalism, however, paint a different picture. They argue that capitalism is inherently exploitative and that business owners seek profits above all else, leading to the distortion of human worth as one distilled to an individual’s labor power. Further, they claim that a capitalist system is inherently rigged to benefit the wealthy and powerful, and the byproducts of which have created unsustainable waste and decimated the world’s wildlife and natural resources. In light of this emerging divide, we ask this question: Is capitalism a blessing? With John Mackey, Bhaskar Sunkara, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Richard D. Wolff. John Donvan is our moderater. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The digital currency craze started with at least one anonymous Bitcoin founder and a community of futuristic, tech-savvy investors willing to take a bet on a new form of money. But over the past decade, the world of digital currency has coined a host of new types of online cash. In fact, Central Banks in more than 80 countries have, or are in the process of gearing their monetary systems in that direction. They consider them a means of modernizing and serving as a check against the growth of crypto. In China, an estimated 140 million people have already begun using the new digital yuan, which accounts for nearly $10 billion worth of transactions. In that context, does the world's reserve currency -- the U.S. dollar -- need its own version? Those who are argue “yes” say it is a fundamental step to remain competitive; to ensure the dollar remains in its preferred global standing. A digital dollar, they argue, would also create a new ease of exchange, reduce delays in processing times, and help the underbanked Americans into the digital economy. Those who argue “no” point to the risks of failure, hackings, and privacy breaches, which includes widespread government tracking of transactions, and could allow for unprecedented federal access to personal banks accounts. Against this backdrop, we ask: Does America Need a Digital Dollar? Arguing "Yes" is Gillian Tett, Editor-at-large, Financial Times Arguing "No" is Dante Disparte, Head of Global Policy at Circle Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

An affirmative action battle is again playing out at the highest levels, only this time with Asian Americans at the center of the controversy. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether the Supreme Court should reconsider race in college admissions. The group, Students for Fair Admissions, has taken aim at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, alleging that Asian Americans are less likely to be admitted than comparably qualified white, Black, or Latino applicants. In two separate cases, the group claims that 1.) Harvard’s admissions policy is regressive and discriminates against Asian Americans, and 2.) UNC – which is a public institution and therefore covered by the 14th amendment’s equal protection guarantee – violates both Title VI and the Constitution with its use of race in admissions. But opponents say race-conscious decision making is a necessary tool to address longstanding racism and discrimination. As such, in this timely debate, we ask the question of whether affirmative action is indeed unfair to Asian Americans. Arguing “yes” is Lee Cheng, co-founder of the Asian American Coalition for Education Arguing “no is John Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Processed food is bad for you, right? Well, there’s more to this story. As new technologies create foods that can’t be made in home kitchens, such as plant-based meats and dairy products made with plant proteins, the question of whether we should all be consuming more highly processed foods is up for debate. Advocates say a substantial increase in food processing is the best way to feed growing human populations while also reducing food waste. We should trust – and invest – in food technology that can make our global food supply healthier and more sustainable, including highly or ultra-processed foods. Opponents argue that these kinds of foods are often less nutritious, and are commonly linked to adverse health indices, particularly when it comes to ultra-processing. As this debate blooms, Intelligence Squared partners with the Institute of Food Technologists to debate this question: Should We Eat More Processed Foods? Arguing in favor of the motion is Amy Webb and Michael Gibney. Arguing against the motion is Kevin Hall and Marion Nestle. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Many Americans grew up with a transistor radio somewhere in the home. Out of it emanated the commentaries, stories, news, and analysis. Public radio was a key means of getting information. But between podcasts, satellite radio and on-demand streaming, some argue that signal is fading. Nimble upstarts and emerging technologies have created wildly successful new platforms, enabling a broad diversity of creators to broadcast their views. What does this mean for the future of public radio? Intelligence Squared host and moderator John Donvan moderates a debate between two media luminaries, who zero in on this existential question: Is Public Radio Still Relevant? Arguing "No" is Kmele Foster, political commentator and Co-Founder of Freethink. Arguing "Yes" is podcast creator and Co-Founder of Magnificent Noise, Eric Nuzum. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The age of “information disorder” is upon us. Deep fakes, false political narratives, and flawed COVID rumors are all rampant online, threatening America’s national security, as well as democracy itself. Though bad actors have always had the capacity to deceive, the ease, speed, and degree to which anyone can create misleading information has engendered a dangerous new world. And yet many solutions can also run directly against longstanding western principles, such as free speech and a lack of censorship. Prescriptions, some argue, can be as dangerous as the disorder itself. So, what can be done? In partnership with the Homeland Security Experts Group, Intelligence Squared U.S. debates how to combat this dangerous new phenomenon, termed “information disorder.” Our expert panel takes a look at what the private sector should do, what the public sector can do, and how political actors who spread false information should be handled. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The fate of Taiwan is uncertain. As a revanchist China builds up forces near the island, the Biden administration is warning Beijing against an invasion, bolstering its defense with the sale of military hardware. Beijing sees Taiwan as lost territory, which needs to be “reunified” with the mainland. The United States is now faced with a geopolitical quandary: Can the U.S. military defend Taiwan from Beijing, and should it? Or, is Taiwan indefensible? Arguing in favor of the motion is Lyle J. Goldstein of the Naval War College, with Charlie Glaser of George Washington University. Arguing against the motion is former deputy assistant secretary of defense Elbridge Colby, with Elizabeth Larus of the University of Mary Washington. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The U.S. Constitution has a lot to say about elections. But nowhere is there any mention of political primaries, the process by which candidates are winnowed down ahead of a general election. Though they may seem integral to the U.S. system, primaries in fact are a relatively new phenomenon, borne of the turn of the 20th century when reformers sought to wrangle power from political party bosses. Of course, quite a lot has changed since the days of Tammany Hall. Gerrymandering has greatly reduced competitive districts, while the urban-rural divide has grown exponentially. Divisions run deep, with social media capable of dramatically shifting the political landscape at unprecedented speed. Many see primary elections as a principal culprit of what they consider an undermined democracy, fueling extremism, hindering compromise, and lending too much power to partisans. Others argue that primaries are an important bulwark against political corruption and a hedge against elitism. In this context, we ask: Are Primary Elections Ruining Democracy? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How does one balance two important, though at times competing, public interests? In this case, it’s the need to hold public officials accountable versus the need to shield those officials from harassment and legal liability. In 1967, the US Supreme Court lay the foundations of an answer during a case involving two police officers, sued over civil rights violations carried out at a segregated bus stop in Jackson, Mississippi. The court effectively ruled that if unconstitutional arrests were made in good faith and with probable cause, officers then enjoyed a degree of legal immunity. That case then served as bedrock for a legal doctrine that later came to be known as “qualified immunity;” a concept that effectively provides government officials with immunity from civil suits in certain circumstances. In 1982, the court went further, codifying qualified immunity for officials and rendering subjective intent of the official immaterial. In other words, whether or not a defendant was acting in good faith was effectively considered irrelevant. Under the revised doctrine, cases could proceed to trial only when there was a clear violation of “established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Since then, critics have argued that this doctrine stands as a central barrier to substantive police reform, allowing officers to more easily to kill or injure with impunity. But advocates say it’s a necessary protection, shielding police officers – who are tasked with making split-second life-and-death decisions – from bankruptcy and vindictive personal lawsuits. In this context, we debate this question: Is It Time to End Qualified Immunity for Cops? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Unions may be on the verge of a resurgence. After decades of decline, workers are organizing at well-known companies, like Starbucks, Amazon, and Google, at a pace not seen since the 1930s. Decades of stagnant wages, recent labor shortages, and the most vocally pro-union President in recent memory have all stoked key wins for American labor, including successful strikes at John Deere and Kellogg. In fact, recent polling shows public support for labor unions has climbed to 71%, its highest level since 1965. During the old industrial days, unions had broad influence over the American economy. But their power waned. In 1983, one in 5 employees belonged to a union. Last year, that number had dwindled to one in 10, with most of the declines occurring in the private sector. Some say good riddance. They argue that unions actually hurt workers and the economy under the guise of supporting both. Union dues sap salaries, they say, and can actually increase unemployment. They also make the economy more rigid to change, raise consumer prices, and ultimately render unionized companies less competitive. Advocates, however, argue that in light of yawning income inequality, organized labor is desperately needed. Unions increase workers’ pay and benefits, they say, and can also settle disputes more equitably, improve wages, and encourage a more robust middle class. Of course, not all unions are created equal. And the difference between private and public-sector unions needs to be explored. Yet as public support for organized labor has grown as more workers push to join unions, an overarching question looms large: Do Unions Work For The Economy? