Open to Debate

Two days. Four questions. Ten judges and high school students participating in the national championship run by Incubate Debate, the U.S.’s fastest-growing high school debate league. This is what civil debate in the public square looks like — and what it can be across the country. Join us as we follow eight students who debate the following questions: “Should College DEI Programs Be Abolished?” and “Is Climate Change An Emergency?” 

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

Happiness is a complex emotion and mental state that can be achieved through virtue or pleasure. But should it be for the good of the individual or society? Those in favor of virtue point to the Stoics and the Founding Fathers, saying you should strive for a life of moral virtue and rationality. Those in favor of pleasure say everyone should be able to experience it and define their sources of happiness. Now we debate: The Pursuit of Happiness: Virtue or Pleasure? 

Arguing Virtue: Jeffrey Rosen, CEO & President of the National Constitution Center; Author of “The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America” 

Arguing Pleasure: Roger Crisp, Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford; Uehiro Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, Oxford 

Nayeema Raza, Journalist at New York Magazine and Vox, is the guest moderator. 

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

The Supreme Court will soon decide on a case surrounding a medication used for abortion, mifepristone, and whether the drug should continue to be available based on claims of safety and ethical considerations. Those in favor of restrictions argue that the FDA fast-tracked its approval without considering health impacts. Those against restriction argue the FDA made its decisions based on safety and efficiency, and it’s being targeted to further infringe on women’s rights. Now we debate: Should the Courts Restrict Access to the Abortion Pill?  

Petitioner: Julia Kaye, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project  

Respondent: Catherine Glenn Foster, Senior Fellow in Legal Policy at the Charlotte Lozier Institute  

Judge's Chair: John Donvan, Moderator-in-Chief and Emmy award-winning journalist 

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

Many colleges during the pandemic decided to make their applications test-optional, but new research has elite colleges rethinking that policy. Those in favor of reinstating say the SAT is the best way to bring talented students from all socioeconomic levels into the fold. Those against it say it favors the affluent and argue that admissions decisions should be based on a holistic, more inclusive review that considers a wide range of factors Now we debate: Should Elite Universities Reinstate the SAT?

Arguing Yes: John Friedman, Professor and Chair of the Economics Department at Brown University  

Arguing No: Ben Nelson, Founder of Minerva University 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

Tensions have been ramping up at universities across the country as students continue to protest the war in Gaza. Reports of antisemitism, islamophobia, and harassment have led to concerns that some students have crossed a line into hateful and threatening speech that requires intervention. Others contend that efforts to clamp down on protests in the name of campus safety suppresses free speech. Within that context, we revisit this debate on adjacent issues from a few years back to see what lessons that can be applied to the current situation: Is Free Speech Threatened on Campus? 

Arguing Yes: John McWhorter, Linguist and Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University; Wendy Kaminer, Writer and Lawyer   

Arguing No: Shaun Harper, Founder and Executive Director of the USC Race and Equity Center; Jason Stanley, Professor of Philosophy at Yale University 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

Former criminal offenders in the United States face challenges reentering the job market after incarceration and so-called “Ban the Box” policies aim to fix this. This criminal justice initiative calls for removing questions about criminal history from job applications and delaying background checks. Those against "the box" argue former offenders shouldn’t continue to be punished and it prevents societal reintegration. Those in favor of early screening argue employers have a responsibility to ensure their business’s safety and make informed hiring decisions. Those who are against it argue former offenders shouldn’t continue to be punished and it prevents societal reintegration. Now we debate: Ban the Box: Should We Banish the Criminal History Check Box from Job Applications? 

Arguing Yes: Beth Avery, Senior Staff Attorney at the National Employment Law Project 

Arguing No: Jennifer Doleac, Executive Vice President of Criminal Justice at Arnold Ventures 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

The U.S. has provided more than $75 billion in aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia. Some Congress members question whether we have done enough to help, and they say increased funding sustains strategic interests and demonstrates support of democratic values. Those who say we should stop funding the war, argue that Ukraine can’t win and additional U.S. dollars will prolong the loss of human lives and territory. Now we debate, in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations: Should Congress Stop Funding the War in Ukraine?

Arguing Yes: John Mearsheimer, Political Science Professor at the University of Chicago;   

Daniel L. Davis, Retired Lieutenant Colonel, Senior Fellow and Military Expert at Defense Priorities 

Arguing No: Heather Conley, President of German Marshall Fund of the United States;  

Paula Dobriansky, Former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs; Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Vice Chair, Atlantic Council Scowcroft Center for Strategy & Security   

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

Religion has long shaped human civilization, and many have wondered whether it’s good for society. Those who argue “yes” say it offers a sense of identity and belonging and provides a moral compass to do good acts. Those who argue “no” say that religious beliefs are a source of historical and conflict and discrimination and can hinder social progress that clash with modern values. Now we debate: Is Religion a Force for Good? 

Arguing Yes: Shadi Hamid, Columnist and Editorial Board Member of The Washington Post; Assistant Research Professor of Islamic Studies at Fuller Seminary 

Arguing No: Annie Laurie Gaylor, Co-Founder and 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

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released new guidelines to address childhood obesity, affecting over 14 million children, including recommendations for weight loss medications and surgery. Those who consider the guidelines good medicine say that it is a step forward in recognizing obesity as a condition requiring a range of medical interventions. Those who think the guidelines are too extreme worry these approaches could impact mental health and body image, contributing to weight stigma and shame. Now we debate: Childhood Obesity Guidelines: Good Medicine or Too Extreme?

Arguing "Good Medicine: Dr. Julia Nordgren, Pediatric Lipid Specialist at Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Attending Physician at the Stanford Weight Clinic 

Arguing "Too Extreme": Dr. Janna Gewirtz O'Brien, Pediatrician and Assistant Professor at University of Minnesota Medical School 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

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

In that context, we debate the question: Should the U.S. Ban TikTok? 

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

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

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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