When the Great Recession struck, it was the start of the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. A slumping housing market revealed vulnerabilities of huge numbers of mortgage-backed securities and derivatives. In the aftermath, unemployment soared to 10%. GDP dropped by more than 4%, and federal authorities unleashed a series of unprecedented fiscal and monetary policies aimed at stemming the bleeding. When the dust finally settled, legislators and regulators pushed through a series of reforms meant to prevent the repeat of such a calamity. Fast forward to 2023 and the global banking system may be facing its most significant crisis since 2008. Within a short span, a run on deposits at Silicon Valley Bank quickly led to the third-largest bank failure in U.S. history, with Switzerland's Credit Suisse later seeking government lifelines. A second US regional bank — Signature Bank — failed, and a third — First Republic Bank — was propped up. To some, these are signs of the kinds of broader risks the global economy stared down in 2008. A combination of factors, including an eroding of regulations, sharp interest rate rises, mismanagement at banks, coupled with the overarching uncertainty of volatile crypto landscape, have raised new questions about the scale of turmoil that could confront markets. This cocktail of risks, some argue, has added such dangers to banking systems that it is no longer safer than it was in 2008. Others disagree. As bad this recent crisis appears to be, they say, regulatory reforms and liquidity requirements have made significant strides since the days of 2008. The system also effectively contained the contagion, something that required far greater government intervention in 2008. In that context, we debate the following question: Is the Banking System Safer Than It Was in 2008? 

Arguing YES: Jason Furman, Former Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers   

Arguing NO: Gillian Tett , Editor-at-Large, Financial Times (U.S.) 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

By several measures, men are in trouble. Women outnumber them in college enrollment. And even once there, men are not as likely to graduate. Men also face higher levels of substance abuse, higher numbers of overdoses, higher incarceration rates, lower life expectancies, and suicide levels that are nearly four times more likely than women. In this context we debate the question: Are Men Finished and Should We Help Them? 

Arguing Yes: Richard Reeves, Brookings Institution Senior Fellow  

Arguing No: Hanna Rosin, Award-Winning Journalist and Podcast host 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Defund the police. Abolish ICE. Redistribute the wealth. These are but a few of the one-liners that have emanated from the liberal wing of the Democratic party in recent years. With the emergence of “The Squad” in 2018 – or what began as four Democratic congresswomen who sought to push their party further left – liberal lawmakers have grown more prevalent in recent election cycles. And with just a slim 51-49 Democrat majority in the Senate, progressives are now eyeing 2024 as a way to strengthen their broader influence. By doing so, some say, the party risks aligning itself with ever more extreme politics, alienating moderate voices, and straying from what made it successful in the past. When President Bill Clinton was in office, they note, only 25 percent of Democrats described themselves as liberal; another 25 percent called themselves conservative, while an overwhelming 48 percent were self-described moderates. The equating of liberalism with Democratic policies, they argue, is a recent and dangerous trend, which makes governing more difficult. Others argue that the party is finally poised to make good what constitutes the reemergence of the political left, long stymied by the compromising influence of Washington and beltway politics. What’s more, they argue, this renewed focus on issues such as race, climate, income inequality has not only begun to address in earnest issues once paid only superficial notice, but is also electrifying the nation's progressive base in ways that can win elections. It is in this context that we debate the following question: Is The Democratic Party Too Far Left? 

Arguing Yes: Coleman Huges (Conversations with Coleman), Ruy Teixeira (American Enterprise Institute) 

Arguing No: Congressman Jamaal Bowman (NY-16), Alicia Garza (Co-founder of Black Lives Matter) 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sixty years ago, in the sweltering August heat of Washington D.C., the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his most iconic speech, and a defining moment of the civil rights movement. "I have a dream,” he said before a crowd of some 250,000 people, pressed up to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, “that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." It is a sentence that has been repeated countless times in classrooms and lecture halls. And yet recently, King's words are more actively being parsed and debated about the appropriate place of race in America. With disparities in wealth, education, employment, housing, mobility, health, and rates of incarceration, some argue that King – who spoke during a period of more open bigotry – would not have wanted a “color-blind” society within these lingering racial inequalities. A raised consciousness plays an important role, they say, in recognizing and correcting such imbalances. Others argue that America has become overly concerned with race, to a level of obsession, pointing to things like critical race theory and diversity, equity, inclusion programs, which they fear could ultimately prove detrimental to the nation’s more egalitarian aspirations. Further, they argue, notions of race are often too broad to be useful, while the fixation on it divides those who might otherwise find common ground. In this context, we debate the following question: Is America Too Obsessed With Race? 

Arguing “YES” is Kmele Foster, co-host of The Fifth Column podcast and the co-founder and executive producer of the media company Freethink. Foster was one of the signatories of the Harper's Letter on justice and open debate, alongside more than 150 people, including Salman Rushdie, J.K. Rowling, and Noam Chomsky. He is an outspoken libertarian critic of cancel culture, the Black Lives Matter movement, and political orthodoxy. 

Arguing “NO” is Nsé Ufot, activist, community organizer, and former chief executive officer of the New Georgia Project, a voter support and legal action nonprofit organization founded by Stacey Abrams in 2013. In 2021, Ufot was named one of Time's 100 Next, a ranking of emerging leaders thought to define the next generation of leadership. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This year, the Federal Trade Commission decided shake up the labor market, proposing to ban non-compete clauses for the tens of millions of workers they affect. The clauses are essentially contracts between employers and employees that prohibit the former from competing with the business after the employment has ended. As many as 30% of all U.S. private sector workers have signed such agreements, which actually find their roots all the way back in 15th century England. Those who defend such clauses say employers need these contracts to protect their investments in training workers, not to mention safeguarding their trade secrets. The contracts, they say, represent not only a fair exchange, but also serve as an important fortification for businesses within the broader economy. The FTC, they say, is overextending. But opponents argue that such contracts prevent workers from starting their own businesses, locking them into undercompensated positions, and depress labor mobility and wage growth, while contributing to race and gender gaps. It is in this context that we debate the following question: Should the FTC Ban Non-compete Clauses? 

Arguing Yes: Arguing “YES”: Heidi Shierholz, Economic Policy Institute President and former Chief Economist to the U.S. Secretary of Labor. 

Arguing No: Neil Bradley, Executive Vice President, Chief Policy Officer, and Head of Strategic Advocacy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What’s it take to change a mind? It turns out there is a science to it. That’s at least according to David McRaney, a journalist, author, and host of the You Are Not So Smart podcast. The first step, he says, is don’t overtly try to win. In any argument, an attempt to defeat the opposing party is not nearly as effective as leading the person along in stages, which eventually align with your own thinking. In fact, mere exposure to different ideas, according a recent Pew study, does not generally change most Americans’ perspectives on a given issue. Understanding techniques to communicate successfully and proactively active listen, is ultimately thought to be a more effective approach. Intelligence Squared US, since 2026, has made fostering intellectual openness in dialogue a core part of its mission. In that context, and to get a sense of what other methods are out there, John Donvan sat down with David McRaney on the science of changing minds.    

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With one billion active users across more than 150 countries, TikTok is by many measures the world’s most successful video app. Nearly one in three Americans have an account. It is the most downloaded app since 2021. And like virtually all of social media, user privacy concerns abound. But TikTok adds an extra layer. Owned by Chinese company ByteDance, there are worries that U.S. data could be transmitted to China’s government, despite assurances from the company that it is not. Those concerns prompted President Joe Biden to ban Tiktok from government phones. More than half of U.S. states have similar controls in place. But with increased tensions between Beijing and Washington, and mounting questions of Chinese surveillance, some are calling for the U.S. to go further and ban the technology outright. Those supporting such a move often to point to a ban on another Chinese tech giant, Huawei, as an effective means of limiting China’s influence and potentially extractive technological efforts. Those who argue against it say a ban would essentially undermine what has become an important tool in the video marketplace, and that such efforts are not only political motivated, but are also easily bypassed. In that context, we debate the following: Should the U.S. Ban TikTok? 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It’s poised to “change our world.” That’s according to Bill Gates, referencing an advanced AI chatbot called ChatGPT, which seems to be all the rage. The tool, which was developed by OpenAI and backed by a company Gates founded, Microsoft, effectively takes questions from users and produces human-like responses. The "GPT" stands "Generative Pre-trained Transformer," which denotes the design and nature of the artificial intelligence training. And yet despite the chatbot’s swelling popularity, it’s also not without controversy. Everything from privacy and ethical questions to growing concerns about the data it utilizes, has some concerned about the effects it will ultimately have on society. Its detractors fear job loss, a rise in disinformation, and even the compromising long-term effects it could have on humans’ capacity for reason and writing. Its advocates tout the advantages ChatGPT will inevitably lend organizations, its versatility and iterative ability, and the depth and diversity of the data from which it pulls. Against this backdrop, we debate the following question: Will ChatGPT do more harm than good? 

