343 episodes

America is more divided than ever—but it doesn’t have to be. Open to Debate offers an antidote to the chaos. We bring multiple perspectives together for real, nonpartisan debates. Debates that are structured, respectful, clever, provocative, and driven by the facts. Open to Debate is on a mission to restore balance to the public square through expert moderation, good-faith arguments, and reasoned analysis. We examine the issues of the day with the world’s most influential thinkers spanning science, technology, politics, culture, and global affairs. It’s time to build a stronger, more united democracy with the civil exchange of ideas. Be open-minded. Be curious. Be ready to listen. Join us in being Open to Debate. (Formerly Intelligence Squared U.S.)

Open to Debate Open to Debate

    • Education
    • 4.6 • 2K Ratings

America is more divided than ever—but it doesn’t have to be. Open to Debate offers an antidote to the chaos. We bring multiple perspectives together for real, nonpartisan debates. Debates that are structured, respectful, clever, provocative, and driven by the facts. Open to Debate is on a mission to restore balance to the public square through expert moderation, good-faith arguments, and reasoned analysis. We examine the issues of the day with the world’s most influential thinkers spanning science, technology, politics, culture, and global affairs. It’s time to build a stronger, more united democracy with the civil exchange of ideas. Be open-minded. Be curious. Be ready to listen. Join us in being Open to Debate. (Formerly Intelligence Squared U.S.)

    Should the US Ban Tik Tok?

    Should the US Ban Tik Tok?

    With one billion active users across more than 150 countries, TikTok is by many measures one of the world’s most successful video apps — and half of Americans use it. The House of Representatives has passed a bill that could ban the social media company in the U.S. if its parent company, Bytedance, does not divest from it and requires TikTok to be bought by a country that is not a U.S. adversary. Those supporting such a move often point to a ban on another Chinese tech giant, Huawei, as an effective means of limiting China’s influence and bring up concerns the app could be used to leak Americans’ data to China for surveillance, making it a security risk. Those who argue against it say a ban would undermine what has become an important tool in the video marketplace, and that such efforts are not only politically motivated but are also easily bypassed. 
      
    In that context, we debate the question: Should the U.S. Ban TikTok? 

    Arguing Yes: Kori Schake, Senior Fellow and Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute 

    Arguing No: Milton Mueller, Professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy; Founder and Director of the Internet Governance Project  

    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 
    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    • 53 min
    Does Taylor Swift Deserve Her Billion Dollar Fortune?

    Does Taylor Swift Deserve Her Billion Dollar Fortune?

    Taylor Swift achieved her billionaire status because of her talent, work ethic, and support from her fans. But some question whether any individual should be able to accumulate so much wealth. Those arguing they should point to philosopher Robert Nozick, who says if someone acquires wealth through just means, they are entitled to it. Those arguing “no” say that luck and systemic advantages often play a role, sometimes involving exploitation, and that billionaires have an outsized influence on policy. Now we debate: Does Taylor Swift Deserve Her Billion Dollar Fortune? 

    Arguing Yes: Jessica Flanigan, Political Philosopher and Chair in Ethics and Democratic Values at the University of Richmond 

    Arguing No: Ingrid Robeyns, Chair in Ethics of Institutions at Utrecht University's Ethics Institute; Author of "Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth" 

    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 
    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    • 53 min
    Should We Address the Gender Wage Gap?

    Should We Address the Gender Wage Gap?

    American women are, on average, paid 84 cents for every dollar men make, according to the Department of Labor. This wage gap has persisted despite near-record rates of women’s participation in the labor market, with wage gaps even larger for women in minority populations, and it’s estimated that pay parity will not be achieved until 2052. Should policy interventions address these disparities, or is it more important to recognize and honor women's personal decisions and find another way to look at the gap Those in favor of fixing the gap see it as a point of fairness and equity that would bring economic benefits, such as enhanced family incomes and increased productivity, and say that new policies are needed urgently to dismantle systemic barriers stopping women from earning more. Those who aren’t in favor argue wage disparities reflect individual choices regarding career paths, work-life balance, and tenure, rather than systemic discrimination. They also point out that when adjusted for factors like job type, hours worked, and career breaks, the gap significantly narrows.  
      
    Against this backdrop, we debate the question: Should We Address the Gender Wage Gap? 

    Arguing Yes: Kadie Ward, Commissioner and Chief Administrative Officer of the Pay Equity Commission of Ontario 
    Arguing No:  Allison Schrager, Pension Economist, Bloomberg Opinion Contributor & Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute 
     
    Nayeema Raza, Journalist at New York Magazine and Vox, is the guest moderator. 
    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    • 53 min
    Has Citizens United Undermined Democracy?

    Has Citizens United Undermined Democracy?

    In a high-stakes presidential election year, in partnership with the Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, Open to Debate is taking a look at more than a decade of the Citizens United Supreme Court case. The 2010 landmark decision that ruled the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofits, labor unions, and other associations, changed the landscape of political spending in the U.S. This gave rise to Super PACS and an increase in election campaign spending. Since then, there have been questions about whether the decision has harmed our democratic process. Those who support the decision argue it upholds free speech, allowing diverse voices in the political arena, and broadens the range of discourse by enabling groups to freely express their views and support candidates or policies. Those against it argue that it allows a disproportionate influence from corporations and special interest groups, and leaves the voices of ordinary citizens overshadowed by the financial resources of a few, eroding the principles of equality and fair representation. 

    With this context, we debate the question: Has Citizens United Undermined Democracy? 
      
    This debate is presented in partnership with the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law as part of the Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series. It will be recorded live in person on Wednesday, February 21, 2024, at the Thorne Auditorium at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law in Chicago, Illinois.

    Arguing Yes: Francesca Procaccini, Assistant Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School; Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Professor of Law at Stetson University  
    Arguing No: Floyd Abrams, Senior Counsel at Cahill Gordon & Reindel; Eric Wang, Partner at The Gober Group, pro bono Senior Fellow at the Institute for Free Speech 

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

    • 57 min
    Debate: Coleman Hughes and Jamelle Bouie on Color Blindness for Black History Month

    Debate: Coleman Hughes and Jamelle Bouie on Color Blindness for Black History Month

    During Black History Month, we reflect on a debate that confronts America’s complex history with racial and social inequality. How can we ensure fair treatment for all in the workplace, on campuses, and in our personal interactions? Is it possible to imagine a future beyond race? As we honor this month of remembrance and celebration, we revisit a conversation that confronts the challenges of our past and the promise of a future that aspires to secure equitable opportunities for all. 
      
    Arguing Yes: Jamelle Bouie, Columnist for the New York Times   

    Arguing No: Coleman Hughes, Host of the “Conversations with Coleman” podcast and Contributing Writer at The Free Press  
      
    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  
     
    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    • 53 min
    Unresolved: The Iran Threat

    Unresolved: The Iran Threat

    Iran’s regional role has changed post-October 7, but is Iran a bigger global threat than we think? In partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations, National Security Council and State Department veterans will debate in our Unresolved format Biden’s Iran diplomacy, Iran's use of proxies in the Middle East, its nuclear ambitions, and whether Iran now poses a threat to the global order. 
    Michael Doran, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at the Hudson Institute 
    Barbara Slavin, Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Center 
    Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations 
    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 
    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    • 53 min

Customer Reviews

4.6 out of 5
2K Ratings

2K Ratings

westatpod ,

A standard bearer of civil discourse

I do appreciate the purpose of this show. It models the seemingly lost art of disagreeing without demonizing or demeaning. I especially enjoyed listening to the debate about color blindness between Jamelle Bouie and Coleman Hughes. Thank you so much for this work.

nirok12 ,

Very slanted.

The problem with this show is the selection of debaters. Instead of modeling civil discourse between two very different points of view (say right v. Left) they consistently choose debaters who are left vs. far left. A great example is the gender pay gap episode. Instead of having the hard debate about whether it exists (which many don’t think it does), they choose two who agree that it exists but disagree on policy.

Get more intellectuals from the right on here and I’ll start listening again.

Andante' ,

Open To Debate Podcast

I enjoyed both sides of the debate. 9/29/2023 Cultural Exchange is important. The 'but' analogy was horrific but funny at 27:32 minutes into the show, and I felt embarrassed for them. Funny. Dated 9/29/2023

And Esther Perel is fantastic

Top Podcasts In Education

The Mel Robbins Podcast
Mel Robbins
The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
TED Talks Daily
TED
UNBIASED
Jordan Is My Lawyer
Do The Work
Do The Work
The Rich Roll Podcast
Rich Roll

You Might Also Like

Intelligence Squared
Intelligence Squared
The Good Fight
Yascha Mounk
The Ezra Klein Show
New York Times Opinion
Making Sense with Sam Harris
Sam Harris
KCRW's Left, Right & Center
KCRW
The Munk Debates Podcast
Munk Foundation / iHeartRadio