Open to Debate

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 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  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  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 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 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

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  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

Effective altruism is a philosophical and social movement that uses empirical data to maximize the impact of charitable efforts. Those who champion EA praise its methodological framework for maximizing the effectiveness of donations, thus ensuring equal consideration for all individuals. Those who challenge EA argue that its emphasis on measurable outcomes may overlook important yet hard-to-quantify causes, potentially restricting the scope of what's considered beneficial. Now we debate: Does the Effective Altruism Movement Get Giving Right?    Arguing Yes: Peter Singer, Author of “The Most Good You Can Do”; Philosopher and Emeritus Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University   Arguing No: Alice Crary, Co-Editor of “The Good it Promises, The Harm it Does: Critical Essays on Effective Altruism”; University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at The New School for Social Research  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit our Substack to watch more insightful debates and subscribe to our newsletter.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

he Trump administration is taking the War on Drugs in a bold direction, using aircraft carriers, intelligence networks, and direct military strikes to target alleged smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. Supporters of militarization argue that previous strategies to stop cartels have failed, and only aggressive deterrence will stop the crisis. Others warn that militarization usually fails to stop drug flows, risking civilian casualties, and rarely achieves lasting results. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Militarize the War on Drugs?    Arguing Yes:  Sean McFate, Author and Professor of Strategy at the National Defense University and Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service  Andrés Martínez-Fernández, Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America at The Heritage Foundation's Allison Center for National Security    Arguing No:   Will Freeman, Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations  Aileen Teague, Assistant Professor of International Affairs at Texas A&M University's Bush School of Government and Public Service    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit our Substack to watch more insightful debates and subscribe to our newsletter.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We are pleased to share an episode from the Clearer Thinking Podcast featuring Open to Debate Founder Robert Rosenkranz in conversation with Spencer Greenberg. About this episode: What makes a forum truly open-minded rather than performative? When does listening change minds instead of just hardening identities? Are we teaching citizens to separate facts from frames? Do the best debates surface values as well as evidence? How can we reward calm argument over outrage economics? What reforms reduce polarization without dulling real disagreement? Should any topic be off-limits in a free society? Is philanthropy giving back—or building what’s missing? Should generosity optimize impact or express the values we want to grow? How much risk is acceptable when the upside is transformative? Robert Rosenkranz is a dedicated philanthropist, an advocate for intellectual engagement, and respected commentator on philanthropy. He founded Delphi Capital Management and championed the renowned Open to Debate debate series. Robert’s latest book, The Stoic Capitalist, explores the intersection of ancient Stoic wisdom and modern capitalism. When he’s not crafting ideas, Robert dedicates his time to supporting the arts, advancing education, and contributing to public policy through The Rosenkranz Foundation. Learn more about the Clearer Thinking podcast here. Visit our Open to Debate Substack to watch more insightful debates and subscribe to our newsletter. To learn more about our mission and donate, visit Opentodebate.org. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How big is the divide between different age groups? In this inaugural episode of a new Open to Debate series, “Generational Divides,” Reason’s editor-at-large Nick Gillespie brings together a Baby Boomer, a Gen X-er, and a Gen Z-er to discuss Social Security benefits and how they’ll affect future generations, homeownership, and 1950s nostalgia, where they examine the cultural and economic shifts occurring around intergenerational wealth and how each generation views money, opportunity, and the American Dream.  Our Guests:  For Baby Boomers: Joe Nocera, Deputy Managing Editor at The Free Press  For Gen X: Stacey Vanek Smith, Journalist and Reporter; Co-host of "Everybody's Business" at Bloomberg Business   For Gen Z: Kyla Scanlon, Financial Content Creator, Economic Commentator and Author of "In This Economy?"  Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason, is the guest moderator.    Visit our Substack to watch more insightful debates and subscribe to our newsletter.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The U.S. and China are the two largest competitors in the race for semiconductors and in creating the most powerful AI chips. Europe could become a major stakeholder thanks to its demand for tech sovereignty and lithography near-monopoly, while others see the continent as too hampered by regulation, labor, and limited venture capital to get ahead. Now, in partnership with Bloomberg, we debate: Is Europe Too Late to Compete in the Chip Wars? Arguing "Too Late":    Zach Meyers, Director of Research at the Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE)  Geoffrey Gertz, Former Director for International Economics at the White House; Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security     Arguing "Not Too Late:  Cristina Caffarra, Economist & Co-founder of EuroStack  Eric Baissus, CEO of Kalray  Caroline Hyde, Bloomberg Television Anchor and Host of “Bloomberg Technology”, is the guest moderator.    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