Arguing "Yes" is Gary Marcus (Author of "Rebooting AI: Building Artificial Intelligence We Can Trust" and Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Neural Science at New York University)

Arguing "No" is Keith Teare (Entrepreneur, Author, and CEO & Founder at SignalRank Corporation)

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Take our podcast listener survey here: tinyurl.com/IQ2podcastsurvey

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This was supposed to be the “Chinese century.” In just a few decades, China transitioned from a developing economy to the world’s second largest. Measured in purchasing power parity, it actually surpassed the U.S. economy in 2014, and has since expanded its military, monetary, infrastructure, and soft power capacities in ways that all seemed to point to long-term advantages as a rising power. At the Communist Party’s five-yearly congress in October 2022, Xi Jinping cemented his place as the country’s “helmsman” and its most powerful person since Mao Zedong, with an unprecedented third term as party chief. And yet the failure of China’s zero-COVID policy, a slumping economy, apparent supply chain vulnerabilities within its technology sector, and a problematic demographic profile have all raised questions about the scope of China’s future power. Those who say it has peaked say the Chinese system is facing significant economic headwinds, uneven innovation, a heavy debt burden, as well as mounting frustrations among its younger populations with regard to upward mobility and censorship. Those who say it hasn’t peaked argue that while the nation’s economic growth has indeed slowed, massive Chinese spending in infrastructure, defense, and technology will nonetheless allow it to enlarge its global power projections well into the future. Against this backdrop, we debate this question: Has China’s Power Peaked? 

Arguing “Yes” is Michael Beckley, formerly of the Harvard Kennedy School, the US Department of Defense, the RAND Corporation, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is the author of “Unrivaled: Why America Will Remain the World’s Sole Superpower,” has a PhD in political science from Columbia University, and is currently associate professor of political science at Tufts University.  

Arguing “No” is Ian Bremmer, president and founder of Eurasia Group, a leading global political risk research and consulting firm. He is also a founder of the digital media firm GZERO Media. Bremmer is the foreign affairs columnist and editor-at-large at Time magazine, where he writes about China, U.S. foreign policy, and geopolitics. He has published ten books, including “Superpower,” “The Power of Crisis,” and the national bestsellers “The End of the Free Market” and “Every Nation for Itself.”  

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sexual violence is arguably the most devastating kind. But the sex offender registry has come under increasing scrutiny. Some suggest that it actually encourages further criminal offenses by making it virtually impossible for offenders to reintegrate into society. Others say that reducing such a proactive approach and tool will endanger communities. In this context, we debate the following question: Does the Sex Offender Registry Do More Harm Than Good?    

Arguing "YES" is Emily Horowitz, a sociologist who researches sex offense law and policy, and the author of "Protecting Our Kids? How Sex Offender Laws Are Failing Us" and "From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear." 

Arguing "No" is Cary Federman, author of "Democracy and Deliberation: The Law and Politics of Sex Offender Legislation" and associate professor at Montclair State University who focuses law and jurisprudence, free speech, democratic theory, prisons and prisoners’ rights.  

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What shapes us more: our DNA, or the way we’re raised? This debate, commonly recognized as “nature versus nurture,” has drawn disagreement for thousands of years. So which one matters more? Emerging genetic research indicates that the scale may be tipping toward biology – but not all trust the research. Proponents of the “nature” camp argue it is DNA that determines who we are, as evidenced by identical twins and triplets who are separated at birth and, once reunited, show remarkable similarities despite different upbringings. Rather than trying to identify the perfect parenting style, they argue, caregivers should look to their children’s DNA to identify natural strengths and challenges to promote overall health and well-being. But others strongly disagree, saying that parenting is very important, and the individuals who rear us influence our development, growth, and, ultimately, our lives. The “nurture” camp also points to studies that show how beliefs and behaviors are not innate, as evidenced by stark differences in the expression of adolescence and other life stages across different cultures. Are they right? Or is parenting overrated?

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

These days, the bird’s the word. Since shelling out $44 billion for Twitter, critics say Elon Musk is knocking the social media giant off its perch. Under his guidance, a slew of firings, a resurgence of unsavory Tweeters, and a bevy of on-again, off-again bans, have all raised questions about the platform’s long-term viability. Some investors have labeled Musk an albatross around Twitter’s neck, calling for him to stay focused on Tesla and SpaceX. Others say Musk is actually freeing the bird from anti-conservative censorship, which will engender more open discourse. His moves, they say, are all a part of a broader business acumen that has proven successful in the past. In that context, we ask the timely question of whether Elon Musk is killing Twitter. 

Kara Swisher, Host of “On with Kara Swisher,” Co-host of “Pivot” Podcast, and Editor-at-large of New York Magazine 

Anthony Scaramucci, Founder and Managing Partner of SkyBridge, Former White House Communications Director, Host of the new podcast "Open Book"

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For a period of time, going global just seemed to make sense. But with China’s rise, Covid-19, and the war in Ukraine, words like “localnomics,” “friends-shoring,” and “decoupling” have helped codify a growing movement that calls for less interdependence between economies. Those in favor of a more “deglobalized” system of trade argue that it is not only more environmentally friendly and responsive to regional needs, but also less of a driver of income inequality. Indeed, globalization’s three-decade trend of trade growing at twice the speed of the world economy has not lifted all boats, they argue. For many, including middle income populations in the industrialized west, it has backfired. Deglobalization is a welcome a shift. Others disagree. Globalization’s virtues are unmistakable, they say, resulting in less poverty and higher incomes across the world. People once cut off from markets benefit from new connections in commerce, culture, and communications. For them, it has not backfired. In fact, in the face of political challenges and volatile markets, more regionally-focused trade constitutes a dangerous circling of the wagons. In this context, we ask the question: Has Globalization Backfired?  

 John Donvan, Host and Moderator, Intelligence Squared U.S. 

 Arguing “YES” – Rana Foroohar, Global Business Columnist, Financial Times; Author, “Homecoming: The Path To Prosperity In A Post-Global World”  

  Arguing “NO” – Parag Khanna, Founder & CEO of Climate Alpha and Founder & Managing Partner of FutureMap

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

By now it is clear, the Red Wave election-denying candidates had hoped to ride left most still waiting on the beach. Those who questioned the outcome of the 2020 election lost key midterm races, which seemed to calm the nerves of many of those fearful as to where the Republic itself was headed. But as the parties begin to prepare for their respective presidential runs, a bigger question looms; one that has taken its cues from President Biden himself. Shortly after the January 6th attacks on the capitol — which were prompted by unfounded messaging about the election’s illegitimacy — Biden sought to convey the severity of what had just happened. “The insurrection was an existential crisis — a test of whether our democracy could survive,” he said. Now, on the heels of the midterms, many not only openly wonder whether that democracy crisis is over, but also question if the words Biden chose were overblown in the first place. It is in that context, and as the 2024 elections come into focus, that we debate this question: Was January 6 an existential threat to American democracy? 

On December 15th, Andrew Keen, Internet Entrepreneur, Author, and Host of the “How to Fix Democracy” podcast, squares off against Election Strategist, Managing Partner at CAE Strategies, and Vice President of the Fair Elections Center, Rebekah Caruthers, as part of the “No Laughing Matter” series at the Comedy Cellar at the Village Underground in New York.  

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What does it take to admit you’re wrong? And why is it so difficult? Cognitive psychology and neuroscience studies reveal that human decision-making relies on a host of factors that don’t always lead to objective evaluations. Opinions can form as a result of fear, anger, pleasure, and other emotions that not only contribute to bias, but can also harden over time. The resulting misconception often then rattles through every aspect of our lives, from our work to our politics to the very relationships we hold dear. But what if there were a way to break out of that process? Three luminaries in the field of business, psychology, and debate sit down for a fascinating discussion on how to argue well, and how to be open to changing your mind. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

2022 has finally ended. 

Some of it bad, some of it splendid.   

There was Russia’s invasion.   

And Ukraine’s self-defense.   

The west lobbed isolation 

against Moscow’s offense.   

This was also the year America closed the door  

despite a generation of fighting   

its 20-year-war 

We saw economic turmoil  

And those who could not tweet  

We debated inflation 

And whether small investors could beat the street  

We debated food, SATs, and if the Classics were overrated  

Aliens, and whether Britain’s Monarchy should be abated  

Affirmative action, cancel culture, and if Trump should be indicted, 

Unions, public radio, and what information disorder has ignited.  

Gene editing and digital dollars were fresh to the palette.  

We debated adaptation, and whether your Tesla helps the planet, 

And of course there was Roe, and if AI does more harm than good, 

Kissinger, Covid, and just how we all withstood  

midterms elections 

and if globalization backfired 

soft landings, and cities, and if democracy is mired  

in existential threat.    

OK...hold on, that’s not cheery.   

We can’t end this year leaving you tired and weary.   

So here’s to you listeners and watchers of debate 

Who at times may have wondered what is the fate  

Of a discourse that is broken  

Or at least a bit hobbled.  

When listening to a nation that yells and a people who squabble.  

Fear not, dear listeners, we say with some hope.  

We do in fact have a way you can cope.  

Real debate and discussion offers intellectual cheer.  

And so with that we wish you safe holidays…. 

… and a happy new year.  

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With the wealth gap widening, some Americans are starting to consider socialism as a viable economic and political model. Supporters of capitalism claim that no other system has been as effective in creating value, increasing prosperity, and producing the wealth that has lifted billions of people out of poverty. The free market, they argue, encourages competition and human ingenuity, values individual choice, and organizes society in a fair and just way. Critics of capitalism, however, paint a different picture. They argue that capitalism is inherently exploitative and that business owners seek profits above all else, leading to the distortion of human worth as one distilled to an individual’s labor power. Further, they claim that a capitalist system is inherently rigged to benefit the wealthy and powerful, and the byproducts of which have created unsustainable waste and decimated the world’s wildlife and natural resources. In light of this emerging divide, we ask this question: Is capitalism a blessing?

With John Mackey, Bhaskar Sunkara, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Richard D. Wolff.

John Donvan is our moderater.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The digital currency craze started with at least one anonymous Bitcoin founder and a community of futuristic, tech-savvy investors willing to take a bet on a new form of money. But over the past decade, the world of digital currency has coined a host of new types of online cash. In fact, Central Banks in more than 80 countries have, or are in the process of gearing their monetary systems in that direction. They consider them a means of modernizing and serving as a check against the growth of crypto. In China, an estimated 140 million people have already begun using the new digital yuan, which accounts for nearly $10 billion worth of transactions. In that context, does the world's reserve currency -- the U.S. dollar -- need its own version? Those who are argue “yes” say it is a fundamental step to remain competitive; to ensure the dollar remains in its preferred global standing. A digital dollar, they argue, would also create a new ease of exchange, reduce delays in processing times, and help the underbanked Americans into the digital economy. Those who argue “no” point to the risks of failure, hackings, and privacy breaches, which includes widespread government tracking of transactions, and could allow for unprecedented federal access to personal banks accounts. Against this backdrop, we ask: Does America Need a Digital Dollar? 

Arguing "Yes" is Gillian Tett, Editor-at-large, Financial Times 

Arguing "No" is Dante Disparte, Head of Global Policy at Circle  

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An affirmative action battle is again playing out at the highest levels, only this time with Asian Americans at the center of the controversy. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether the Supreme Court should reconsider race in college admissions. The group, Students for Fair Admissions, has taken aim at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, alleging that Asian Americans are less likely to be admitted than comparably qualified white, Black, or Latino applicants. In two separate cases, the group claims that 1.) Harvard’s admissions policy is regressive and discriminates against Asian Americans, and 2.) UNC – which is a public institution and therefore covered by the 14th amendment’s equal protection guarantee – violates both Title VI and the Constitution with its use of race in admissions. But opponents say race-conscious decision making is a necessary tool to address longstanding racism and discrimination. As such, in this timely debate, we ask the question of whether affirmative action is indeed unfair to Asian Americans.  

Arguing “yes” is Lee Cheng, co-founder of the Asian American Coalition for Education 

Arguing “no is John Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Processed food is bad for you, right? Well, there’s more to this story. As new technologies create foods that can’t be made in home kitchens, such as plant-based meats and dairy products made with plant proteins, the question of whether we should all be consuming more highly processed foods is up for debate. Advocates say a substantial increase in food processing is the best way to feed growing human populations while also reducing food waste. We should trust – and invest – in food technology that can make our global food supply healthier and more sustainable, including highly or ultra-processed foods. Opponents argue that these kinds of foods are often less nutritious, and are commonly linked to adverse health indices, particularly when it comes to ultra-processing. As this debate blooms, Intelligence Squared partners with the Institute of Food Technologists to debate this question: Should We Eat More Processed Foods?  

Arguing in favor of the motion is Amy Webb and Michael Gibney. Arguing against the motion is Kevin Hall and Marion Nestle. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Many Americans grew up with a transistor radio somewhere in the home. Out of it emanated the commentaries, stories, news, and analysis. Public radio was a key means of getting information. But between podcasts, satellite radio and on-demand streaming, some argue that signal is fading. Nimble upstarts and emerging technologies have created wildly successful new platforms, enabling a broad diversity of creators to broadcast their views. What does this mean for the future of public radio? Intelligence Squared host and moderator John Donvan moderates a debate between two media luminaries, who zero in on this existential question: Is Public Radio Still Relevant? 

Arguing "No" is Kmele Foster, political commentator and Co-Founder of Freethink. Arguing "Yes" is podcast creator and Co-Founder of Magnificent Noise, Eric Nuzum. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The age of “information disorder” is upon us. Deep fakes, false political narratives, and flawed COVID rumors are all rampant online, threatening America’s national security, as well as democracy itself. Though bad actors have always had the capacity to deceive, the ease, speed, and degree to which anyone can create misleading information has engendered a dangerous new world. And yet many solutions can also run directly against longstanding western principles, such as free speech and a lack of censorship. Prescriptions, some argue, can be as dangerous as the disorder itself. So, what can be done? In partnership with the Homeland Security Experts Group, Intelligence Squared U.S. debates how to combat this dangerous new phenomenon, termed “information disorder.” Our expert panel takes a look at what the private sector should do, what the public sector can do, and how political actors who spread false information should be handled. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The fate of Taiwan is uncertain. As a revanchist China builds up forces near the island, the Biden administration is warning Beijing against an invasion, bolstering its defense with the sale of military hardware. Beijing sees Taiwan as lost territory, which needs to be “reunified” with the mainland. The United States is now faced with a geopolitical quandary: Can the U.S. military defend Taiwan from Beijing, and should it? Or, is Taiwan indefensible? Arguing in favor of the motion is Lyle J. Goldstein of the Naval War College, with Charlie Glaser of George Washington University. Arguing against the motion is former deputy assistant secretary of defense Elbridge Colby, with Elizabeth Larus of the University of Mary Washington. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. Constitution has a lot to say about elections. But nowhere is there any mention of political primaries, the process by which candidates are winnowed down ahead of a general election. Though they may seem integral to the U.S. system, primaries in fact are a relatively new phenomenon, borne of the turn of the 20th century when reformers sought to wrangle power from political party bosses. Of course, quite a lot has changed since the days of Tammany Hall. Gerrymandering has greatly reduced competitive districts, while the urban-rural divide has grown exponentially. Divisions run deep, with social media capable of dramatically shifting the political landscape at unprecedented speed. Many see primary elections as a principal culprit of what they consider an undermined democracy, fueling extremism, hindering compromise, and lending too much power to partisans. Others argue that primaries are an important bulwark against political corruption and a hedge against elitism. In this context, we ask: Are Primary Elections Ruining Democracy? 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How does one balance two important, though at times competing, public interests? In this case, it’s the need to hold public officials accountable versus the need to shield those officials from harassment and legal liability. In 1967, the US Supreme Court lay the foundations of an answer during a case involving two police officers, sued over civil rights violations carried out at a segregated bus stop in Jackson, Mississippi. The court effectively ruled that if unconstitutional arrests were made in good faith and with probable cause, officers then enjoyed a degree of legal immunity.  That case then served as bedrock for a legal doctrine that later came to be known as “qualified immunity;” a concept that effectively provides government officials with immunity from civil suits in certain circumstances. In 1982, the court went further, codifying qualified immunity for officials and rendering subjective intent of the official immaterial. In other words, whether or not a defendant was acting in good faith was effectively considered irrelevant. Under the revised doctrine, cases could proceed to trial only when there was a clear violation of “established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Since then, critics have argued that this doctrine stands as a central barrier to substantive police reform, allowing officers to more easily to kill or injure with impunity. But advocates say it’s a necessary protection, shielding police officers – who are tasked with making split-second life-and-death decisions – from bankruptcy and vindictive personal lawsuits. In this context, we debate this question: Is It Time to End Qualified Immunity for Cops? 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Unions may be on the verge of a resurgence. After decades of decline, workers are organizing at well-known companies, like Starbucks, Amazon, and Google, at a pace not seen since the 1930s. Decades of stagnant wages, recent labor shortages, and the most vocally pro-union President in recent memory have all stoked key wins for American labor, including successful strikes at John Deere and Kellogg. In fact, recent polling shows public support for labor unions has climbed to 71%, its highest level since 1965. During the old industrial days, unions had broad influence over the American economy. But their power waned. In 1983, one in 5 employees belonged to a union. Last year, that number had dwindled to one in 10, with most of the declines occurring in the private sector. Some say good riddance. They argue that unions actually hurt workers and the economy under the guise of supporting both. Union dues sap salaries, they say, and can actually increase unemployment. They also make the economy more rigid to change, raise consumer prices, and ultimately render unionized companies less competitive. Advocates, however, argue that in light of yawning income inequality, organized labor is desperately needed. Unions increase workers’ pay and benefits, they say, and can also settle disputes more equitably, improve wages, and encourage a more robust middle class. Of course, not all unions are created equal. And the difference between private and public-sector unions needs to be explored. Yet as public support for organized labor has grown as more workers push to join unions, an overarching question looms large: Do Unions Work For The Economy? 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With cyber threats and ransomware on the rise globally, the Biden administration has enlisted America’s tech titans to help blunt their effects. Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, are all in discussions with Washington over how to strengthen the nation’s critical infrastructure defenses against a growing array of both private and state-sponsored attacks. Skeptics question just how much can be achieved, given how connected U.S. society has become. But solutions are emerging, from lifting the veil of cryptocurrencies, a favored transaction among hackers, to making the paying of ransoms illegal. In this special edition of Intelligence Squared’s Agree-to-Disagree series, John Donvan sits down with David Sanger of The New York Times for a closer examination of these attacks before launching into a much more specific debate with two cyber security experts. The debate: Should paying hacker ransoms be illegal? Cyber Threat Alliance president and chief executive Michael Daniel and Rapid7 vice-president Jen Ellis square off in light of recent high-profile hackings. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A genetic disease runs in your family. Your doctor tells you that, should you wish to have a child, that child is likely to also carry the disease. But a new gene-editing technology could change your fate. It could ensure that your baby is -- and remains -- healthy. What do you do? It’s is not without its perils. Critics say the technology will exacerbate inequality, pressure all parents (and nations) into editing their children to stay competitive, and meddle with the most basic aspect of our humanity. So, should we use gene editing to make better babies?  

