Open to Debate

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement that supporters say could strengthen ties, advance normalization, and give Washington greater influence over the kingdom’s nuclear ambitions. Critics warn that without stronger restrictions on uranium enrichment and inspections, assistance could create a pathway toward nuclear weapons and weaken nonproliferation norms. Would American involvement reduce the risks or enable them? Now we debate: Does the U.S.-Saudi Civil Nuclear Agreement Serve America's Interests? Arguing Yes: Daniel Poneman, Former Deputy Secretary of Energy; Distinguished Fellow of the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center and Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security Amos Hochstein, Former White House Senior Advisor to President Biden; Managing Partner at TWG Global Arguing No: Sharon Squassoni, Research Professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University; Former Director of Nonproliferation and Prevention at CSIS Joe Cirincione, Former Director for Non-Proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates This debate was produced in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations. Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As world attention descends on the United Nations General Assembly, Open to Debate is once again casting a critical lens on this over 80-year-old global organization. To this day, questions are still mounting as to whether the United Nations itself is both ineffective and outdated, or whether an institution created for the world of 1945 is equipped for, and can effectively meet, today's challenges. Now we debate: Is the United Nations Obsolete? ARGUING YES: Rajan Menon, Political Scientist & Spitzer Professor Emeritus of International Relations at the City College of New York Nile Gardiner, Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at The Heritage Foundation ARGUING NO: Angela Kane, German Diplomat and Senior Fellow at Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation; Former UN Under-Secretary-General Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, Scholar & Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mauritania Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What shapes us more: our DNA or the way we’re raised? The “nature” camp points to genetic research and studies of twins raised apart, arguing that traits from personality to abilities are strongly influenced by inherited biology, limiting how much parenting can shape who children become. The “nurture” camp argues upbringing, culture, and parental choices profoundly influence development and behavior. So which matters more? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in November 2019 ARGUING YES: Robert Plomin, Professor of Behavioral Genetics at King’s College London Nancy Segal, Professor of Psychology at California State University, Fullerton and Director at the Twin Studies Center ARGUING NO: Paige Harden, Psychology Professor at the University of Texas Ann Pleshette Murphy, Author & Parenting Expert Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Recent twin studies: ⁠Parenting in Childhood Predicts Personality in Early Adulthood: A Longitudinal Twin-Differences Study⁠ (APA, 2025) ⁠Genetics of monozygotic twins reveals the impact of environmental sensitivity on psychiatric and neurodevelopmental phenotypes⁠ (Nature Human Behavior, 2025) ⁠Longitudinal associations between cognitive ability and socioeconomic status are partially genetic in Nature⁠ (Scientific Reports, 2026) Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A century after Henry Ford helped popularize the five-day, 40-hour week, could working 32 hours be next? Supporters say shorter weeks can improve well-being without sacrificing productivity, especially as AI would make workers more efficient. Others warn it would strain industries that require continuous staffing and force Americans to rethink everything from school and healthcare schedules to expectations of around-the-clock availability. We debate: Is America Ready for a Four-Day Work Week? Arguing Yes: Juliet Schor, Economist and Sociologist at Boston College Arguing No: Joanne Lipman, Bestselling Author, Journalist, and Former Media Executive Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Capitalism has long been credited with driving innovation and prosperity, yet many Americans increasingly believe the system is no longer working for them. Is the problem capitalism itself or the policies surrounding it? In this debate, an entrepreneur and venture capitalist faces a prominent economist with a competing vision to examine inequality, economic opportunity, and the future of the American economy. Now we debate: Is Capitalism Broken? Arguing Yes: Nick Hanauer, Entrepreneur and Venture Capitalist Arguing No: Jason Furman, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates After you’ve listened to the debate, let us know where you stand on the motion! VOTE HERE: ⁠https://bit.ly/podcastcapitalismvote ⁠ We will reveal the results of the vote in our Substack newsletter on Saturday, September 5th, so make sure to ⁠subscribe⁠. Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The dangers of climate change are “no longer over the horizon.” Humanity may soon pass the “point of no return.” These are the phrases U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres used to describe what he called an “utterly inadequate” global response to rising temperatures. But if we were to decisively act and restructure our global economy with the climate in mind, who would shoulder the burden? Or should our collective focus orient more toward humans’ capacity for adaptation? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in July 2022. Arguing Yes: Bjorn Lomborg, Author of the Bestsellers "Cool It" and "The Skeptical Environmentalist"; Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center Matthew Kahn, Provost Professor of Economics and Spatial Sciences at the University of Southern California Arguing No: Michele Wucker, Economic Policy Expert & Founder of Gray Rhino & Company Kaveh Madani, Environmental Scientist; Former Vice President of the United Nations Environment Assembly Bureau; Former Deputy Head of Iran’s Department of Environment Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Near-death experiences have long challenged our understanding of consciousness and mortality. Some who come close to death report leaving their bodies, encountering vivid visions, or feeling profound peace. Are these experiences evidence that consciousness can survive death — or can they be explained by what happens in a dying brain? This 2014 debate is one we're still thinking about today. We ask whether science can reveal what, if anything, awaits us after we die. Arguing Yes: Eben Alexander, Former Neurosurgeon; Author of "Proof of Heaven" Raymond Moody, Medical Doctor; Author of "Life After Life" Arguing No: Sean Carroll, Physicist & Writer Steven Novella, Academic Neurologist at the Yale School of Medicine Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The midterms are coming up this fall, and right now we are in the middle of a contentious primary season, with a lot of new faces challenging incumbents—and many winning. It’s in this context that we revisit our debate from 2022: Are Primary Elections Ruining Democracy? Arguing YES Elaine Kamarck, Founding Director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution Arguing NO Jed Ober, Former Director of Programs at Democracy International and Former Chief of Staff for Pennsylvania Congresswoman Susan Wild Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As America celebrates 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, the legacy of the Founders is under renewed scrutiny. Were they visionary architects of liberty whose achievements and creations should be celebrated, or has reverence for them sanitized the past, how we think of democracy, and the compromises embedded in the nation's founding? As the U.S. marks its semiquincentennial, we debate: Is It Time to Stop Idolizing the Founders? Arguing Yes: Osita Nwanevu, Contributing Editor at The New Republic; Columnist at The Guardian Arguing No: Helena Rosenblatt, Distinguished Professor of History, French, and Political Science, and the MA Program in Liberal Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Fifty years after the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment, the death penalty remains one of America's most divisive issues. Supporters argue it delivers justice for the most heinous crimes, provides closure for victims’ families, and ensures the worst offenders can never kill again. Opponents point to wrongful convictions, racial disparities, and the moral consequences of allowing the state to take a life, arguing that life without parole is enough. Now we debate: Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in April 2015. Arguing YES: Diann Rust-Tierney, Executive Director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty Barry Scheck, Co-Director of the Innocence Project and Professor at Cardozo Law School Arguing NO: Robert Blecker, Professor at New York Law School Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Forget "happily ever after." As marriage and birth rates fall, young adults have less sex, and assumptions about love and commitment are being challenged. In this episode of “Generational Divides,” Reason editor-at-large Nick Gillespie brings together a Gen X-er, a Millennial, and a Gen Z-er to debate these questions about intimacy and love in the 21st century: Should Gen Z have more sex? Is monogamy overrated? Should people have more babies? For Gen X: James J. Sexton, Divorce Lawyer and Author of "How to Stay in Love" For Millennials: Carolyn Gorman, Fellow at the Manhattan Institute For Gen Z: Malavika Kannan, Author and Writer of the "Quarter Life Crisis" Substack Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason, is the guest moderator. Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After signing a Memorandum of Understanding in June, the U.S. and Iran entered a delicate peace. As negotiators worked toward a permanent deal, one question loomed: Who won the war in Iran — Tehran or Trump? Hours after we concluded a debate on that very question, strikes resumed. By morning, President Trump declared the truce over. Today, we bring you that debate, and the question of who holds the upper hand, and what has been gained and lost, is more pressing than ever. Note: This debate was recorded on Tuesday, July 7, 2026, before the verbal dissolution of the Islamabad Memorandum and the resumption of military action in the Iran War. Arguing "Tehran is Winning": Suzanne Maloney, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution Arguing "Trump is Winning": Matthew Kroenig, Vice President for Geostrategy and Fellows and Senior Director of the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As a bonus, today we’re sharing a special episode of The Blessings of Liberty, a new podcast from Open to Debate debater Jeffrey Rosen and our friends at FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. In celebration of America’s 250th anniversary, Jeffrey sits down with award-winning filmmaker Ken Burns, walking through the Declaration of Independence, clause by clause, to encapsulate the big ideas at the heart of the American story. The Blessings of Liberty is a weekly podcast hosted by Jeffrey Rosen — CEO Emeritus of the National Constitution Center, professor of law at George Washington University Law School, and senior fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Learn more and subscribe on Substack, Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get podcasts. To continue the conversation, visit Open to Debate’s Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The American Dream – the idea that anyone can achieve success in the U.S. through hard work and determination – is under scrutiny, and some worry it’s no longer achievable for the broader population. Those who agree say increasing healthcare, education, and housing costs create difficulty in having financial stability. Those who disagree argue that the U.S. still offers more opportunities for personal and financial growth than elsewhere. Now we debate: Is the American Dream in Decline? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in January 2024. Arguing Yes: David Leonhardt, Pulitzer Prize-winning Senior Writer for The New York Times and The Morning; Author of “Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream” Arguing No: Michael Strain, Political Economy Scholar and Director of Economic Policy Studies at American Enterprise Institute; Author of “The American Dream Is Not Dead: (But Populism Could Kill It)” Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Happiness is a complex emotion and mental state that can be achieved through virtue or pleasure. But should it be for the good of the individual or society? Those in favor of virtue point to the Stoics and the Founding Fathers, saying you should strive for a life of moral virtue and rationality. Those in favor of pleasure say everyone should be able to experience it and define their sources of happiness. Now we debate: The Pursuit of Happiness: Virtue or Pleasure? Arguing Virtue: Jeffrey Rosen, CEO & President of the National Constitution Center; Author of “The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America” Arguing Pleasure: Roger Crisp, Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford; Uehiro Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, Oxford Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator. Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As the Iran war reshapes the Middle East and raises new questions about America’s role in the world, Danielle Pletka and Julia Ioffe join moderator-in-chief John Donvan at the Cascade PBS Ideas Festival for a debate-esque conversation on U.S. foreign policy in President Trump’s second term. From Iran and Russia to global stability and American leadership, they offer competing visions for navigating an increasingly volatile world. Our Guests: Julia Ioffe, Founding Partner and Washington Correspondent at Puck; Author of "Motherland" Danielle Pletka, Distinguished Senior Fellow in Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As democratic governments, universities, and civil society organizations grapple with how to engage China, an ethical question persists: should cooperation with Chinese state institutions, which involve every industry from education to commerce, be pursued as a pathway to gradual, meaningful progress, or does such engagement ultimately legitimize repression and undermine fundamental freedoms? In partnership with the Human Rights Foundation, we debate: Is It Ethical to Cooperate with Chinese State Institutions to Secure Incremental Change? Arguing Yes: Joanna Chiu, Managing Partner of Nüora Global Advisors; Author of "China Unbound" Arguing No: Isaac Stone Fish, CEO and Founder of Strategy Risks Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Birthright citizenship guarantees citizenship to anyone born within the United States’ territory, regardless of a parent’s nationality. But should this legal principle be removed from the Constitution? Those arguing it shouldn’t say that it prevents children from being punished for their parents’ status, while encouraging long-term economic and civic contributions. But those calling to end the practice argue it fuels illegal immigration and strains the overburdened immigration system. Now, we debate: Should America End Birthright Citizenship? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in October 2025. Arguing Yes: Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies Horace Cooper, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research; Chairman of the Project 21 National Advisory Board Arguing No: Kris Mayes, Arizona Attorney General Chris Newman, Legal Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

These days, it can feel like raising kids has become a minefield. Somewhere along the way, older generations started looking at younger generations and asking, “Are the parents alright?” In this episode of “Generational Divides", Reason editor-at-large Nick Gillespie and parents from three generations tackle some of the thorniest questions in modern parenting around social media, gentle parenting, and whether kids should be free to roam. Our Guests: For Baby Boomers: Lenore Skenazy, Co-founder of the Free-Range Kids movement For Gen X: Reshma Saujani, Founder of Girls Who Code; CEO of Moms First For Millennials: Kristin Gallant, Co-founder of Big Little Feelings Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason, is the guest moderator. Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Global powers are increasingly shaping markets and taking equity positions in strategic industries. But recently, Washington’s role in the economy has expanded, with stakes in companies like Intel, different from its traditionally hands-off approach. Could strategic government investment be a source of strength and competitiveness—or should it remain a true last resort, preserving a system that allows markets to determine winners and losers? We debate: Government as Shareholder: Proactive Competitive Strategy or Last Resort? This debate was created in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations and was recorded on May 18, 2026, at 6 PM. Arguing "Proactive Competitive Strategy": Laura Taylor-Kale, Senior Fellow for Geoeconomics and Defense at the Council of Foreign Relations and Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy Richard Falkenrath, Senior Fellow for National Security at the Council on Foreign Relations; MJ Chung Distinguished Chair at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University Arguing "Last Resort": Bob Pozen, Distinguished Senior Lecturer at MIT Sloan School of Management; Former President of Fidelity Investments Yasheng Huang, Epoch Foundation Professor of Global Economics and Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management; Author of "The Rise and the Fall of the EAST” Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Modern science has given us the ability to edit our genes, life-saving vaccines, and glimpse the origins of the universe. But is the same system holding itself back? Critics argue that the pressure to publish and fierce competition for funding rewards safe, incremental work over bold thinking. Others see a system still capable of paradigm-shifting discoveries — one where global collaborations and long-term thinking motivate scientists to pursue grand, ambitious ideas. Now we debate: Is the Scientific Enterprise Too Risk-Averse? This debate was produced in partnership with the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University, as part of The Hopkins Forum series. Arguing Yes: Tyler Cowen, Author of "The Great Stagnation"; Economics Professor at George Mason University; Founder of Emergent Ventures; Host of "Conversations with Tyler" podcast Brandon Ogbunu, Computational Biologist; Associate Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Yale University; Professor at the Santa Fe Institute Arguing No: Kate Biberdorf (“Kate the Chemist”), Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at the University of Notre Dame; Science Entertainer The Honorable Sethuraman Panchanathan, 15th Director of the National Science Foundation; University Professor of Technology and Innovation and Foundation Chair at Arizona State University Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For centuries, museums in Europe and the U.S. built their collections during eras of empire and unequal power. Now, institutions face growing calls to return artifacts taken through colonial rule or war, from the Benin Bronzes to Indigenous objects. Supporters say repatriation corrects historical injustice and restores sacred objects to their communities. Critics argue that museums serve a global public and that these works represent shared human heritage. Now we debate: Should Museums Repatriate Cultural Artifacts? Arguing Yes: Chika Okeke-Agulu, Artist, Curator, and Professor of Art and Archaeology and African American Studies at Princeton University Leila Amineddoleh, Art and Cultural Heritage Lawyer; Chair of the Firm’s Art Law Group at Tarter Krinsky & Drogin Arguing No: Dominic Selwood, Historian, Author, Journalist, and Barrister Mario Trabucco della Torretta, Classical Archaeologist Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It turns out your favorite artist is a monster. Say they committed murder, advocated genocide, or engaged in some other act so outside the scope of a dignified, respectable society that it cannot be redeemed. What now? Must you throw the art out with the artists? It's a question at the heart of both pop culture and high art critique. For some, a work of art is an entity in itself. It should be appreciated and revered without regard to the life of its creator. If we disregard all great art for the sins of the artists, we risk losing many of the world's greatest cultural touchstones and masterpieces. But for others, the act of supporting a work of art translates directly affirming its creator's evil acts. In this timeless debate, we ask: Should we separate the art from the artist? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in September 2022. ARGUING YES: Randy Cohen, Writer & Humorist ARGUING NO: Aruna D'Souza, Writer & Art Critic Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Your doctor tells you that, should you wish to have a child, that child is likely also to carry the disease. But a new gene-editing technology could ensure that your baby is -- and remains -- healthy. Should you do it? Critics say the technology will exacerbate inequality and meddle in the most basic aspect of our humanity. Now, we debate: Should We Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in February 2022. Arguing Yes: Dr. George Church, Geneticist & Founder, Personal Genome Project; Professor, Genetics, Wyss Institute and Harvard Medical School Amy Webb, Chief Executive Officer, Future Today Strategy Group; Professor, NYU Stern School of Business Arguing No: Marcy Darnovsky, Executive Director, Emerita, Center for Genetics and Society Françoise Baylis, Distinguished Research Professor, Emerita, Dalhousie University; President, Royal Society of Canada Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Artificial intelligence has ignited one of the most spectacular surges of investment, hype, and technological promise, but some worry that the enthusiasm is resembling a bubble, with valuations racing ahead of fundamentals and enormous compute and energy costs that could undermine long-term profitability. But others note this bubble is different because AI is already embedded across the economy, not confined, and infrastructure is being created to sustain demand. Now we debate: Will the AI Bubble Burst? Arguing Yes: Ryan Cummings, Chief of Staff at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Arguing No: Magnus Grimeland, Venture Capital Investor; Founder and CEO of Antler Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Even with a fragile ceasefire in place between the U.S., Israel, and Iran, we wanted to revisit this prescient debate from last fall. In the past few weeks of war, autonomous systems, AI-driven targeting, and drones were heavily used by both sides leading some to fear we’re rapidly approaching a future of warfare that takes human decision making out of the loop entirely. Are we ready for that? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in October 2025. Arguing "Human": Elliot Ackerman, Former Marine Raider Officer and CIA Special Activities Officer; Bestselling Author Laura Walker McDonald, Senior Advisor for New Technologies & Conflict at the International Committee of the Red Cross Arguing "AI": Michael C. Horowitz, Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation at the Council on Foreign Relations; Director of Perry World House and Richard Perry Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Jack Shanahan, Inaugural Director of Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, Office of the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

At some point, we all ask: “Is this what I’m meant to do?” In this "Think Twice" episode, social scientist Arthur C. Brooks joins Open to Debate's CEO Lia Matthow to explore why meaning feels harder to find. Drawing on research from his book "The Meaning of Your Life: Finding Purpose in an Age of Emptiness," Brooks argues modern life pushes us toward shallow solutions that miss deeper human needs, and offers a path back to purpose, connection, and a life that truly feels lived. Our Guest: Arthur C. Brooks, New York Times Bestselling Author of "The Meaning of Your Life: Finding Purpose in an Age of Emptiness"; Professor at Harvard University; Columnist at The Free Press Lia Matthow, CEO of Open to Debate, is the guest moderator. Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

NASA is preparing for the Artemis II mission — a major step back into deep space to explore the Moon. But as NASA, SpaceX, and other private companies are also working on plans to make Mars humanity’s next frontier, what comes next, and should Mars be the bigger priority? Those arguing “yes” say the U.S. should do it first before China, while opponents say major challenges make colonization unrealistic. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Prioritize Settling Mars? Arguing Yes: Eric Berger, Senior Space Editor at Ars Technica Arguing No: Shannon Stirone, Freelance Science Writer Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Sports fans can place bets on their favorite teams and athletes faster and easier than before, thanks to legalized sports gambling. But was it the wrong bet to make? Advocates say it’s been good for fans, the economy, and the sports industry. Those who say that what’s happened since legalization is a bad thing, say it’s driven a rise in gambling addiction and created a public health crisis. Now we debate: Has Legalizing Sports Gambling Become A Bad Bet? Arguing Yes: Harry Levant, Director of Gambling Policy at the Public Health Advocacy Institute Arguing No: Bill Pascrell III, Partner at Princeton Public Affairs Group Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator. Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Where do you watch the latest movie everyone’s talking about—on Netflix at home or in a packed theater? Are theaters the irreplaceable heart of cinema, creating cultural moments and spectacle, or is streaming the future with its convenience and global reach? Two high-level Hollywood insiders, a former president of The Academy versus a film executive, debate in time for the Oscars: The Future of Film: Big Screen or Stream? Arguing "Big Screen": Hawk Koch, Film Producer; Former President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the Producers Guild of America Arguing "Stream": Chris Aronson, Former President Of Domestic Theatrical Distribution at Paramount Pictures Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

AI can write code, diagnose diseases, design buildings, and create art. Tools like ChatGPT, Claude and autonomous robots are transforming industries once seen as automation-proof, fueling fears of mass job loss. Some argue that machines will become so efficient that they will one day replace most human labor. Others say AI will augment work, not erase it, and historically, people have feared innovation killing jobs, which arguably hasn't come to pass. Now we debate: Will AI Make Work Obsolete? Arguing Yes: Andrew Yang, Founder of the Forward Party, Former Presidential Candidate Simon Johnson, Nobel Prize-winning Economist; Professor of Entrepreneurship and Head of the Global Economics and Management Group at MIT Arguing No: Chris Hughes, Co-Founder of Facebook; Chair of the Economic Security Project; Author of "Marketcrafters" Rumman Chowdhury, CEO of Humane Intelligence PBC; Former U.S. Science Envoy for Artificial Intelligence Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. The Hopkins Forum is a partnership between Open to Debate and Johns Hopkins University’s SNF Agora Institute. This flagship series consists of live debates in Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, bringing together diverse perspectives to tackle today’s most pressing issues. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Are we in a News Media Golden Age, or a fragmented era? In this “Generational Divides” episode, Reason editor-at-large Nick Gillespie brings together Baby Boomer, Millennial, and Gen Z voices to debate how our media landscape is changing. Are more platforms expanding truth, or blurring the line between news and entertainment? Are journalists accountable to funders, audiences, or the truth? As industry shakeups like recent Washington Post layoffs signal change, what does the future of news media look like? For Baby Boomers: Kurt Andersen, Novelist, and Former Host of NPR's "Studio 360"; Co-founder of Spy magazine For Millennials: Nellie Bowles, Journalist & Co-Founder of The Free Press For Gen Z: Rachel Janfaza, Journalist & Founder of The Up and Up Substack; Contributor to The Bulwark Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason, is the guest moderator. Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today we're playing you an episode of Smart Girl Dumb Questions, a show hosted by journalist and frequent Open to Debate guest moderator Nayeema Raza. She speaks to Andrew Ross Sorkin about some highly-debated topics, from a looming market crash to AI battles to … whether we actually learned anything from past recessions (especially that one in 2008!). Get more Smart Girl Dumb Questions on Apple, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get podcasts. Nayeema has compelling conversations with Mark Cuban on if billionaires can save us, Paul Krugman about whether we’re counting the economy wrong, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye about what happened to expertise and science guys and Esther Perel on why it’s harder to fall in love in 2020s vs the 1980s. Guaranteed to make you laugh & learn every Tuesday. We also highly recommend Andrew Ross Sorkin’s bestselling book ⁠1929⁠. For more insightful conversation, visit Open to Debate's Substack—share your perspectives and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow Open to Debate on Youtube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Your smartphone feels sleek and futuristic—but the supply chain behind it is anything but. In this conversation with moderator-in-chief John Donvan, journalist and “The Elements of Power” author Nicolas Niarchos showcases how lithium-ion batteries rely on cobalt mined under dangerous, exploitative conditions. Tracing a line from colonialism to today’s U.S.–China power struggle, he asks us to Think Twice on this question: what human and environmental costs are hidden inside the technology that powers modern life? Our Guest: Nicolas Niarchos, Journalist and Author of “The Elements of Power” Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Love in the time of AI? Some people seeking romance or friendship are turning to AI chatbots to fulfill those desires, but could they surpass traditional human relationships? Those who say they can argue that AI can offer empathy and safety, and it’s a solution for those left out of traditional dating. Those saying they can’t argue that intimacy is complicated and cannot be replicated in code. Now we debate: Could Dating an AI Be Better Than Dating a Human? Arguing Yes: Thao Ha, Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the @HEART Lab at Arizona State University Arguing No: Justin Garcia, Executive Director & Senior Scientist at the Kinsey Institute; Chief Scientific Advisor to Match.com; Author of "The Intimate Animal" Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator. Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Greenland has become a geopolitical flashpoint. President Trump wants control of it, or at least sovereignty over some areas for military purposes, arguing that the United States gaining some territorial rights in Greenland is a necessity for U.S. security. But some leaders worry that a power grab could pit NATO against the U.S. and weaken an already fragile world order. Now we debate: Is U.S. Control of Limited Territory In Greenland a Strategic Necessity? Arguing Yes: Alexander B. Gray, Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council; Former Deputy Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff of the White House National Security Council Michael Pillsbury, Senior Advisor for the President’s Office at The Heritage Foundation Arguing No: Kori Schake, Senior Fellow and the Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Max Boot, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; Columnist at The Washington Post Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In December of 2025, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul announced that after months of negotiations with the state legislature, she was finally ready to sign into law a new bill allowing some patients to request medical assistance in dying, or MAID. That bill is currently sitting on her desk waiting for her signature. This type of bill has become more and more common. In 1994, Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act, becoming the first state to allows physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Now 12 states plus the District of Columbia have laws on the books allowing physicians to assist patients in ending their life, within limits. Patients must have a prognosis of less than six months to live, and they must take the medication themselves. As more and more states discuss passing their own versions of these bills, we revisit the debate we had on this very topic in 2014. The motion that we debated: Legalize assisted suicide. While the preferred language has changed to Medical Aid in Dying, the thorny ethical questions and the complicated medical judgments remain unchanged. Will these laws lead to a slippery slope, where the vulnerable are pressured to choose death and human life is devalued? Or do we need to recognize everyone's basic right to autonomy, the right to end pain and suffering, and the right to choose to die with dignity? This debate was recorded live in November of 2014 at the Kaufman Music Center in New York. Arguing Yes: Peter Singer: Co-Founder of the Effective Altruism movement. Professor of Bioethics, Emeritus, Princeton University. Podcast host, "Lives Well Lived" Andrew Solomon: Author of “Far From the Tree”, Professor of Clinical Psychology at Columbia University and Weill Cornell Medical College. He also researches at Yale School of Medicine. Currently writing a book about suicide. Arguing No: Ilora Finlay, The Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: Former President of the British Medical Association, Member of the House of Lords. Daniel Sulmasy: André Hellgers Professor of Biomedical Ethics in the Departments of Medicine and Philosophy and Director of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University. A few links to articles on the topic: New York to become latest state to allow aid in dying. What is it? ,USA Today Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die? New York Times The country gave its citizens the right to die. Doctors are struggling to keep up with demand. The Atlantic Magazine Join the conversation on ⁠Substack⁠—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on ⁠YouTube⁠, ⁠Instagram⁠, ⁠LinkedIn⁠, ⁠X⁠, ⁠Facebook⁠, and ⁠TikTok⁠ to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Every click, search, and online purchase feeds the data economy, driving AI, global business, and even political campaigns. But with risks growing in the private and public spheres, is Big Data advancing society or undermining its foundations? Supporters argue Big Data powers innovation by fueling breakthroughs in medicine, public health, and everyday efficiency. Yet critics warn that it erodes privacy, concentrates power, and threatens democracy. In the age of algorithms and analytics, is Big Data a necessary innovation or a dangerous intrusion? Arguing "Innovation": Kenneth Cukier, Deputy Executive Editor at The Economist Arguing "Intrusion": Carissa Véliz, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Philosophy and the Institute for Ethics in AI at the University of Oxford Xenia Wickett, Geopolitical strategist, moderator at Wickett Advisory, and Trustee of Transparency International UK, is the guest moderator. Join the conversation on our Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Prostitution remains heavily stigmatized and legally complex globally. Those in favor of paying for sex and support decriminalization argue that it’s a profession that deserves as much respect as any other. Those against it, and who support the Nordic Model, argue that prostitution leads to inequities between sex buyers and workers, exploitation, and coercion, and can open the door to human trafficking. Now we debate: 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

Millions of people have credited Alcoholics Anonymous with helping them stay sober from alcohol, but is it the best path for everyone? Those who say “yes” argue it is easily accessible to all and that its structure through the 12-step program helps people succeed. Those who say “no” argue say the abstinence model doesn’t work for everyone and there may be better alternatives. Now we debate: Does AA Work? Arguing Yes: Dan Griffin, Expert on Alcoholics Anonymous; Author of “A Man’s Way Through the Twelve Steps” Arguing No: Adi Jaffe, Founder of IGNTD; Author of “The Abstinence Myth” Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From the 19th Amendment to the #MeToo movement, the feminist movement has profoundly reshaped society. But have its good intentions backfired? Those arguing it hasn’t note that it’s allowed women the choice of living on their own terms. But critics argue that its culture glorifying full-time careerism and independence can make women feel inadequate if they prefer traditional roles like having a family. Now we debate: Has Feminism Hurt Women? Arguing Yes: Inez Stepman, Senior Policy and Legal Analyst at the Independent Women's Forum and Independent Women’s Law Center Arguing No: Wendy Walsh, Relationship Journalist; Host of ”The Dr. Wendy Walsh Show” on iHeart Radio’s KFI AM 640 Xenia Wickett, Geopolitical strategist, moderator at Wickett Advisory, and Trustee of Transparency International UK, is the guest moderator. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

America is suffering from a loneliness epidemic. Some groups have suggested religious communities may be key to solving it. Could it help? Those arguing “yes” say it gives people regular social contact, support systems, and a sense of purpose that could combat isolation. Those arguing “no” say that secular options would provide better, broad-based solutions. Now we debate: Can Religion Cure the Loneliness Epidemic? Arguing Yes: Harold Koenig, Director of Duke University’s Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health Chris Murphy, Senator from Connecticut Arguing No: Ruth Whippman, Author of "America the Anxious: How Our Pursuit of Happiness Is Creating a Nation of Nervous Wrecks" and "BOYMOM: Reimagining Boyhood in the Age of Impossible Masculinity." Dan Barker, 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

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 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 Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Has Big Tech become too powerful? Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, Meta, and Microsoft shape how we shop, communicate, and consume information. But has their dominance gone too far? Advocates argue these firms are monopolies that harm competition, exploit consumer data, and wield disproportionate influence over public discourse. Structural reforms would restore fairness and innovation. But critics warn that breakups could damage user experience, slow innovation, and disrupt integrated ecosystems people rely on. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Government Break Up Big Tech? Arguing Yes: Bharat Ramamurti, Founder of The Bully Pulpit; Former Deputy Director of the National Economic Council Matt Stoller, Director of Research at the American Economic Liberties Project Arguing No: Geoffrey A. Manne, President and Founder of the International Center for Law & Economics Jennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow in Technology Policy at the Cato Institute Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates This debate was produced in partnership with the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University, as part of The Hopkins Forum series. It was recorded in front of a live audience on Thursday, December 4, 2025 at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Center. Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What does it take to moderate a debate? How do we keep conversations civil when the world feels so polarized? In celebration of our launch on Substack, moderator-in-chief John Donvan joins Nayeema Raza and Reason’s Nick Gillespie for a lively conversation on the craft of moderation and the art of asking questions that reveal rather than inflame. Featuring audience Q&A and behind-the-scenes insight, this episode offers a candid look at how meaningful dialogue is created today. Our Guests: John Donvan, Open to Debate's Moderator-in-Chief and Emmy award-winning journalist Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions" Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason Debates Referenced During this Inside Edition 13:03 - Should America End Birthright Citizenship? 19:22 - Is It Time To Break Up With Dating Apps? 20:34 - Replace Private Insurance with Medicare for All 20:38 - Should We Legalize Drugs? 20:41 - Preserve Net Neutrality: All Data Is Created Equal 21:14 - Is America Too Obsessed With Race? 27:04 - Is the American Dream in Decline? 28:35 - The Universal Basic Income Is The Safety Net Of The Future Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices