Open to Debate

Taylor Swift achieved her billionaire status because of her talent, work ethic, and support from her fans. But some question whether any individual should be able to accumulate so much wealth. Those arguing they should point to philosopher Robert Nozick, who says if someone acquires wealth through just means, they are entitled to it. Those arguing “no” say that luck and systemic advantages often play a role, sometimes involving exploitation, and that billionaires have an outsized influence on policy. Now we debate: Does Taylor Swift Deserve Her Billion Dollar Fortune? 

Arguing Yes: Jessica Flanigan, Political Philosopher and Chair in Ethics and Democratic Values at the University of Richmond 

Arguing No: Ingrid Robeyns, Chair in Ethics of Institutions at Utrecht University's Ethics Institute; Author of "Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth" 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

American women are, on average, paid 84 cents for every dollar men make, according to the Department of Labor. This wage gap has persisted despite near-record rates of women’s participation in the labor market, with wage gaps even larger for women in minority populations, and it’s estimated that pay parity will not be achieved until 2052. Should policy interventions address these disparities, or is it more important to recognize and honor women's personal decisions and find another way to look at the gap Those in favor of fixing the gap see it as a point of fairness and equity that would bring economic benefits, such as enhanced family incomes and increased productivity, and say that new policies are needed urgently to dismantle systemic barriers stopping women from earning more. Those who aren’t in favor argue wage disparities reflect individual choices regarding career paths, work-life balance, and tenure, rather than systemic discrimination. They also point out that when adjusted for factors like job type, hours worked, and career breaks, the gap significantly narrows.  

Against this backdrop, we debate the question: Should We Address the Gender Wage Gap? 

Arguing Yes: Kadie Ward, Commissioner and Chief Administrative Officer of the Pay Equity Commission of Ontario 

Arguing No:  Allison Schrager, Pension Economist, Bloomberg Opinion Contributor & Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute 

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

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

In a high-stakes presidential election year, in partnership with the Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, Open to Debate is taking a look at more than a decade of the Citizens United Supreme Court case. The 2010 landmark decision that ruled the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofits, labor unions, and other associations, changed the landscape of political spending in the U.S. This gave rise to Super PACS and an increase in election campaign spending. Since then, there have been questions about whether the decision has harmed our democratic process. Those who support the decision argue it upholds free speech, allowing diverse voices in the political arena, and broadens the range of discourse by enabling groups to freely express their views and support candidates or policies. Those against it argue that it allows a disproportionate influence from corporations and special interest groups, and leaves the voices of ordinary citizens overshadowed by the financial resources of a few, eroding the principles of equality and fair representation. 

With this context, we debate the question: Has Citizens United Undermined Democracy? 

This debate is presented in partnership with the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law as part of the Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series. It will be recorded live in person on Wednesday, February 21, 2024, at the Thorne Auditorium at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law in Chicago, Illinois.

Arguing Yes: Francesca Procaccini, Assistant Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School; Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Professor of Law at Stetson University  

Arguing No: Floyd Abrams, Senior Counsel at Cahill Gordon & Reindel; Eric Wang, Partner at The Gober Group, pro bono Senior Fellow at the Institute for Free Speech 



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

During Black History Month, we reflect on a debate that confronts America’s complex history with racial and social inequality. How can we ensure fair treatment for all in the workplace, on campuses, and in our personal interactions? Is it possible to imagine a future beyond race? As we honor this month of remembrance and celebration, we revisit a conversation that confronts the challenges of our past and the promise of a future that aspires to secure equitable opportunities for all. 

Arguing Yes: Jamelle Bouie, Columnist for the New York Times   

Arguing No: Coleman Hughes, Host of the “Conversations with Coleman” podcast and Contributing Writer at The Free Press  

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  

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

Iran’s regional role has changed post-October 7, but is Iran a bigger global threat than we think? In partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations, National Security Council and State Department veterans will debate in our Unresolved format Biden’s Iran diplomacy, Iran's use of proxies in the Middle East, its nuclear ambitions, and whether Iran now poses a threat to the global order. 

Michael Doran, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at the Hudson Institute 

Barbara Slavin, Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Center 

Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

Couples have arguments over many topics. However, it’s through resolving conflict that both people in the relationship feel heard and seen. Psychotherapist, relationship expert, and New York Times-bestselling author Esther Perel says conflict when navigated skillfully can lead to growth, resilience, and a stronger bond. In this conversation with John Donvan, Perel discusses her new online course, shares her experience working with different relationship types, strategies for transforming conflict into a constructive dialogue, and the importance of validating both sides’ perspectives.

Our guest: Esther Perel, Psychotherapist and New York Times bestselling author  

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

Whoever wins the 2024 election will soon face a critical decision about extending four trillion dollars in tax cuts expiring next year. Whether taxes will be raised, or cut is in question, against the backdrop of 34.1 trillion dollars in federal debt. For the past few decades, the Republican Party has embraced the belief that lower tax rates and less government spending boost the U.S. economy. However, there is disagreement among conservative thought leaders about the way forward on taxes for the Republican Party. Specifically, some argue that preferences for tax cuts ignore the looming deficit and that refusing to raise taxes further imbalances the federal budget. However, others continue to argue that our debt is caused by government overspending and will actually be helped by tax cuts and that these same cuts also help promote a flourishing economy. 

With this background, we debate the question: Is the Republican Party’s Refusal to Raise Taxes Fiscally Irresponsible? 

Arguing Yes: Oren Cass, Executive Director of American Compass   

Arguing No: David McIntosh, President of the Club for Growth 

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

Right now, climate engineers are working on new technologies, called solar geoengineering, that would reflect the sun’s rays away from Earth as a way to cool the planet. Those in favor argue it would be inexpensive and effective, and could buy us time to get carbon emissions down before the worst impacts of climate change. But others argue it would distract from the underlying issues of climate change and express concern about who would control such a powerful technology. So we debate: Is Engineering Solar Radiation A Crazy Idea?

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

The American Dream – the idea that anyone can achieve success in the U.S. through hard work and determination – is under scrutiny, and some worry it’s no longer achievable for the broader population. Those who agree say increasing healthcare, education, and housing costs create difficulty in having financial stability. Those who disagree argue that the U.S. still offers more opportunities for personal and financial growth than elsewhere. Now we debate: Is the American Dream in Decline?

Arguing Yes: David Leonhardt, Pulitzer Prize-winning Senior Writer for The New York Times and The Morning; Author of “Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream”  

Arguing No: Michael Strain, Political Economy Scholar and Director of Economic Policy Studies at American Enterprise Institute; Author of “The American Dream Is Not Dead: (But Populism Could Kill It)”  

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

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

Debate is a form of conflict that is played out through civility, and the capability to exchange ideas with people we disagree with. But what leads leaders and countries to fall into conflict? In this conversation with Retired U.S. Army General David H. Petraeus and historian Lord Andrew Roberts, guest moderator Xenia Wickett speaks with them about their new book, the nature of military conflict, and how civil debate and conflict are intertwined. 

Our Guests:  

General David H. Petraeus, U.S. Army Retired General; Chairman of the KKR Global Institute; Former CIA Director   

Andrew Roberts, Biographer, Historian, and Member of the U.K. Parliament 

Xenia Wickett, Geopolitical strategist and moderator at Wickett Advisory and Trustee of Transparency International UK, is the guest moderator. 

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