Arguing in favor of the motion is geneticist George Church and futurist Amy Webb. Arguing against the motion is policy advocate Marcy Darnovsky and philosopher Françoise Baylis. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/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?  

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Amazon has come a long way since online book sales. In fact, when it comes to revenue, Jeff Bezos’ creation is the world’s biggest internet-based company. But what makes the "everything store" so ubiquitous? In large part, it’s the small and medium-sized businesses that use the platform to sell their goods. This year, more than 1.9 million of these businesses participated in its marketplace, which accounted for some 60 percent of Amazon's retail sales. But was it ultimately good for them? In the midst of this historic transition in shopping, that's our debate: Is Amazon good for small business? 

Debating in favor of the motion is Mark Jamison, economist at the American Enterprise Institute, with Kunal Chopra, tech executive and former Amazon GM. Arguing against the motion is Rana Foroohar, global business columnist at the Financial Times and author of “Don’t Be Evil”, with co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Stacy Mitchell. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For nearly three-quarters of a century, Queen Elizabeth II sat on high as Britain’s monarch. With her death, however, new momentum is building that questions the future of the British Crown. Several former British colonies, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Jamaica, have debated severing ties, while Republican campaigners in Britain now see opportunity to reassess what it means to have a monarchy, without offending a popular queen. Against that backdrop, we debate the longevity of the British monarchy. 

Arguing "NO" is Graham Smith, who heads the British anti-monarchy pressure group Republic. Arguing "YES," is Phillip Blond, English political philosopher and director of the ResPublica think tank. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For decades, scientists around the world have dedicated their lives — and research dollars — to one question: Is there anyone else out there? In the early 1970s, NASA joined the hunt with its own program to search for extraterrestrial life, or SETI for short. When that was defunded by Congress, private efforts took hold. But just what have decades of SETI brought us? And how should we approach the search in those to come? For SETI’s supporters, finding other intelligent life in the cosmos is a fundamentally human endeavor. It probes our understanding of the cosmos, what it means to live and survive on Earth and beyond, and just where our species fits into the greater universe. But others warn that SETI is a distraction from other scientific endeavors that, at best, diverts critical resources and, at worst, will open a can of worms humanity isn’t ready to deal with. Just what would happen if we actually find other beings? Are we mature enough as a society to respond? In this episode, we ask the essential extraterrestrial question: to search or not to search?  

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is it true that artificial intelligence will do more harm than good? Proponents say it will help us solve problems like climate change and world hunger, while eliminating dangerous and mundane jobs. But critics warn that A.I.’s current trajectory is a dangerous one, which will likely concentrate power, reduce jobs, surveil consumers and voters alike, and threaten democracy. What’s more, some people say these conditions are not based on science fiction, but are already in the process of afflicting us, given the number of algorithms we engage with on a daily basis. So, could artificial intelligence be used to help solve some of the world’s most pressing challenges and level the playing field, or will it present perils that far outweigh any good it might do?     

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last year, only 1.5 million high school students took the SAT, down from 2.2 million in the class of 2020. Covid-19 played a big role in the decision among many schools not to move forward with at-home testing. But the move sparked even wider discussion about the test itself. Currently, at least 75% of colleges actually don’t require the SAT or ACT. That’s an all-time high, with many schools pledging not to return to it. But is that the right move? Proponents call into question the efficacy and inequity of standardized tests, pointing to high-profile college admission scandals, as well as those leveraging access to resources to net higher scores. They argue a more expansive approach to admissions is better suited in selecting students. Those who defend the SAT, however, say the test presents opportunities for smart under resourced students to get into top schools. Removing such tests could actually make present inequities worse. Additionally, the focus should be on addressing the achievement gap, rather than merely changing the way students are evaluated. Personal essays, GPA, extra curricula, they say, are just as easy to game with financial privilege. So in this context, we ask: Should the SAT be erased? 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You know the drill. Someone does, or says, something offensive. A public backlash -- typically on Twitter -- ensues. Then come the calls to "cancel" that person, brand, or institution. That usually means the loss of cultural cache, political clout, and often a job or career. While the term "cancelling" has roots in a misogynistic joke, it has come to be one of the most prominent tools of progressive activists. Many see "cancelling" as a modern-day means of holding people to account, calling out injustice, and breaking down ingrained systems of prejudice and exploitation, particularly for the historically marginalized. But others see it differently. They are sounding alarms about the emergence of a new cancel culture where digital mobs police our speech, invade our rights, and even put our physical safety at risk. They argue that cancel culture has created a society ruled by online censorship and eroded our public discourse. Against this backdrop, we ask: Is cancel culture toxic? Featuring Kmele Foster, Garry Kasparov, Erich Hatala Matthes and Karen Attiah. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After a series of prime-time hearings from the January 6th Committee and hundreds of charges against individuals who a participated in the events of that day, the Department of Justice faces a complex political and legal question: Should it charge Donald Trump with federal crimes?

Arguing "yes" is Barbara Comstock. Arguing "no" Tom Ginsburg. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Processed food is bad for you, right? Well, there’s more to this story. As new technologies create foods that can’t be made in home kitchens, such as plant-based meats and dairy products made with plant proteins, the question of whether we should all be consuming more highly processed foods is up for debate. Advocates say a substantial increase in food processing is the best way to feed growing human populations while also reducing food waste. We should trust – and invest – in food technology that can make our global food supply healthier and more sustainable, including highly or ultra-processed foods. Opponents argue that these kinds of foods are often less nutritious, and are commonly linked to adverse health indices, particularly when it comes to ultra-processing. As this debate blooms, Intelligence Squared partners with the Institute of Food Technologists to debate this question: Should We Eat More Processed Foods?  

Arguing in favor of the motion is Amy Webb and Michael Gibney. Arguing against the motion is Kevin Hall and Marion Nestle. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Facing growing discontent over the rising cost of higher education, many prominent Democrats – and some Republicans – are calling on Washington to cancel the approximately $1.6 trillion Americans currently owe in student loan debt. Supporters see debt forgiveness as a necessary step to safeguarding the nation’s financial future and combating inequality in the education system. But others argue that this blanket policy would balloon the federal deficit, reward irresponsible borrowers, and waste taxpayer money on those who are not actually in need. Is it time for a student loan bailout? 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As punishment for the war, most of Russia’s energy imports to Europe will be banned by the end of the year. But is that smart policy? Those who argue “yes” say Russia must be punished for its actions. Those who argue “no” say isolating the Kremlin  to this extent is a dangerous gamble, which could undermine Europe’s economies, push Russia further toward China, and lay the groundwork for an escalation. In this context, we debate this question, "Should we isolate Russia? 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Fed recently announced aggressive interest rate hikes and is signaling more to come. Its goal? To stabilize the economy amid surging inflation (reaching rates not seen in some 40 years) and lingering supply chain disruptions and shortages. But can the Fed actually manage a so-called "soft landing"?  

Arguing "yes" is Dean Baker. Arguing "no" is Yeva Nersisyan. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nine justices hold tremendous power. Advocates on the left see a Supreme Court out of touch with the electorate, obstructed by partisan interests, and rendered illegitimate by years of controversial appointments. But those opposed believe dramatically changing one of the three core pillars of American government would undermine the court’s legitimacy. 

Intelligence Squared U.S. in partnership with The Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law asks: Should we expand the Supreme Court?  

This debate was initially released on September 30th, 2021.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The dangers of climate change are “no longer over the horizon.” Humanity may soon pass the “point of no return.” These are the phrases U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres used to describe what he called an “utterly inadequate” global response to rising temperatures. But if we were to decisively act, and restructure our global economy with the climate in mind, who would shoulder the burden? Or should our collective focus orient more toward humans’ capacity for adaptation?  

Podcast: Arguing in favor of the motion are Bjorn Lomberg and Michael Shellenberger. Arguing against the motion is Kaveh Madani and Michele Wucker. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What's it take to debate like a champion? How can you engage so that people will listen? How can you listen actively, and respond in good faith?  A mission critical program for listeners of Intelligence Squared, we sit down with Bo to examine debate through the lens of education, politics, and the future of democracy. Considered one of the most recognized figures in the global debate community, he has won both the World Schools Debating Championship and the World Universities Debating Championship, and has since been writing for The New York Times and The Atlantic. In this wide ranging interviews, Bo discusses his new book, “Good Arguments,” in which he argues how good-faith debate can enrich our lives and fortify our society. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Psychedelics, in medical terms, is an inexact category of drugs that affect perceptions and cognition. Their proponents say 1960s-era associations have undermined exciting research in the field of neuroscience. Psychedelics should be made much more widely available, they contend, to treat a range of mental and emotional issues, as well as to ascertain a more profound sense of ourselves. People should also be empowered to make their own decisions in its use. Not so fast, say opponents. These are powerful substances. And society does not know enough about the broader consequences of greatly increasing access. Cautionary tales should be heeded. Either way, like cannabis, the movement for wider use is growing. So… here’s our debate: should society legalize psychedelics? This debate originally aired in April, 2021.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tesla vehicle sales are, well … electric. The company posted $5.5 billion in 2021 profits, roughly six times its previous year earnings. Globally, the electric car industry is anything but static, soaring to 7 million units in 2021. EV advocates argue that while the technology and resources aren’t perfect, they are ultimately better for the environment long term as the tech improves. Opponents say the kinds of infrastructure EVs require still require huge investments that would be better suited for more ecologically-friendly mass transit systems. So, does your electric vehicle help the planet? 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a modern-day battle of David and Goliath on Wall Street, thousands of amateur retail investors banded together to bid up stocks in a handful of failing companies, most notably the nostalgic video game hub known as GameStop. Within days, the renegade traders sent stocks soaring and dealt heavy blows to hedge funds and other traditional professional investors who had bet against the companies. The "meme stock" phenomenon was born. But where does "revolution" stand a year later? Did the amateurs—trading mostly on the Robinhood platform—change the world of finance? Should more "ordinary" investors get into the game? Or will that benefit Wall Street at the little guy's expense?  

In this "Agree to Disagree," the Wall Street Journal's Spencer Jakab and Tastytrade co-founder Tom Sosnoff take on the meme stock debate head-to-head.  

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court is poised to make a decision so controversial that even a leaked draft majority opinion can send shockwaves across the nation. In 98-pages, Justice Alito decried Roe v. Wade as “egregiously wrong from the start," declared no right to abortion can be found in the Constitution, and sent abortion laws back to the states — about half of which have "trigger laws" that will ban abortion almost immediately upon Roe's demise. Exactly how likely is this draft opinion to become the law of the land? What would overturning such a landmark ruling mean for the Court as an institution? And are the Justices ultimately correct in holding that Roe was simply wrong? 

Against the backdrop of divisive media coverage and partisan sensationalism one of the nation's most polarizing topics, we're doing what we do best: In this Intelligence Squared "pop-up" debate, we bring two of the nation's most esteemed legal scholars to the table for a civil, thoughtful debate on the merits of whether it’s right to end Roe.  

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The calls for nuclear are growing louder. The Biden administration recently announced that it was putting $6 billion toward saving distressed nuclear power plants from closure, considering them carbon-free alternative to fossil fuels. Elon Musk doubled down, not only calling for an expansion of nuclear energy, but even offering to eat food grown near reactors live on TV.  But its critics argue that expanding nuclear energy is dangerous, costly, and ill-advised.  So, we unearthed from the archives this highly-relevant debate: Should nuclear energy fuel our future?   

Arguing in favor of the motion is Kirsty Gogan and Daniel Poneman. Arguing against the motion is Gregory B. Jaczko and Arjun Makhijani. The keynote address comes from Bill Nye. And Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The hallmark of a productive debate is not persuasion, but insight. So says Adam Grant in this wide-ranging conversation with John Donvan and Intelligence Squared CEO Clea Conner. A good argument is not only about convincing, Grant explains, but also to learn. In his new book, Think Again, Grant explores a set of cognitive skills that might matter more than pure aptitude: The ability to rethink and unlearn. That is the focus of this conversation; the capacity to change your mind, and why it matters more than ever. 

Guest: Adam Grant, host of the podcast WorkLife with Adam Grant from the TED Audio Collective 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

New York. Los Angeles. Boston. San Francisco. With mega populations, these urban hubs have long reigned as the nation's economic, social, and cultural capitals. But big cities have also been the hardest hit by the pandemic. Even more, the pandemic has brought economic and social inequality into sharp focus for the nation's lawmakers. Will megacities keep their magnetism in the wake of Covid-19? Or are their best days behind them? 

Arguing in favor of the motion is Joel Kotkin and Jennifer Hernandez. Arguing against the motion is Edward Glaeser and Margaret O'Mara. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is it time to end Covid emergency measures? With President Biden's plan to transition to a new normal, more than 70% of Americans recently polled agree that “we just need to get on with our lives.” Some advocates of the plan say it's long overdue, pointing to the long term consequences of isolation and broader effects lock downs have had on society. Critics argue that both hospitalization and Covid death rates are still high, and that the nature of this virus and its variants is far from endemic. In that context, Intelligence Squared debate a defining question of this pandemic: Is it time to end the Covid Emergency?   

Arguing in favor of the motion is John Tierney, a contributing editor to City Journal, the Manhattan Institute's quarterly publication and former columnist at The New York Times. Arguing against the motion is Enbal Shacham, Professor and Chair of Behavioral Science and Health Education at Saint Louis University. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As escalation ratchets higher between Russia and the west over Ukraine, Intelligence Squared U.S. examines a core question: Is a confrontation with Russia worth it? And what effects have sanctions really wrought? Kurt Volker, a former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and former Special Representative for Ukraine, argues that defending Ukraine is very much in the west’s security interest. Emma Ashford of the Atlantic Council argues that it is not. And yet both acknowledge that for Russia, the stakes may be considerably higher.  

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A genetic disease runs in your family. Your doctor tells you that, should you wish to have a child, that child is likely to also carry the disease. But a new gene-editing technology could change your fate. It could ensure that your baby is -- and remains -- healthy. What do you do? It’s is not without its perils. Critics say the technology will exacerbate inequality, pressure all parents (and nations) into editing their children to stay competitive, and meddle with the most basic aspect of our humanity. So, should we use gene editing to make better babies?  

Arguing in favor of the motion is geneticist George Church and futurist Amy Webb. Arguing against the motion is policy advocate Marcy Darnovsky and philosopher Françoise Baylis. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you are an old-fashioned romantic, true love has a nice ring to it. Our films, novels, poems, and music are all steeped in the notion, with characteristics that include unwavering fondness and even selfless devotion. But does it actually exist, driven by our biological underpinnings? Or is it a myth that harms what could be a more realistic, and thus healthy, expectation of relationships? As American marriages teeter at historic lows, and attitudes shift, it is a growing question among both the single and the attached.   

Arguing “No” is Helen Fisher, biological anthropologist and author of Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray. Arguing “Yes” is Renae Franiuk, professor of Psychology at Aurora University, whose research focuses on social psychology, including romantic relationships. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Following this Agree to Disagree conversation, John sits down with Daniel Jones, Editor of Modern Love at The New York Times.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It’s been a year of the Biden administration. And for many around the world, the question is simple: Can America still lead like it used to? President Biden, following his predecessor's “America First” policy, promised to “restore the soul of America.” Many took that to mean Washington was looking to reassert itself as the pre-eminent global leader. But some say that ship has sailed, and question whether the tables are decidedly turning. In light of this emerging divide, we debate this question: Is America retreating from global leadership?   

 Arguing in favor of the motion is Bill Kristol, Founder and Editor-at-Large of The Weekly Standard, and Mary Beth Long, Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs 

 Arguing against the motion is Kori Schake, Director of Foreign and Defense Policy of the American Enterprise Institute, and Vikram Singh, a Senior Advisor for the U.S. Institute of Peace and Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense.   

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

They say that colleges have become too censorious. That our most prestigious institutions have abandoned their mission of fostering critical minds and sparking thoughtful dissent. And that a generation of American students is missing out. So, this group of scholars and activists are founding something new: a university – they say – dedicated primarily to free speech. The University of Austin will get its start with a series of noncredit "Forbidden Courses." In this Intelligence Squared conversation, John Donovan sits down with the university's inaugural president Pano Kanelos and co-founder Niall Ferguson to discuss. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Two years ago in January, the Covid-19 virus made its way to American shores. And so … as we wrap up 2021, we thought we’d bring you an amalgam of our best Covid content. Our host John Donvan guide you through the depths of what to this day remain highly contentious policies and decisions that continue to affect virtually all of us. And so … from all of us at Intelligence Squared, we hope you enjoy it. Happy holidays.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Amazon has come a long way since online book sales. In fact, when it comes to revenue, Jeff Bezos’ creation is the world’s biggest internet-based company. But what makes the "everything store" so ubiquitous? In large part, it’s the small and medium-sized businesses that use the platform to sell their goods. This year, more than 1.9 million of these businesses participated in its marketplace, which accounted for some 60 percent of Amazon's retail sales. But was it ultimately good for them? In the midst of this historic transition in shopping, that's our debate: Is Amazon good for small business? 

Debating in favor of the motion is Mark Jamison, economist at the American Enterprise Institute, with Kunal Chopra, tech executive and former Amazon GM. Arguing against the motion is Rana Foroohar, global business columnist at the Financial Times and author of “Don’t Be Evil”, with co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Stacy Mitchell. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The hereditary lottery, in many democracies, has effectively been replaced by a system in which talent, grit, and ability are meant to determine success. Yet, amidst income inequality and legacy of racism, many wonder whether meritocracy works. Critics point to generational wealth and networks that lead to lucrative jobs and fancy educations. Those who defend meritocracy argue that talent ultimately wins out, and despite its flaws, meritocracy remains the most effective way of lifting disenfranchised groups.  

Arguing “yes” is Daniel Markovits, professor at Yale Law School and author of "The Meritocracy Trap: How America's Foundational Myth Feeds Inequality, Dismantles the Middle Class, and Devours the Elite."  

Arguing “no” is Adrian Wooldridge, political editor and "Bagehot" columnist for The Economist and author of "The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World." 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You know the drill. Someone does, or says, something offensive. A public backlash -- typically on Twitter -- ensues. Then come the calls to "cancel" that person, brand, or institution. That usually means the loss of cultural cache, political clout, and often a job or career. Some see "cancelling" as a modern-day means of holding people to account, while others express concerns about digital mobs policing speech. So, we ask: Is cancel culture toxic? 

Arguing in favor of the motion is Kmele Foster of FreeThink with chess grandmaster and political activist Garry Kasparov. Arguing against the motion is Erich Hatala Matthes of Wellesley College with Karen Attiah of the Washington Post. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The boosters are rolling out. In places likes the U.S., Britain, and Israel, authorities are providing additional Covid-19 vaccines with the goal of bolstering immune systems and shoring up their economies. Though vaccines such as Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have proven highly effective against the virus, efficacy wanes after six months, rendering older adults and those with weakened immune systems more vulnerable. Yet a debate about fairness, when much of the planet is unvaccinated, is growing. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With cyber threats and ransomware on the rise globally, the Biden administration has enlisted America’s tech titans to help blunt their effects. Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, are all in discussions with Washington over how to strengthen the nation’s critical infrastructure defenses against a growing array of both private and state-sponsored attacks. Skeptics question just how much can be achieved, given how connected U.S. society has become. But solutions are emerging, from lifting the veil of cryptocurrencies, a favored transaction among hackers, to making the paying of ransoms illegal. In this special edition of Intelligence Squared’s Agree-to-Disagree series, John Donvan sits down with David Sanger of The New York Times for a closer examination of these attacks before launching into a much more specific debate with two cyber security experts. The debate: Should paying hacker ransoms be made illegal? Cyber Threat Alliance president and chief executive Michael Daniel and Rapid7 vice-president Jen Ellis square off in light of recent high-profile hackings. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nine justices hold tremendous power. Advocates on the left see a Supreme Court out of touch with the electorate, obstructed by partisan interests, and rendered illegitimate by years of controversial appointments. But those opposed believe dramatically changing one of the three core pillars of American government would undermine the court’s legitimacy. 

Intelligence Squared U.S. in partnership with The Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law asks: Should we expand the Supreme Court?  

Arguing in favor of the motion is Dhalia Lithwick, legal commentator and Slate's Amicus podcast host with Tamara Brummer of advocacy group Demand Justice. Arguing against the motion is Carter Phillips, a Supreme Court and appellate litigator with Akhil Reed Amar, a constitutional law scholar and professor at Yale University. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As world attention descends on the United Nations General Assembly, Intelligence Squared U.S. casts a critical lens on this nearly 76-year-old global organization. In light of recent controversies in places like Haiti, and its recent absence in places such as Afghanistan -- where the Taliban has regained control -- questions are mounting as to whether the United Nations itself is both ineffective and outdated. In light of these emerging questions, we ask an especially timely question: Is the United Nations is Obsolete?  

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Biden administration wants to spend big. Its $4.5 trillion "Build Back Better" plan includes hefty investments in infrastructure, unprecedented spending on the labor force, and funding for a host of Democratic policy priorities. But just what would this mean for the American economy?  As Washington takes up this historic plan, we ask: Should Congress spend trillions to “Build Back Better”?   

Arguing in favor of the motion is Mark Zandi . Arguing against the motion is Michael Strain. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As more and more Americans become vaccinated, schools, employers, and health care facilities are facing a tough decision: Will they require students, employees, and care givers to get the jab? Those who say “yes” cite safety concerns – particularly when dealing with vulnerable populations – and call it a necessary step to return to normal. Those who say “no” argue these sorts of mandates violate individual rights, could expose recipients to potential dangers from the vaccines themselves, and set dangerous broader precedents when it comes to government overreach in public health. It is an especially timely question that pits health concerns up against ideals of personal liberty. And it has practical implications as societies emerge from lockdown. Having it out in the public square, Intelligence Squared host John Donvan presides over a spirited debate between Michael J. Anderson, a Wisconsin attorney who has represented employees resisting vaccine mandates, and Lawrence Gostin, a professor of law at Georgetown University, which is enforcing a vaccine mandate. Originally released on July 2, 2021.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Taliban have won. Twenty years after the 2001 invasion, the U.S.-backed government in Kabul has fallen. The Afghan president has fled. Taliban leadership, which ran the country in the late 1990s, is now firmly in place within the presidential palace. But after two decades of war, tens of billions spent, hundreds of thousands of lives lost – including more than 2,300 U.S. military personnel – bigger questions have emerged: Is the cost of leaving greater than the cost of staying? And was pulling out the right decision? Intelligence Squared and its host John Donvan examine these competing perspectives in this special timely edition of Agree-to-Disagree: Leaving Afghanistan.  

First, a conversation with Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist and best-selling author, who is one of the world’s leading experts on the social and political situations in Pakistan and Afghanistan. His first book, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, explores the shadowy world of the Taliban and quickly became a #1 New York Times bestseller.  Rashid has been called “Pakistan’s best and bravest reporter” (Christopher Hitchens). 

Then, a competition of ideas: Arguing in favor of leaving is Daniel Markey, Senior Research Professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. Arguing against leaving is Kori Schake is a senior fellow and the director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan is the moderator. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Gun violence is surging. Despite lockdowns and social distancing, 2020 ended up as one of America’s most violent years in decades. 2021 is following a similar path. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden has laid out his strategy. In this special debate, we review three gun debates that still have relevance today. 

1.) The Constitutional Right To Bear Arms Has Outlived Its Usefulness (Sanford Levinson of 

University of Texas Law School and David Kopel of Cato Institute) 

2. Guns Reduce Crime (John Lott, economist, and former Seattle Police Chief Gil 

Kerlikowske) 

3. Unresolved American Policing (Paul Butler, Jason Johnson, Rafael Mangual, Sue 

Rahr, Vikrant Reddy) 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What's happening at The New York Times? The paper of record is under fire. Critics argue it has sacrificed journalistic and intellectual balance in favor of correcting historic inequalities. In the process, they say, that effort has stifled dissent and promoted social justice above all else. Not so, say its defenders. The paper has indeed evolved, they argue. Yet that evolution has been proven a particular strength in such tumultuous times. Subscriptions are up, while both casting a critically important lens on historically disenfranchised groups and maintaining its core commitment to high editorial standards and a wide breadth of reporting. So here's the debate: "Has the New York Times Lost Its Way?" 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Economic inequality has become a linchpin of modern politics. As nations around the world face a reckoning on racial and social justice and work to combat the economic impacts of the pandemic, we ask: Is it time to redistribute the wealth? Should we address growing inequality by overhauling our tax system, expanding our social safety nets, and investing more in public initiatives like universal health care, education, and infrastructure? Or would a wealth transfer unduly punish the economic elite, destroy the promise of a meritocracy, and inevitably lead to excessive government intervention in our social and economic lives?

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As more and more Americans become vaccinated, schools, employers, and health care facilities are facing a tough decision: Will they require students, employees, and care givers to get the jab? Those who say “yes” cite safety concerns – particularly when dealing with vulnerable populations – and call it a necessary step to return to normal. Those who say “no” argue these sorts of mandates violate individual rights, could expose recipients to potential dangers from the vaccines themselves, and set dangerous broader precedents when it comes to government overreach in public health. It is an especially timely question that pits health concerns up against ideals of personal liberty. And it has practical implications as societies emerge from lockdown. Having it out in the public square, Intelligence Squared host John Donvan presides over a spirited debate between Michael J. Anderson, a Wisconsin attorney who has represented employees resisting vaccine mandates, and Lawrence Gostin, a professor of law at Georgetown University, which is enforcing a vaccine mandate.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Generally, it is good practice for any individual or organization to occasionally step back and evaluate a few big picture items. But when that review is sparked by a pandemic and real uncertainties about the state of western democracy, that little exercise often becomes existential. In that spirit, and in this special season review, Intelligence Squared casts a critical lens on itself; its mission to serve as a beacon for civil discourse, its examination of opposing perspectives; and the transformation the organization itself has experienced in light of such seismic events. In this especially candid discussion, John Donvan sits down with Intelligence Squared CEO Clea Conner, editor-at-large of Reason magazine, Nick Gillespie, and Robert Litan, an economist and attorney, whose recent book “Resolved: Debate Can Revolutionize Education and Help Save Our Democracy” bears particular relevance to this conversation. Collectively, this group asks the hard questions about the role of debate in society, but also of how IQ2 pivoted as the virtual world opened up. Finally, it is a look at the precious few places left for genuine discussion, and why, perhaps, it is needed now more than ever. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How do you know that you’re right? Modern business, politics, and even culture, tend to favor strident opinions and decisive action. To “flip flop” may then be construed as ineptitude, or even weakness. So it behooves us to “stick to our guns, “stay the course,” and adhere to other well-trodden idioms of the English language. Of course that approach may be limiting. And what if you are actually wrong? How will you know? What means testing can be involved in your thinking when to waver or even change your mind might undermine what you are ultimately trying to accomplish? Ray Dalio, an American investor, billionaire and the founder of the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, has spent a lot of time thinking about this quandary. Countering its pitfalls is something he actively encourages, not only in business, but also in his personal life. In this wide ranging interview, Dalio sat down for a conversation with Intelligence Squared host John Donvan to examine what it means to being open to changing your mind, precisely how to do it, and what’s at stake if you don’t.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is Bitcoin here to stay? Cryptocurrencies hold the promise of revolutionizing global finance by placing control in the hands of users, not nations, and making financial exchanges more transparent, efficient, and democratic. But given the yet-another-round of boom and bust cycles seen recently, questions remain: Could cypto ever be considered a safe bet? Proponents say the hype is warranted, with naysayers increasingly jumping on the Bitcoin (block) train. Yet skeptics and critics – like Elon Musk – suggest this highly volatile digital currency offers a platform for illicit activity, including money laundering and trafficking of humans and drugs, free from government oversight and regulation. They argue Bitcoin has no intrinsic value – the price is based on market enthusiasm rather than actual utility. So… in light of renewed attention, Intelligence Squared U.S. sought to resurrect this highly relevant debate: Is Bitcoin More Than a Bubble and Here to Stay?

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In light of the recent Israel-Hamas war, an old debate is gaining new relevance. The nature of the current conflict has again unleashed a wave of antisemitic threats and violence in the U.S., with synagogues and Jewish-owned business having been vandalized and attacked. But as society surveys the damage, it also asks whether the condemnation of Israeli actions can truly be divorced from antisemitic hostilities? In other words, is being an anti-zionist tantamount to being antisemitic? Or is arguing against a state of-and-for the Jewish people just a thinly veiled way of harboring prejudice? In this debate, which first aired in February 2020, and accordingly has a few dated references which we felt were necessary to keep, Intelligence Squared looks to four expert panelists to debate this question: Is Anti-Zionism the New Anti-Semitism?

For the Motion:

Bret Stephens - Op-Ed Columnist, New York Times

Einat Wilf - Former Member, Israeli Parliament

Against the Motion:

Peter Beinart - Journalist & Author, "The Crisis of Zionism"

Yousef Munayyer - Executive Director, US Campaign for Palestinian Rights

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The fate of Taiwan is uncertain. As a revanchist China builds up forces near the island, the Biden administration is warning Beijing against an invasion, bolstering its defense with the sale of military hardware. Beijing sees Taiwan as lost territory, which needs to be “reunified” with the mainland. The United States is now faced with a geopolitical quandary: Can the U.S. military defend Taiwan from Beijing, and should it? Or, is Taiwan indefensible? Arguing in favor of the motion is Lyle J. Goldstein of the Naval War College, with Charlie Glaser of George Washington University. Arguing against the motion is former deputy assistant secretary of defense Elbridge Colby, with Elizabeth Larus of the University of Mary Washington. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Will you need a digital passport to prove you’ve been vaccinated the next time you try to board a flight or get into a concert? The idea is already being tested in Israel and governments around the world – including the Biden administration – are exploring what vaccine credentials might look like. For some, these digital tools are a golden ticket back to “normal” life. But for others, these tools raise dire concerns about privacy, civil rights, and equitable access. 

In this episode of Agree to Disagree, John Donvan sits with Peter Baldwin, history professor from UCLA, and Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst at ACLU, to debate the future of vaccine passports.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Psychedelics, in medical terms, is an inexact category of drugs that affect perceptions and cognition. Their proponents say 1960s-era associations have undermined exciting research in the field of neuroscience. Psychedelics should be made much more widely available, they contend, to treat a range of mental and emotional issues, as well as to ascertain a more profound sense of ourselves. People should also be empowered to make their own decisions in its use. Not so fast, say opponents. These are powerful substances. And society does not know enough about the broader consequences of greatly increasing access. Cautionary tales should be heeded. Either way, like cannabis, the movement for wider use is growing. So... here’s our debate: Should society legalize psychedelics?

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

India and South Africa have petitioned the World Trade Organization to suspend intellectual property protections for Covid-19 vaccines. These nations – along with a coalition of scholars, activists, and nonprofit organizations – argue that developing nations are at risk of waiting years to get full access to the vaccines unless these protections are lifted. But their opponents say suspending patent protections will do little to speed up the manufacturing process. Instead, undermining these protections will ensure that the next time the world needs an emergency vaccine, governments and pharmaceuticals will be unable to act as swiftly. It’s a debate emblematic of the uneven vaccine rollout, and strikes at the core of society’s ability to act quickly. 

In this episode of Agree to Disagree, John Donvan sits with Thomas Cueni, director-general of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations and Brook Baker, law professor at Northeastern University and senior policy analyst at Health GAP, to debate the future of vaccine patents.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the year since the pandemic forced us to cancel, the federal student loan debt has grown $100 billion. The stakes have risen for student borrowers, making it high time we rescheduled our debate on the motion: Forgive Student Loans.

Facing growing discontent over the rising cost of higher education, many prominent Democrats – and some Republicans – are calling on Washington to cancel the approximately $1.7 trillion Americans currently owe in student loan debt. Supporters see debt forgiveness as a necessary step to safeguarding the nation’s financial future and combating inequality in the education system. But others argue that this blanket policy would balloon the federal deficit, reward irresponsible borrowers, and waste taxpayer money on those who are not actually in need. Is it time for a student loan bailout? 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Between 1525 and 1866, more than 12 million Africans were shipped to the New World as slaves. After some 200 years, slavery was abolished, and yet another century of Jim Crow, coupled with discriminatory housing and lending policies, contributed to its legacy. Dealing with the relics of that stain on American history is part of the national dilemma. But exactly how to do it is our question; something lawmakers in Washington are also now debating. A top aide to President Joe Biden recently said that the White House will ‘start acting now’ on reparations for African Americans. Some say it’s long over-due. Reparations, they say, are important to start to address the moral injury slavery inflicted. Others say direct payments to African Americans will divide the black community, exaggerate racial tensions and prove impossible to administer.

Arguing that reparations are the way to go is Cornell William Brooks, former president and CEO of the NAACP.

Arguing that direct payments to African Americans are not the most effective means of addressing the legacy of slavery, and that they could have unintended consequences is Randall LeRoy Kennedy is an American law professor and author at Harvard University.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What should the Republican party look like after Donald Trump? For many prominent establishment figures, including those behind The Lincoln Project, the GOP has lost its way. The only way back, they say, is to purge the forces that brought Trump to power. But others warn that rejecting the millions of voters who supported the former president is the wrong call for the American right. Rather, the GOP should instead double down, focus on bridging the establishment and grassroots factions of their party, and find a way to move forward together. In light of shifting political sands, we ask: Has the GOP lost its way?

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As robots and artificial intelligence reached new heights, the relationship between humans and machines is getting closer. The sex tech industry is worth $30 billion annually and growing, as sex with synthetic companions is becoming far more widespread. But should it be? What are the social consequences? Some argue that sex robots will encourage bad behavior, perpetuate misogyny, and reinforce pornographic depictions of the opposite sex. Others say it can serve as a societal good for those who struggle with traditional relationships, and be employed as a safe outlet for otherwise toxic behavior. So in this episode of Agree to Disagree, we debate sex robots and their place in society. 

Arguing “YES” is Kate Devlin, computer scientist specializing in AI and human-computer interaction, author of "Turned On: Science, Sex, and Robots." 

Arguing "NO" is Joanna Bryson, PhD, professor at the Hertie School in Berlin, scholar of AI and ethics.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The public and pundits alike are still processing the recent election, but this much we know: 2020 marks the most diverse Congress in American history, and President Trump garnered record numbers of minority voters. The takeaway is split. Were identity politics a way to prevail? Two experts on race and identity in America sit with Intelligence Squared host and moderator John Donvan to debate.

Arguing “YES” is Michael Eric Dyson, an author, New York Times contributing opinion writer, contributing editor of The New Republic, and professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University.

Arguing "NO" is John McWhorter, an author, host of Lexicon Valley, contributing writer at The Atlantic, and professor of Linguistics at Columbia University.

Taped on November 23, 2020, originally released on December 11, 2020.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Joe Biden’s approach to the Middle East will likely be very different than Donald Trump’s. But should it be? For some, the Trump legacy was the right approach: A transactional style that resulted in a host of political and diplomatic victories, including normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab states. But others, including many prominent members of Biden's transition team, see the last four years as a failure of strategy and leadership. So, as the Biden team gets going, we debate whether Trump got the Middle East right. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol and halted the Electoral College certification, European leaders decried the violence and called on the president to allow the peaceful transfer of power. Meanwhile, China, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran issued swift condemnations with not-so-subtle jabs at the legitimacy of Western democratic values. In the wake of this, can America remain the world's model for democracy? 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Were you an adventurous baby? Or were you risk averse? According to Dr. Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist who studies genopolitics, your answers to those questions might also inform your politics. Host, John Donvan digs into the debate surrounding genes and early nurturing, and examines how they both might inspire a natural predilection to skew left or right.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Looking back at 2020, it’s been interesting. Intelligence Squared, like the rest of the world, went virtual as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic that upended business models and accelerated trends far beyond what most experts could envision. (“To zoom” no longer just means “to move quickly.”) And so, as the world waits this thing out, we decided an appropriate holiday gift would be a compilation of our favorite debates of 2020. From Iran, China and the Electoral College, to policing and whether society should redistribute the wealth, we hope you enjoy this special year-ender from Intelligence Squared.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the first rounds of the Covid-19 vaccines become available, a growing debate has emerged as to who should get it first. CDC guidance prioritizes essential workers and those in long-term care, but a growing chorus of voices say authorities should instead focus on the elderly. It’s a profound debate with broad ethical implications that dig into the question of preserving first-responders and society’s first line of defense versus rising morbidity and mortality rates among at-risk populations. Host and moderator John Donvan examines it all in a wide ranging interview with Dr. Larry Brilliant, physician, epidemiologist, and CEO of the Pandefense Advisory, who was also a part of the World Health Organization team that eradicated smallpox.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The public and pundits alike are still processing the most recent election, but this much we know: 2020 marks the most diverse Congress in American history, and President Trump garnered more minority voters in 2020 than in 2016. As Georgia faces two runoff elections, which will determine which party controls the Senate, gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams and other voting-rights advocates have focused on identity politics as a way to prevail in the electoral process. Is it a winning strategy? Two experts on race and identity in America sit with Intelligence Squared host and moderator John Donvan to debate.

Arguing “YES” is Michael Eric Dyson, an author, New York Times contributing opinion writer, contributing editor of The New Republic, and professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University.

Arguing "NO" is John McWhorter, an author, host of Lexicon Valley, contributing writer at The Atlantic, and professor of Linguistics at Columbia University

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Governments around the world have spent unprecedented sums — trillions of dollars — to combat the economic impacts of coronavirus. But just what does rising government debt mean for our future? A new crop of economists – adherents to Modern Monetary Theory – have a bold proposition: Don't worry about it. Stephanie Kelton, James Galbraith, Todd Buchholz, and Otmar Issing join us for a debate on national debt in our third episode of "That's Debatable," our new series presented in partnership with Bloomberg Media and sponsored by IBM.  

A note from our sponsor:

There’s nothing to lose from gaining a fresh perspective. IBM Watson® was built to help us look at an issue from all sides—from cultural debates to customer reviews. Using advanced natural language processing, Watson is making sense of data from a range of topics to help give us more informed perspectives, so we can make more informed decisions. See how Watson informs a human debate at ibm.com/debatable

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Joe Biden delivered a victory speech. His team is planning to take power. But rather than concede, President Trump has instead turned to the courts, with election lawsuits in states like Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona. It's a historic moment, and for many an unsettling one. But could these lawsuits actually be good for democracy? Two competing legal minds weigh in, with Intelligence Squared host and moderator John Donvan at the helm.   

Arguing "YES," is Rebecca Roiphe, a Manhattan prosecutor and law professor who focuses on ethics and the history of the legal profession. 

Arguing “NO” is Ian Bassin, a former attorney in the Obama White House and the co-founder of Protect Democracy.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

China is ramping up its national space industry with huge investments in next-generation technologies that promise to transform military, economic, and political realities. Against this backdrop, we ask: Would a new U.S.-China space race be good for humanity? Michio Kaku, Avi, Loeb, Raji Pillai, and Bidushi Bhattacharya join us for a debate on the potential U.S.-China space race in our second episode of “That’s Debatable," our new series presented in partnership with Bloomberg Media and sponsored by IBM.

A note from our sponsor:

There’s nothing to lose from gaining a fresh perspective. IBM Watson® was built to help us look at an issue from all sides—from cultural debates to customer reviews. Using advanced natural language processing, Watson is making sense of data from a range of topics to help give us more informed perspectives, so we can make more informed decisions. See how Watson informs a human debate at ibm.com/debatable

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this special post-election podcast – amidst record mail-in voting, lawsuits, social unrest, and partisan polarization – we’re asking a simple question: Was the 2020 run for the White House as unprecedented as we might think? Those in favor of the motion often point to the tech influence, and Silicon Valley’s hand in everything from echo chambers to political advertising to conspiracy theories. Those against often nod to America’s track record of polarization. In 1860, after Abraham Lincoln’s electoral win, for instance, seven states decided to secede. It would be hard, some say, for even 2020 to compete with that. And so in this podcast, Intelligence Squared U.S. brings you those two perspectives: One focused on the past, and one focused on today’s tech, and its future. 

Amy Webb, CEO, Future Today Institute 

Amy Webb is among the nation’s leading futurists and founder and CEO of the Future Today Institute. She is an adjunct assistant professor at New York University's Stern School of Business, a nonresident senior fellow at Atlantic Council, and author of “The Big Nine: How the Tech Titans and Their Thinking Machines Could Warp Humanity.”

Michael F. Holt, History Professor, University of Virginia 

Michael F. Holt is a professor of American History at the University of Virginia. He is the author of six books, including the award-winning “The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party and By One Vote: The Disputed Presidential Election of 1876.”

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In these final days of the race for the White House, some nations are paying especially close attention. Two men with competing visions of America’s place in the world are vying for the nation’s top job, and the balance of global power is in play. 

In this episode of Discourse Disrupters, John Donvan sits down with Ian Bremmer, president and founder of Eurasia Group, to examine the U.S. elections from a foreign policy perspective, the politics of the process itself, and what it all means for a global audience.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What would a Justice Amy Coney Barrett mean for American law and politics? Should Democrats try to reform the Court? Two of the nation's top constitutional minds weigh-in, with John Donvan as your intellectual referee in this special episode of Intelligence Squared. 

Erwin Chemerinsky - Dean, University of California Berkeley School of Law

Saikrishna Prakash - Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia

Love to argue? We want to hear from you. Submit your opinion on national deficits to IBM Watson now, and you may be featured in our next Bloomberg television show. More here: ibm.com/debatable

Consider making a donation: iq2us.org/support

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Robert Reich, Yanis Varoufakis, Lawrence Summers and Allison Schrager join us for a debate on economic inequality in the premiere episode of “That’s Debatable," our new series presented in partnership with Bloomberg Media and sponsored by IBM. As nations around the world grapple with the financial impacts of the pandemic, we ask: Is it time to redistribute the wealth?

A note from our sponsor:

There’s nothing to lose from gaining a fresh perspective. IBM Watson® was built to help us look at an issue from all sides—from cultural debates to customer reviews. Using advanced natural language processing, Watson is making sense of data from a range of topics to help give us more informed perspectives, so we can make more informed decisions. See how Watson informs a human debate at ibm.com/debatable

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Historic protests calling for police reform have erupted across the nation. But just what could these reforms mean? And how should we see the criminal justice system today? Staged in our “Unresolved” format, this debate brings together five experts to tackle pressing questions on the history and future of policing in the U.S. including: Should we defund the police? Do police unions do more harm than good? And has policing become too militarized? 

Cast your vote: https://smarturl.it/AmericanPolicing

A Message from Our Sponsor

Subscribe to The Jordan Harbinger Show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen or at jordanharbinger.com/subscribe

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Episode Originally Aired on August 3rd, 2018

MOTION: Globalization Has Undermined America's Working Class

Globalization ushered in an era of free trade, fluid borders, and unparalleled corporate profits. For its proponents, the global integration of states and their economies was a political and economic win that created a wealth of opportunities for workers and consumers around the world. But in the United States, jobs are disappearing. From construction zones to clerical offices to coal mines, the American working class is losing ground. Is globalization to blame? Did the push toward global integration leave our most vulnerable populations behind, making them the losers of this grand experiment? Or is globalization being used as a scapegoat for a wider range of failed public policies and unprecedented advances in technology? 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices