Avsnitt
-
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 -
Saknas det avsnitt?
-
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 SchoolAmy 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 - Visa fler