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With cyber threats and ransomware on the rise globally, the Biden administration has enlisted America’s tech titans to help blunt their effects. Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, are all in discussions with Washington over how to strengthen the nation’s critical infrastructure defenses against a growing array of both private and state-sponsored attacks. Skeptics question just how much can be achieved, given how connected U.S. society has become. But solutions are emerging, from lifting the veil of cryptocurrencies, a favored transaction among hackers, to making the paying of ransoms illegal. In this special edition of Intelligence Squared’s Agree-to-Disagree series, John Donvan sits down with David Sanger of The New York Times for a closer examination of these attacks before launching into a much more specific debate with two cyber security experts. The debate: Should paying hacker ransoms be illegal? Cyber Threat Alliance president and chief executive Michael Daniel and Rapid7 vice-president Jen Ellis square off in light of recent high-profile hackings. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A genetic disease runs in your family. Your doctor tells you that, should you wish to have a child, that child is likely to also carry the disease. But a new gene-editing technology could change your fate. It could ensure that your baby is -- and remains -- healthy. What do you do? It’s is not without its perils. Critics say the technology will exacerbate inequality, pressure all parents (and nations) into editing their children to stay competitive, and meddle with the most basic aspect of our humanity. So, should we use gene editing to make better babies? Arguing in favor of the motion is geneticist George Church and futurist Amy Webb. Arguing against the motion is policy advocate Marcy Darnovsky and philosopher Françoise Baylis. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It turns out your favorite artist is a monster. Say they committed murder, advocated genocide, or engaged in some other act so outside the scope of a dignified, respectable society that it cannot be redeemed. What now? Must you throw the art out with the artists? It's a question at the heart of both pop culture and high art critique. For some, a work of art is an entity in itself. It should be appreciated and revered without regard to the life of its creator. If we disregard all great art for the sins of the artists, we risk losing many of the world's greatest cultural touchstones and masterpieces. But for others, the act of supporting a work of art translates directly affirming its creator's evil acts. In this timeless debate, we ask: Should we separate the art from the artist? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Amazon has come a long way since online book sales. In fact, when it comes to revenue, Jeff Bezos’ creation is the world’s biggest internet-based company. But what makes the "everything store" so ubiquitous? In large part, it’s the small and medium-sized businesses that use the platform to sell their goods. This year, more than 1.9 million of these businesses participated in its marketplace, which accounted for some 60 percent of Amazon's retail sales. But was it ultimately good for them? In the midst of this historic transition in shopping, that's our debate: Is Amazon good for small business? Debating in favor of the motion is Mark Jamison, economist at the American Enterprise Institute, with Kunal Chopra, tech executive and former Amazon GM. Arguing against the motion is Rana Foroohar, global business columnist at the Financial Times and author of “Don’t Be Evil”, with co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Stacy Mitchell. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For nearly three-quarters of a century, Queen Elizabeth II sat on high as Britain’s monarch. With her death, however, new momentum is building that questions the future of the British Crown. Several former British colonies, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Jamaica, have debated severing ties, while Republican campaigners in Britain now see opportunity to reassess what it means to have a monarchy, without offending a popular queen. Against that backdrop, we debate the longevity of the British monarchy. Arguing "NO" is Graham Smith, who heads the British anti-monarchy pressure group Republic. Arguing "YES," is Phillip Blond, English political philosopher and director of the ResPublica think tank. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For decades, scientists around the world have dedicated their lives — and research dollars — to one question: Is there anyone else out there? In the early 1970s, NASA joined the hunt with its own program to search for extraterrestrial life, or SETI for short. When that was defunded by Congress, private efforts took hold. But just what have decades of SETI brought us? And how should we approach the search in those to come? For SETI’s supporters, finding other intelligent life in the cosmos is a fundamentally human endeavor. It probes our understanding of the cosmos, what it means to live and survive on Earth and beyond, and just where our species fits into the greater universe. But others warn that SETI is a distraction from other scientific endeavors that, at best, diverts critical resources and, at worst, will open a can of worms humanity isn’t ready to deal with. Just what would happen if we actually find other beings? Are we mature enough as a society to respond? In this episode, we ask the essential extraterrestrial question: to search or not to search? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Is it true that artificial intelligence will do more harm than good? Proponents say it will help us solve problems like climate change and world hunger, while eliminating dangerous and mundane jobs. But critics warn that A.I.’s current trajectory is a dangerous one, which will likely concentrate power, reduce jobs, surveil consumers and voters alike, and threaten democracy. What’s more, some people say these conditions are not based on science fiction, but are already in the process of afflicting us, given the number of algorithms we engage with on a daily basis. So, could artificial intelligence be used to help solve some of the world’s most pressing challenges and level the playing field, or will it present perils that far outweigh any good it might do? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Last year, only 1.5 million high school students took the SAT, down from 2.2 million in the class of 2020. Covid-19 played a big role in the decision among many schools not to move forward with at-home testing. But the move sparked even wider discussion about the test itself. Currently, at least 75% of colleges actually don’t require the SAT or ACT. That’s an all-time high, with many schools pledging not to return to it. But is that the right move? Proponents call into question the efficacy and inequity of standardized tests, pointing to high-profile college admission scandals, as well as those leveraging access to resources to net higher scores. They argue a more expansive approach to admissions is better suited in selecting students. Those who defend the SAT, however, say the test presents opportunities for smart under resourced students to get into top schools. Removing such tests could actually make present inequities worse. Additionally, the focus should be on addressing the achievement gap, rather than merely changing the way students are evaluated. Personal essays, GPA, extra curricula, they say, are just as easy to game with financial privilege. So in this context, we ask: Should the SAT be erased? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You know the drill. Someone does, or says, something offensive. A public backlash -- typically on Twitter -- ensues. Then come the calls to "cancel" that person, brand, or institution. That usually means the loss of cultural cache, political clout, and often a job or career. While the term "cancelling" has roots in a misogynistic joke, it has come to be one of the most prominent tools of progressive activists. Many see "cancelling" as a modern-day means of holding people to account, calling out injustice, and breaking down ingrained systems of prejudice and exploitation, particularly for the historically marginalized. But others see it differently. They are sounding alarms about the emergence of a new cancel culture where digital mobs police our speech, invade our rights, and even put our physical safety at risk. They argue that cancel culture has created a society ruled by online censorship and eroded our public discourse. Against this backdrop, we ask: Is cancel culture toxic? Featuring Kmele Foster, Garry Kasparov, Erich Hatala Matthes and Karen Attiah. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After a series of prime-time hearings from the January 6th Committee and hundreds of charges against individuals who a participated in the events of that day, the Department of Justice faces a complex political and legal question: Should it charge Donald Trump with federal crimes? Arguing "yes" is Barbara Comstock. Arguing "no" Tom Ginsburg. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Processed food is bad for you, right? Well, there’s more to this story. As new technologies create foods that can’t be made in home kitchens, such as plant-based meats and dairy products made with plant proteins, the question of whether we should all be consuming more highly processed foods is up for debate. Advocates say a substantial increase in food processing is the best way to feed growing human populations while also reducing food waste. We should trust – and invest – in food technology that can make our global food supply healthier and more sustainable, including highly or ultra-processed foods. Opponents argue that these kinds of foods are often less nutritious, and are commonly linked to adverse health indices, particularly when it comes to ultra-processing. As this debate blooms, Intelligence Squared partners with the Institute of Food Technologists to debate this question: Should We Eat More Processed Foods? Arguing in favor of the motion is Amy Webb and Michael Gibney. Arguing against the motion is Kevin Hall and Marion Nestle. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Facing growing discontent over the rising cost of higher education, many prominent Democrats – and some Republicans – are calling on Washington to cancel the approximately $1.6 trillion Americans currently owe in student loan debt. Supporters see debt forgiveness as a necessary step to safeguarding the nation’s financial future and combating inequality in the education system. But others argue that this blanket policy would balloon the federal deficit, reward irresponsible borrowers, and waste taxpayer money on those who are not actually in need. Is it time for a student loan bailout? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices