Open to Debate

From packed city council meetings to protests outside city halls, a growing backlash against Flock Safety cameras capturing images of passing vehicles and license plates to help police investigate crimes is sweeping across America. Those wanting to keep them argue they’re valuable crime-fighting tools that only require stronger oversight, while critics raise concerns about privacy, government overreach, and the potential for mass surveillance. Now we debate: Should Cities Pull the Plug on Flock Cameras? 

Arguing Yes: Benn Jordan, YouTube Educator and Activist 

Arguing No: Ramin Fatehi, Norfolk Commonwealth's Attorney in Virginia 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates

After you’ve listened to the debate, let us know where you stand on the motion! 

VOTE HERE: ⁠https://bit.ly/OTDVOTE 

Vote before Thursday, October 29 at 5 pm ET. Results will be announced in our Substack newsletter so make sure to subscribe. 

Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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

Once a sci-fi fantasy explored in films like “Jurassic Park,” some biological and technological breakthroughs indicate that reviving extinct creatures could become a reality. Proponents argue that the benefits include correcting mistakes of the past by bringing back extinct ecosystems and organisms. Others argue it's not ethical or even feasible. Now we debate: Should humans bring extinct creatures back to life? 

Arguing YES:  

Dr. Ross MacPhee, Curator of the Department of Mammalogy, Division of Vertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History 

Dr. Lynn J. Rothschild, Evolutionary Biologist & Astrobiologist 

Arguing NO:  

Stewart Brand, Co-Founder of Revive & Restore & Founder of Whole Earth Catalog 

Dr. George Church, Professor of Genetics at Harvard and MIT & Founder of the Personal Genome Project 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Attend a live debate in Baltimore on October 27th. We'll be debating the impacts of AI in higher ed at Johns Hopkins University as part of our Hopkins Forum series in partnership with the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Agora Institute. Reserve your seat now!  

⁠https://bit.ly/ai-college-future⁠  

Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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

Amid deep political division and ahead of the midterms, what does good citizenship require? In his new book, “Live Like a Citizen,” Citizen University’s Eric Liu argues that democracy depends on citizenship as an everyday practice — learning to listen, participate, disagree, change our minds, and remain committed to one another despite our differences. John Donvan sits down with Liu to explore what he has thought twice about regarding citizenship since he moved from Washington, D.C. to "the other Washington," the city of Seattle, specifically, sharing his eight habits for rebuilding civic life and why changing America may require changing ourselves. 

Our Guest: Eric Liu, CEO and Co-Founder of Citizen University; Author of "Live Like A Citizen" 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Attend a live debate in Baltimore on October 27th. We'll be debating the impacts of AI in higher ed at Johns Hopkins University as part of our Hopkins Forum series in partnership with the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Agora Institute. Reserve your seat now! 

https://bit.ly/ai-college-future 

Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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

Social Security has long been a cornerstone of American retirement, but as the trust fund grows closer to depletion by 2032, should the system be repaired or replaced with new standards? Those advocating for phasing it out argue its unsuitability for the modern economy and should only be available for those needing it most. Others argue it’s still a good anti-poverty tool and Congress should take action and make changes to its finances. Now we debate: Should We Phase Out Social Security? 

Arguing Yes: Romina Boccia, Director of Budget and Entitlement Policy at Cato Institute   

Arguing No: Teresa Ghilarducci, Professor of Economics and Policy Analysis and Director of the Wealth Equity Lab at The New School 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement that supporters say could strengthen ties, advance normalization, and give Washington greater influence over the kingdom’s nuclear ambitions. Critics warn that without stronger restrictions on uranium enrichment and inspections, assistance could create a pathway toward nuclear weapons and weaken nonproliferation norms. Would American involvement reduce the risks or enable them? Now we debate: Does the U.S.-Saudi Civil Nuclear Agreement Serve America's Interests? 

Arguing Yes: 

Daniel Poneman, Former Deputy Secretary of Energy; Distinguished Fellow of the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center and Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security 

Amos Hochstein, Former White House Senior Advisor to President Biden; Managing Partner at TWG Global 

Arguing No: 

Sharon Squassoni, Research Professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University; Former Director of Nonproliferation and Prevention at CSIS 

Joe Cirincione, Former Director for Non-Proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace  

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

This debate was produced in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations. 

Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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

As world attention descends on the United Nations General Assembly, Open to Debate is once again casting a critical lens on this over 80-year-old global organization. To this day, questions are still mounting as to whether the United Nations itself is both ineffective and outdated, or whether an institution created for the world of 1945 is equipped for, and can effectively meet, today's challenges. Now we debate: Is the United Nations Obsolete?  

ARGUING YES: 

Rajan Menon, Political Scientist & Spitzer Professor Emeritus of International Relations at the City College of New York 

Nile Gardiner, Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at The Heritage Foundation 

ARGUING NO: 

Angela Kane, German Diplomat and Senior Fellow at Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation; Former UN Under-Secretary-General 

Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, Scholar & Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mauritania 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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

What shapes us more: our DNA or the way we’re raised? The “nature” camp points to genetic research and studies of twins raised apart, arguing that traits from personality to abilities are strongly influenced by inherited biology, limiting how much parenting can shape who children become. The “nurture” camp argues upbringing, culture, and parental choices profoundly influence development and behavior. So which matters more? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in November 2019

ARGUING YES: 

Robert Plomin, Professor of Behavioral Genetics at King’s College London 

Nancy Segal, Professor of Psychology at California State University, Fullerton and Director at the Twin Studies Center 

ARGUING NO: 

Paige Harden, Psychology Professor at the University of Texas 

Ann Pleshette Murphy, Author & Parenting Expert 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Recent twin studies:

⁠Parenting in Childhood Predicts Personality in Early Adulthood: A Longitudinal Twin-Differences Study⁠ (APA, 2025)

⁠Genetics of monozygotic twins reveals the impact of environmental sensitivity on psychiatric and neurodevelopmental phenotypes⁠ (Nature Human Behavior, 2025)

⁠Longitudinal associations between cognitive ability and socioeconomic status are partially genetic in Nature⁠ (Scientific Reports, 2026)

Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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

A century after Henry Ford helped popularize the five-day, 40-hour week, could working 32 hours be next? Supporters say shorter weeks can improve well-being without sacrificing productivity, especially as AI would make workers more efficient. Others warn it would strain industries that require continuous staffing and force Americans to rethink everything from school and healthcare schedules to expectations of around-the-clock availability. We debate: Is America Ready for a Four-Day Work Week? 

Arguing Yes: Juliet Schor, Economist and Sociologist at Boston College   

Arguing No: Joanne Lipman, Bestselling Author, Journalist, and Former Media Executive 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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

Capitalism has long been credited with driving innovation and prosperity, yet many Americans increasingly believe the system is no longer working for them. Is the problem capitalism itself or the policies surrounding it? In this debate, an entrepreneur and venture capitalist faces a prominent economist with a competing vision to examine inequality, economic opportunity, and the future of the American economy. Now we debate: Is Capitalism Broken? 

Arguing Yes: Nick Hanauer, Entrepreneur and Venture Capitalist  

Arguing No: Jason Furman, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

After you’ve listened to the debate, let us know where you stand on the motion!

VOTE HERE: ⁠https://bit.ly/podcastcapitalismvote ⁠

We will reveal the results of the vote in our Substack newsletter on Saturday, September 5th, so make sure to ⁠subscribe⁠.

Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/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?  This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in July 2022.

Arguing Yes:  

Bjorn Lomborg, Author of the Bestsellers "Cool It" and "The Skeptical Environmentalist"; Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center 

Matthew Kahn, Provost Professor of Economics and Spatial Sciences at the University of Southern California 

Arguing No: 

Michele Wucker, Economic Policy Expert & Founder of Gray Rhino & Company 

Kaveh Madani, Environmental Scientist; Former Vice President of the United Nations Environment Assembly Bureau; Former Deputy Head of Iran’s Department of Environment 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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