Open to Debate

In the wake of the Russian invasion, Ukraine has applied on a fast-track membership bid to join NATO. Those who argue “yes” say admitting Ukraine would keep the country protected, affirm its sovereignty, and solidify alignment with the West. Those who argue “no” say it will provoke Putin, escalate the conflict, and that it doesn’t yet meet NATO’s standards. Now we debate: Should NATO Admit Ukraine? 

Arguing Yes: Garry Kasparov, Founder of the Renew Democracy Initiative and former World Chess Champion   

Arguing No: Charles Kupchan, Senior Fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations and Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University 

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

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

Social media platforms have become an integral part of the modern digital landscape, shaping how young individuals connect, communicate, and perceive the world around them. However, concerns have been raised regarding the potential negative consequences on children's mental well-being. Even recently, the US Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy released an advisory stating there’s a risk of profound harm to children and adolescents' mental health and well-being. Those who agree claim that excessive social media usage can make children experience low self-esteem and negative body image. They also highlight cyberbullying and online harassment, which can contribute to increased stress, anxiety, and depression. Those who disagree say that when used responsibly and with proper guidance, social media can enhance social and creative skills, foster a sense of belonging, provide access to valuable educational resources, and help support communities. They also note that studies measuring social media’s impact on kids’ mental health don’t always take into account other prominent factors. 

With this context, we debate the question: Is Social Media Bad for Kids’ Mental Health? 

Arguing “YES” is Jim Steyer, founder and CEO of Common Sense Media. 

Arguing “NO” is Candice Odgers, Professor of Psychological Science and Informatics at University of California, Irvine, and Director of Research and Faculty Development at University of California, Irvine’s School of Social Ecology 

Emmy Award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

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

While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) needs to approve safe and effective drugs as quickly as possible to patients who need them, it must also maintain the diligence and rigor necessary to prevent harm. Two health experts look at the pace of FDA approvals and argue about whether the agency is getting it right on keeping the public safe or stifling health innovations. Now we debate: Is the FDA Too Cautious? 

Arguing Yes: Colin Hill, CEO & Co-Founder, Aitia   

Arguing No: Peter Lurie, President and Executive Director of Center for Science in the Public Interest 

 Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

In the US, misdemeanors count for 80% of cases filed annually, but district attorneys around the country are implementing policies stating they’ll no longer prosecute certain low-level, nonviolent crimes. Those who argue “yes” say it keeps communities safe and not strengthening sentencing will let violent criminals back in public and increase crime. Those who argue “no” say it doesn’t deter criminals and distracts from better solutions. Now, we debate: “Should Prosecutors Pursue Minor Crimes?” 

Arguing Yes:  John Milhiser, former US attorney for the Central District of Illinois  

Arguing No: Paul Butler, former federal prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice  

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

The oldest members of the Millennial generation are reaching their forties and feel they’ve been left behind emotionally and financially. Those who agree say Millennials pay more for basic items, leading them unable to afford to buy a home or have children. Those who disagree say that not buying a house or having kids are their choices and they will soon be doing well financially. With this context, we debate: Will Millennials Be Left Behind? 

Arguing Yes: Jill Filipovic, Journalist, lawyer, and author   

Arguing No: Scott Winship, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center of Opportunity and Social Mobility at the American Enterprise Institute 

Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large of Reason, is the guest moderator. 

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

The age of eligibility for full Social Security benefits is currently 67, but the cash reserves behind it are expected to run out by 2034. Those arguing “yes” to raising the retirement age say people these days are living longer, and it will lead to more economic growth. Those arguing “no” say not everyone is able to work longer and it’ll make large benefit cuts. Now we debate: Should the Government Raise the Retirement Age? 

Arguing Yes: Marc Goldwein, Senior Vice President and Senior Policy Director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget   

Arguing No: Teresa Ghilarducci, Irene and Bernard L Schwartz Professor of Economics and Policy Analysis at The New School 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

Originalism is a way of interpreting the Constitution that could help it be understood through either framer’s intent or what the public would’ve intended at the Constitution’s ratification. Supporters say the Constitution needs modern interpretation, even if some pre-existing circumstances are nonexistent. Others argue it doesn’t make sense to keep our laws limited to what society back then would’ve valued. 

In this context, we debate: Should the Supreme Court Focus on the Original Meaning of the Constitution? 

Arguing Yes: Randy Barnett  

Arguing No: Prof. Thomas Colby 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

The US has more than $31 trillion in national debt. If it is breached, the government may go into default, leading to national and global consequences. Supporters in favor of abolishing the debt ceiling say it is counterproductive, leads to political drama, and an economic threat. Those arguing “no” say it’s an effective tool of governance that allows discussion about national spending and keeps lawmakers accountable. Now we debate: Should Congress Abolish the Debt Ceiling?  

Arguing Yes: Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics 

Arguing No: Parker Sheppard, director for Center of Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation  

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

Since his 2022 re-election, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has introduced plans for a new judiciary reform, leading to large-scale public protests. Supporters say these changes will better balance the power between lawmakers and judges and bring Israel’s judiciary system closer to other countries. Others argue these reforms will undermine the judiciary branch’s independence and affect the country’s relationship with the U.S. and Palestinians. So we debate: Is Netanyahu’s Government Heading in the Wrong Direction? 

Arguing Yes: Jeremy Ben-Ami, President of J Street and Executive Director of JStreetPac 

Arguing No: Caroline Glick, Former Senior Contributing and Chief Columnist for the Jerusalem Post and Senior Columnist for Maariv 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

Are certain books beyond reproach? It’s a fundamental question making its way across America’s school boards. Those who argue “yes” say schools should not expose children to topics they deem inappropriate like gender, sexuality, and race. Others say that reading controversial books fosters critical thinking, encourages empathy, and that professional educators should be involved in guiding students through such literature. In this context, we debate: Should Certain Books Be Banned in School? 

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