Open to Debate
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.)
Trailers
Hosts & Guests
This is the show I’ve been looking for!
Aug 26
I listen to a lot of podcasts on politics, technology, finance and science. The formats are almost always interviews with experts. I learn a lot but have always wished to hear experts with differing views debate so that I could understand how each defends and elaborates their position when challenged by another expert. This podcast does that! I appreciate the structured format and the role of the host in shaping which topics the guests are to address.
Miss the previous format
Sep 8
I have enjoyed what was Intelligence Squared for many many years. And I’m fine with the name change to Open Debate. But I miss the original format where there was either a live or online vote that determined which side won. It’s not so much about winning or losing but instead to hear the response, to know if people agree or disagree with my opinion on the topic.
Low star review show it is reputable
Aug 13
Love the strong debaters on both sides of the topic. I especially love that the weakest extremists are weeded out from being included. This format is perfect for understand the issues without the poor examples of Experts that media let’s represent an issue.
Is islam anti-semetic
Jun 25
Pro-Islam debater Reza stated you couldn’t really judge Islam based on the texts alone which state many anti-Semitic things. Later he stated you couldn’t simply go by what the vast majority of practitioners believe: mostly anti-Semetic. Finally, late in the debate he suggested that you should ignore the preponderance of Islam scholars throughout history and now who believe wholeheartedly that Islam is anti-Semitic. Also, definitely don’t believe your eyes. In the end, we should believe… … … him! The debater himself is the authority I suppose. How handy!
About
Information
- CreatorOpen to Debate
- Years Active2007 - 2024
- Episodes368
- RatingClean
- Copyright© Copyright 2023 - For Personal Use Only 633344
- Show Website