Open to Debate

Public schools have in recent years begun incorporating topics around race, sex, and gender into K-12 classrooms. Are public schools moving in the right direction to address students’ needs? Those who say students benefit argue that learning them helps create socially aware, empathetic, and responsible citizens. Those who argue they harm students say children may be learning what should be left to parents to discuss. Now we debate: Wokeness in Public Schools: Helping or Hurting Students? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

While the two-party system has been the standard in the US government, third parties have often challenged this status quo and now advocates to be added to election ballots permanently. Those who agree say third parties offer non-partisan solutions and are more representative of ideologies, unlike the polarized partisanship present now. Those who disagree say the two-party system fosters stability and simplifies voting decisions. Now we debate: Does America Need A Third Party? Arguing Yes: Andrew Yang, Founder of the Forward Party, Former Presidential Candidate Arguing No: Daniel DiSalvo, Senior Fellow at Manhattan Institute; Political Science Professor at City College of New York–CUNY Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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 Professor Emeritus 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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

American politics today has been marred by increasing levels of “us vs. them” thinking, leading to the destruction of our social fabric and democracy. But critical thinking, facts, and reason can lead us out of that path. In this episode, YouTube sensation, podcaster, and MSNBC contributor Brian Tyler Cohen joins guest moderator and Reason magazine’s Editor-at-Large Nick Gillespie to discuss his book “Shameless”, the future of democracy in America, and advises how to engage young voters. Our Guest: Brian Tyler Cohen, YouTuber and Content Creator; Author of “Shameless” Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large of Reason, is the guest moderator. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After the October 7th attack, Israel vowed to eradicate Hamas and began its counteroperation in Gaza. Now, after ten months of war, a hostage crisis, and an increasing death toll, Israel and Hamas have been in negotiation talks, which could be complicated by the death of Hamas’s political leader Ismail Haniyeh. Should Israel agree to a permanent ceasefire? Those who think Israel should make peace with Hamas argue that while Hamas’s actions are indefensible, a de-escalation of violence is necessary, and conditions in Gaza need to be improved to prevent starvation and further loss of life. Those who believe Israel should not back down say that Hamas’s desire to kill Israelis will never change regardless of any deal created. They also point out that past ceasefires have been used by Hamas to rearm and regroup, which could happen again and lead to more conflicts. As the war goes on, we debate the question: Can Israel Make Peace with Hamas? Arguing Yes: Cenk Uygur, Founder and Host of The Young Turks Network Arguing No: Mosab Hassan Yousef, Ex-Palestinian Militant, Former Israeli Spy, Son of Hamas Co-Founder, and Author, “From Hamas to America.” Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The two-state solution proposes establishing a separate Palestinian state alongside Israel as one way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But post-October 7th and the ongoing war, is it still a possible outcome? Those who say “yes” argue it’s the most logical path toward achieving regional peace. Those who disagree say that the current circumstances and previous failed attempts makes the solution unlikely. Now we debate, in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations: Is the Two-State Solution Still Viable? Arguing Yes: Ambassador Dennis Ross, Counselor and Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; Mohammed Dajani Daoudi, Palestinian Peace Activist and Scholar; Founding Director of the Wasatia Academic Institute Arguing No: Elliott Abrams, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; Fleur Hassan-Nahoum, Former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem, Israel’s Special Envoy for Trade & Innovation Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prostitution remains heavily stigmatized and legally complex globally, ranging from full decriminalization to controlled regulation like the Nordic Model, where only purchasers of sex, not sellers of sex are penalized. This model has been implemented in eight countries, including Sweden, Iceland, Canada, and France, as well as in the U.S. state of Maine. Those who argue that it is ok to pay for sex say that it’s a profession that deserves as much respect as any other and that those who do it for a living have a right to do with their bodies as they please. They also argue that decriminalizing the profession is the only method to reduce violence against sex workers. Those who say that it is not ok to pay for sex and support the Nordic model are concerned about inequities present between sex buyers and sex workers that are rooted in oppression and power imbalances, as some sex workers choose the profession under economic or social duress. They are also concerned about exploitation and coercion, which can sometimes open the door to human trafficking. With this background, we debate the following question: Is It OK to Pay for Sex? Arguing Yes: Kaytlin Bailey, Sex Workers Rights Advocate; Founder & Executive Director of Old Pros and Host of “The Oldest Profession Podcast” Arguing No: Yasmin Vafa, Human Rights Attorney; Co-Founder and Executive Director at Rights4Girls Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

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

Happiness is a complex emotion and mental state that can be achieved through virtue or pleasure. But should it be for the good of the individual or society? Those in favor of virtue point to the Stoics and the Founding Fathers, saying you should strive for a life of moral virtue and rationality. Those in favor of pleasure say everyone should be able to experience it and define their sources of happiness. Now we debate: The Pursuit of Happiness: Virtue or Pleasure? Arguing Virtue: Jeffrey Rosen, CEO & President of the National Constitution Center; Author of “The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America” Arguing Pleasure: Roger Crisp, Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford; Uehiro Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, Oxford Nayeema Raza, Journalist at New York Magazine and Vox, is the guest moderator. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

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

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