America is suffering from a loneliness epidemic. Some groups have suggested religious communities may be key to solving it. Could it help? Those arguing “yes” say it gives people regular social contact, support systems, and a sense of purpose that could combat isolation. Those arguing “no” say that secular options would provide better, broad-based solutions. Now we debate: Can Religion Cure the Loneliness Epidemic? 

Arguing Yes:  

Harold Koenig, Director of Duke University’s Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health  

Chris Murphy, Senator from Connecticut  

Arguing No: 

Ruth Whippman, Author of "America the Anxious: How Our Pursuit of Happiness Is Creating a Nation of Nervous Wrecks" and "BOYMOM: Reimagining Boyhood in the Age of Impossible Masculinity." 

Dan Barker, Co-President of the Freedom from Religion Foundation 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

How’s your love life? With platforms like Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, and OkCupid offering endless opportunities to connect, many people searching for The One think signing up for a dating app should be a go-to for finding their match. However, new research is showing some users are signing off, including ninety percent of Gen Z users. 

Those staying on the apps point to their ease of use, accessibility, and the countless success stories of happily coupled friends who met that way. 

Others say dating apps aren’t offering authentic connections. A paradox of choice has also developed, with a belief there’s always someone else who you can connect with, which has made people less satisfied with their options. 

Before we continue to swipe right, we debate the question: Is It Time to Break Up with Dating Apps? 

Arguing Yes: Maria Avgitidis, Matchmaker and CEO at Agape Match   

Arguing No: Melissa Hobley, Global Chief Marketing Officer of Tinder 

Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator. 

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

In recent years, multiple proposals have been made to change how the U.S. Supreme Court operates in its current form. Would these reforms help – or hurt? What is the future of the highest court in the land? In partnership with Johns Hopkins University as part of our inaugural “Hopkins Forum”, our featured guests will discuss term limits, expanding the Supreme Court, and whether external ethics codes should be applied. 

Our Guests: 

Ambassador Jeff Flake, Former Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee  

Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law at Columbia Law School; Supreme Court Commentator 

Cristina Rodríguez, Former Co-Chair of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States; Professor at Yale Law School 

The Honorable Jeff Sessions, Former U.S. Attorney General and Senator 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

Sports fans can place bets on their favorite teams and athletes faster and easier than before, thanks to legalized sports gambling. But was it the wrong bet to make? Advocates say it’s been good for fans, the economy, and the sports industry.  Those who say that what’s happened since legalization is a bad thing, say it’s driven a rise in gambling addiction and created a public health crisis. Now we debate: Has Legalizing Sports Gambling Become A Bad Bet?

Arguing Yes: Harry Levant, Director of Gambling Policy at the Public Health Advocacy Institute  

Arguing No: Bill Pascrell III, Partner at Princeton Public Affairs Group 

Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator. 

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

GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro have opened doors for people to lose weight. Should everyone have the option to take it? Those arguing “yes” say obesity needs to be treated using every available tool, especially for people for whom diet, lifestyle changes, and exercise aren’t enough. Those arguing “no” are concerned about its side effects and the risks if people don’t take them as directed. Now we debate: should prescription weight loss drugs be available for all? 

Arguing Yes: David Allison, Obesity Researcher; Dean and Distinguished Professor at the Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington 

Arguing No: Stuart W. Flint, Associate Professor of the Psychology of Obesity at the University of Leeds 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

In the 2024 election, the Democrats did not have messaging that resonated with men, some say and is part of the reason Kamala Harris lost. Could leaning into identity politics to engage men work for future elections? Those arguing “yes” say focusing on men-related issues could help the Dems reconnect with a demographic that feels left behind. Those arguing “no” say focusing on gender and identity politics divide voters rather than unite them. Now we debate: Could Identity Politics Help Democrats Engage Men? 

Arguing Yes: Jackson Katz, Educator, Author, and Co-Founder of the Young Men's Research Institute 

Arguing No: Thomas Chatterton Williams, Staff Writer at The Atlantic; Visiting Professor of Humanities at Bard College; Nonresident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

The clock is ticking on TikTok. The popular video sharing app is facing a looming deadline of January 19th, when the law effectively banning it in the U.S. is set to go into effect. Unless, that is, the Supreme Court steps in to save it this week. While we wait, we revisit our 2023 debate that asked this prescient question: Should the U.S. Ban TikTok?  

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

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

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

Iran is getting closer to developing its first nuclear weapon. With tensions rising in the Middle East, should the U.S. and its allies take a stand? Those calling to stop Iran now argue this is a “now or never” moment for the region. Those calling for tolerance say while it’s not ideal, it is manageable, and maintaining diplomacy should be the focus. Now we debate: Can America and Its Allies Tolerate A Nuclear Iran, or Is It Time to Stop Them Now? 

Arguing STOP NOW: Behnam Ben Taleblu, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies 

Arguing TOLERATE: Barbara Slavin, Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Center 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

Millions of people have credited Alcoholics Anonymous with helping them stay sober from alcohol, but is it the best path for everyone? Those who say “yes” argue it is easily accessible to all and that its structure through the 12-step program helps people succeed. Those who say “no” argue say the abstinence model doesn’t work for everyone and there may be better alternatives. Now we debate: Does AA Work?  

Arguing Yes: Dan Griffin, Expert on Alcoholics Anonymous; Author of "A Man's Way Through the Twelve Steps"

Arguing No: Adi Jaffe, Founder of IGNTD; Author of "The Abstinence Myth"

Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Co-Host of the Semafor Podcast "Mixed Signals", is the guest moderator.

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

How long would you like to live, and could science and technology make it possible? 

Longevity science aims to extend our healthy years through advancements in CRISPR, cellular reprogramming, and drug development. While private companies and philanthropists invest heavily in these innovations, should the government be responsible for funding these efforts? Those who say yes to government funding say that longevity research could revolutionize public health, keep aging populations productive in the workforce, and reduce the economic burden of age-related illnesses. Those opposed to public funding of longevity science say that true life extension beyond a decade might be unachievable, and it will take years before results are measurable. They argue that when and if these advances become available, they may only be for a smaller, affluent population. They also argue that long-known behavior choices like good nutrition and sleep should be adopted by all now, instead of chasing uncertain longevity advancements. 

With this context, we debate the question: Could Longevity Science Extend Your Health Span By Decades? Should the Government Fund It?  

Arguing Yes: Peter Diamandis, Founder and Chairman of the XPRIZE Foundation; Announced the XPRIZE Healthspan Competiton; Author of "Longevity Guidebook" 

Arguing No: Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Bioethicist; Vice Provost for Global Initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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