At a time when misinformation thrives, institutions crumble, and algorithms mediate truth, trust has become one of democracy’s most fragile foundations. Our team at Open to Debate has been thinking twice recently about trust — how it’s earned, how it breaks, and how it might be rebuilt between one another in a time of deep division. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, the Internet’s encyclopedia with an English-language version that has been viewed 11 billion times alone and allows anyone to contribute and edit a page, says that trust is a living treasure that can and must be cultivated. In this episode, geopolitical strategist and Wickett Advisory moderator Xenia Wickett sits down with Jimmy Wales to discuss his new book, "The Seven Rules of Trust: A Blueprint for Building Things That Last.” In this "Think Twice" episode, the interview explores how Wikipedia leveraged trust to help it become a global authority while the public’s trust in other institutions has faded.  Our Guest: Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation; Author of "The Seven Rules of Trust: A Blueprint for Building Things That Last"    Xenia Wickett, Geopolitical strategist, moderator at Wickett Advisory, and Trustee of Transparency International UK, is the guest moderator.    Substack: https://opentodebate.substack.com/  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

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 debate was recorded on October 9, 2025 at 1 PM at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University in Phoenix, AZ.  This event is part of a new partnership between Open to Debate and Arizona State University’s Institute of Politics to bring live debate programming to ASU’s campus in a special series titled PRO/CONversations. Produced by Arizona PBS in the Arizona State University Media Enterprise—which will air and promote the recorded programs—the series is designed to model civil discourse for students while offering hands-on production experience to ASU journalism students.     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    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

Today, humanity is thriving, but there are fears the good times will not last. Will tomorrow be better than today? Those arguing “yes” say people have better access to resources and technological advances are making us more prosperous. Those arguing “no” say there are widening socio-economic disparities, our globalized world is bound to collapse, and we’re not doing enough to fight climate change. Now we debate: Will the Future Be Abundant?  Arguing Yes: Peter Diamandis, Founder and Executive Chairman of the XPRIZE Foundation    Arguing No: Peter Zeihan, Geopolitical Strategist  Xenia Wickett, Geopolitical strategist and moderator at Wickett Advisory and Trustee of Transparency International UK, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From ancient battles to modern proxy wars, conflicts have been a constant in human history. But does that mean we are destined to continue treating it as an option? Those saying war is inevitable argue that our global system is anarchic and no overarching authority exists to stop war, so states prioritize survival and power. But others argue that conflict is not the only form of dispute resolution; trade, diplomacy, international law, mediation, and peace treaties can avert war. Now we debate: Is War Inevitable?    Arguing Yes: Dylan Motin, Visiting Scholar at the Seoul National University Asia Center  Arguing No: Gabrielle Rifkind, Conflict Mediator; Director of Oxford Process  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

As modern warfare becomes increasingly automated and AI-reliant, questions arise about the use of a “kill switch” overriding autonomous weapons in conflict zones. Should the ultimate decision be in humans’ or AI’s hands? Those arguing for human oversight say moral reasoning, empathy, and legal accountability are essential, especially in wartime. Supporters of AI integration argue that machines can make faster, more precise, and less emotional decisions, which could prove more humane than past approaches. Now we debate: Wartime Kill Switch: Human or AI?  Arguing "Human":  Elliot Ackerman, Former Marine Raider Officer and CIA Special Activities Officer; Bestselling Author  Laura Walker McDonald, Senior Advisor for New Technologies  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  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

It’s been five years since the pandemic began, but was our public health system or society to blame for our country’s failures to stop the spread? Some argue that public health leaders were unprepared, mismanaged the crisis, and provided inconsistent guidance. Others argue the failures were societal, citing widespread mistrust, misinformation, and other guidance, which undermined compliance and effectiveness. Now, in a new format, our debaters argue both sides of this nuanced and complex question: Was COVID a Public Health Failure or Did Society Fail Public Health?    Dr. Tom Frieden, Former Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); President and Chief Executive Officer at Resolve to Save Lives    Doctor Mike Varshavski, Board-certified family medicine physician, UNICEF Ambassador, and Influencer     Dr. Jerome Adams, 20th Surgeon General of the United States    Dr. Dara Kass, Practicing ER physician and medical news contributor during the COVID pandemic, Former Regional Director in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services    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

Men are falling behind in our society, and some point to traditional ideas of masculinity as the cause. What does it mean to “be a man” today, and how do labels like toxic masculinity impact that question? For some men, masculinity is a continually evolving identity that goes beyond narrow definitions placed upon it. For others, it's a rigid set of expectations that results in emotional isolation and other negative outcomes. Now we debate: Is Masculinity A Prison? Arguing Yes: Lux Alptraum, Writer, Journalist, and Sex Educator  Arguing No: Mike Pesca, Host of "The Gist" Podcast    Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator.    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

It’s Back to School season, and TikTok has been taking a larger role in helping students learn — but should it? Some teachers argue that using TikTok can help make whatever subjects they study more digestible and adaptable to different types of learners. Others call the app distracting and capable of undermining classroom authority and prioritizing entertainment and short attention spans over education. Now we debate: TikTok in the Classroom: Enhancing or Eroding the Teaching Profession?  Enhance: Phil Cook, Education Influencer and High School Chemistry Teacher    Erode: Adrian Dingle, Second Schoolteacher and Education Consultant    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In some policy circles, the idea of the U.S. electing a CEO-style dictator running the country like a company is gaining momentum. But should the idea be embraced? Those proposing the Dictator CEO, like Curtis Yarvin, argue it would challenge existing institutions and deliver cutthroat efficiency. But democracy advocates, like E. Glen Weyl, argue that consolidating power under one leader undermines the core values fundamental to America’s political system. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Be Ruled by a CEO Dictator?  Arguing Yes: Curtis Yarvin, Anti-democracy theorist and Tech Entrepreneur  Arguing No: E. Glen Weyl, Co-Founder of the RadicalxChange Foundation, Plurality Institute, and the Faith, Family and Technology Network  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

More Americans are moving away from eating meat toward a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. But is continuing to eat animals a personal choice—or an ethical failure? Those favoring a plant-based lifestyle argue that eating animals is morally indefensible when plant-based alternatives can provide the same nutrition without pain. But meat lovers argue there’s more to eating meat than seems obvious and caution against vilifying meat consumption. Now, we debate this motion: Don’t Eat Anything With A Face.  Arguing Yes:  Neal Barnard, Clinical Researcher, Author of "21-Day Weight Loss Kickstart"  Gene Baur, President and Co-Founder of the Farm Sanctuary  Arguing No:   Chris Masterjohn, Nutritional Sciences Researcher; Blogger at The Daily Lipid  Joel Salatin, Farmer & 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.  Take our podcast listener survey here: https://bit.ly/opentodebatesurvey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Fast fashion has taken over the fashion industry, but is less expensive, trendy clothing really worth the purchase? Those who say to “stop” argue fast fashion harms the environment in many ways and exploits workers in countries with lax regulations. Those who say “keep shopping” argue it’s up to shoppers to choose, as fast fashion offers affordable options, supports jobs, and boosts local economies. Now we debate: Fast Fashion: Shop or Stop?  Arguing Stop: Kenneth Pucker, Former COO of Timberland; Professor at The Fletcher School at Tufts University   Arguing Shop: Katherine Mangu-Ward, Editor-in-Chief at Reason    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  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

The pressure to constantly be productive and achieve has become an aspiration one should aspire. But is this mindset worth the effort? Those claiming it’s toxic argue it creates impossible standards, opening the door for anxiety, burnout, and disconnection. But some argue the problem isn’t productivity itself, but how we’ve come to define success — and the unrealistic expectations that come with it. Now we debate: Is Our Productivity Culture Toxic?    Arguing Yes:     Jennifer Moss, Workplace Culture Expert; Author of "The Burnout Epidemic"    Rahaf Harfoush, Digital Anthropologist and New York Times Best-Selling Author    Arguing No:     David Allen, Creator of the "Getting Things Done" Time Management Method and Author   Amy Edmondson, Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Take our podcast listener survey here: https://bit.ly/opentodebatesurvey  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

Pope Leo XIV’s accession could mean a new opportunity to reform the Catholic Church by allowing women as ordained deacons. Those advocating for this change argue that allowing women would represent a return to early Church tradition and showcase an evolving Church ready for modernity. Those against this argue that it would blur theological lines and that women already play substantial leadership roles within the Church. Now we debate: Is It Time for the Catholic Church to Ordain Women as Deacons?  Arguing Yes: Casey Stanton, Co-director of Discerning Deacons  Arguing No: Pia de Solenni, Theologian; Former Chancellor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange in California  Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator.  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Take our podcast listener survey here: https://bit.ly/opentodebatesurvey  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

The shocking 2022 murder of four University of Idaho students have resulted in a life sentence for the killer and still-unanswered questions — about new genealogy tech, media exposure, lessons for law enforcement —worth Thinking Twice about. John Donvan sits down with journalist Vicky Ward, who co-authored with James Patterson “The Idaho Four: An American Tragedy,” and discuss what drew her to the case, how collaborating with Patterson changed her process, and reconsidering elements of the criminal justice system.    Our Guest: Vicky Ward, Co-Author of "The Idaho Four: An American Tragedy"    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Take our podcast listener survey here: https://bit.ly/opentodebatesurvey  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

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 at Arizona State University    Arguing No: Justin Garcia, Executive Director Chief Scientific Advisor to Match.com   Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator.    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Take our podcast listener survey here: https://bit.ly/opentodebatesurvey  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

President Trump has officially signed the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act into law. There is debate among conservatives about whether it will end up driving economic growth or increasing our debt. One side argues that ordinary Americans will pay the price and the long-term fiscal outcome is terrible. Another side argues these policies will encourage investment, growth, and job creation. Now, two conservatives debate: Is the Big, Beautiful Bill a Disaster?    Arguing Yes: Jessica Riedl, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute  Arguing No: Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy at The Heritage Foundation  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

The Trump administration enacted severe actions against Harvard University that threaten its endowment, funding, and ability to enroll international students, based on accusations of antisemitism. Do these actions go too far? Prominent voices long affiliated with Harvard – former university president Larry Summers and law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz — engage in a nuanced debate and provocative discussion: Did Harvard Have It Coming?  Arguing Yes: Alan Dershowitz, Emeritus Professor of Law at Harvard Law School   Arguing No: Lawrence Summers, President Emeritus of Harvard; Former Secretary of the Treasury   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

As an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court for almost three decades, Stephen Breyer was no stranger to hearing arguments for different sides in major cases. In this episode, our moderator-in-chief, John Donvan, and Chief Content Officer, Lia Matthow, interview Justice Breyer and discuss his book “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, not Textualism.” He discusses how he used this philosophy to guide his decisions and why he thinks jurists should choose this approach.    Our Guest: Stephen Breyer, Former United States Supreme Court Justice    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan and Lia Matthow, Chief Content Officer of Open to Debate, moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices