Open to Debate

Zionism — the belief that the Jewish people have a right to statehood in Israel — has been debated for decades. But facing increased anti-Semitic violence around the world, some argue that criticizing it is anti-Semitic and Israel has a historical and political right to self-determination. Others say their concerns about Israel’s actions— particularly regarding Palestinian rights and sovereignty — are legitimate. Now we debate: Is Anti-Zionism the New Anti-Semitism? (Note: This debate was originally released in 2020 and does not reflect current events.)

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

 Economic growth is a central goal of many economies, but there are questions about how sustainable relentless growth is. Those arguing “yes” say the right measurements aren’t being used for societal well-being and how much it costs the environment, and call for a new economic model for more equitable and sustainable futures. Those arguing “no” say growth drives today’s prosperity, brings public good, and fuels advancements. Now we debate: Does Economic Growth Cost Too Much? 

Arguing Yes: Peter Victor, Environmental Studies Professor Emeritus and Senior Scholar at York University 

Arguing No: Katherine Mangu-Ward, Editor-in-Chief at Reason 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

Modern art, runway fashion, and music today are in the middle of a cultural reckoning, where artists must find a balance between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation. Those in support of borrowing say placing restrictions on what artists can be inspired by may stifle artistic expression. Those against it say doing so erases a tradition’s context while echoing past mistreatment. Now we debate: Should Artists Be Allowed to Borrow From Cultures Besides Their Own? 

Arguing Yes: Yascha Mounk, political scientist, author, and associate professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies   

Arguing No: C. Thi Nguyen, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Utah; Author of "Games: Agency as Art" 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

After the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, economic sanctions led to frozen Russian assets abroad inaccessible and could be relocated to Ukraine. Those arguing yes say it would serve as restitution for Russia’s aggression and compensate for damages and economic disruptions. Those arguing no say relocating the frozen assets could set a concerning precedent, leading to escalated tensions and retaliatory actions. Now we debate: Should Ukraine Get Russia’s Frozen Assets?

Arguing Yes: Lawrence H. Summers, Former Secretary of the Treasury  

Arguing No: Benn Steil, Senior Fellow and Director of International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations 

 Gillian Tett, Editorial Board Chair and Editor-at-Large US of the Financial Times and Incoming Provost at King’s College Cambridge, guest moderates. 

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

Under prime minister Narendra Modi, pro-Hindu nationalism and civil rights issues have led to India’s downgrade to an electoral autocracy (according to V-Dem Institute), and many question whether better times are ahead. Those who agree with Modi’s leadership highlight the new strong economic growth as well as his efforts to improve India’s global influence. Those who disagree point to increasingly divisive policies and their effects on the non-Hindu population. Now we debate: Is Modi’s India Heading in the Right Direction?

Arguing Yes: Sameer Lalwani, Senior Expert in South Asia Programs at the United States Institute of Peace 

Arguing No: Prerna Singh, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Brown University   

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

While the two-party system has been the standard in the US government, third parties have often challenged this status quo and now advocates to be added to election ballots permanently. Those who agree say third parties offer non-partisan solutions and are more representative of ideologies, unlike the polarized partisanship present now. Those who disagree say the two-party system fosters stability and simplifies voting decisions. Now we debate: Does America Need A Third Party?

Arguing Yes: Andrew Yang, Founder of the Forward Party, Former Presidential Candidate  

Arguing No: Daniel DiSalvo, Senior Fellow at Manhattan Institute; Political Science Professor at City College of New York–CUNY 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

According to an October 2022 Pew survey, “88% of US adults say that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use.” While marijuana legalization is gaining more and more cultural acceptance, effectively regulating drugs has long flummoxed policy and lawmakers. Some are even starting to have second thoughts, especially when it comes to how to practically enforce legal sales. In fact, voters in Oklahoma – one of the nation’s leading weed markets –overwhelmingly rejected recreational legalization earlier this year, even though voters backed medical marijuana legalization by a double-digit margin in 2018. Those who argue “Yes” for marijuana legalization say legalization creates more problems for our legal system because it requires extra enforcement to crack down on already robust illegal markets to make way for new, regulated, and legal markets. Additionally, competition from illegal weed markets is undercutting legal sales, which means the expected revenue stream from a legalized industry is far lower than expected. Those who argue “No” say legalization can reduce the burden on law enforcement and criminal justice systems, allowing resources to be redirected to more pressing issues. They also highlight marijuana’s medical benefits, such as for pain management and treatment of certain health conditions, which have made a difference in people’s lives. 

With this context, it’s time to debate — and reconsider — “Is Legalizing Marijuana A Mistake?” 

Arguing Yes: Paul J. Larkin, Jr, Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation and Teresa Haley, senior policy advisor at the Foundation for Drug Policy Solution   

Arguing No: Toi Hutchinson, CEO of the Marijuana Policy Project; former member of the Illinois Senate, and Cat Packer, Director of Drug Markets and Legal Regulation at Drug Policy Alliance  

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates

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

For decades, objectivity has been cited as journalism's gold standard, promising that journalists would stick “to the facts" and deliver both sides of the story, excluding their personal views. Those in support say it builds trust and gives newsreaders the information they need to form their own opinions. Those against say it suppresses certain valuable viewpoints and that some issues don’t merit the "both sides" treatment. Now, we debate: "Is Objectivity Essential in Journalism?”

Arguing Yes: Bret Stephens, Opinion Columnist at The New York Times   

Arguing No: Leonard Downie, Jr, Former Executive Editor of The Washington Post 

Nayeema Raza, Journalist and executive producer and co-host of Vox Media’s "On with Kara Swisher" podcast, is the guest moderator. 

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

Similar to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, neurotechnology techniques like decoded neurofeedback open the possibility of modifying or erasing memories that aren’t pleasant or beneficial to our well-being. Those in favor argue it could help offer a path to a mentally healthier and happier life. Those against it say that tampering with memories could be dangerous to our sense of self and undermine our experiences. Now we debate: Should We Erase Bad Memories? 

Arguing Yes:  Nita Farahany, Author of "The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology", Professor at Duke University, and the Founding Director of the Duke Initiative for Science & Society 

Arguing No: Sigal Samuel, Senior Reporter for Vox Future Perfect and co-host of the Future Perfect podcast 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

When you think about the world’s most intractable problems, racial inequality is among the most challenging. Societies have grappled not just with how to treat community members equitably in public spaces, but how to judge individuals based on qualities that extend beyond race in personal interactions. For many decades, some have pointed to “color blindness,” or treating people without regard to race or ethnicity, as the best way to promote equal opportunity. But, there are many who believe the approach downplays racial bias and silently maintains discrimination.   

Arguing YES is Jamelle Bouie, Columnist for the New York Times 

Arguing NO is 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