Open to Debate

It’s poised to “change our world.” That’s according to Bill Gates, referencing an advanced AI chatbot called ChatGPT, which seems to be all the rage. The tool, which was developed by OpenAI and backed by a company Gates founded, Microsoft, effectively takes questions from users and produces human-like responses. The "GPT" stands "Generative Pre-trained Transformer," which denotes the design and nature of the artificial intelligence training. And yet despite the chatbot’s swelling popularity, it’s also not without controversy. Everything from privacy and ethical questions to growing concerns about the data it utilizes, has some concerned about the effects it will ultimately have on society. Its detractors fear job loss, a rise in disinformation, and even the compromising long-term effects it could have on humans’ capacity for reason and writing. Its advocates tout the advantages ChatGPT will inevitably lend organizations, its versatility and iterative ability, and the depth and diversity of the data from which it pulls. Against this backdrop, we debate the following question: Will ChatGPT do more harm than good? 

Arguing "Yes" is Gary Marcus (Author of "Rebooting AI: Building Artificial Intelligence We Can Trust" and Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Neural Science at New York University)

Arguing "No" is Keith Teare (Entrepreneur, Author, and CEO & Founder at SignalRank Corporation)

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

Take our podcast listener survey here: tinyurl.com/IQ2podcastsurvey

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

This was supposed to be the “Chinese century.” In just a few decades, China transitioned from a developing economy to the world’s second largest. Measured in purchasing power parity, it actually surpassed the U.S. economy in 2014, and has since expanded its military, monetary, infrastructure, and soft power capacities in ways that all seemed to point to long-term advantages as a rising power. At the Communist Party’s five-yearly congress in October 2022, Xi Jinping cemented his place as the country’s “helmsman” and its most powerful person since Mao Zedong, with an unprecedented third term as party chief. And yet the failure of China’s zero-COVID policy, a slumping economy, apparent supply chain vulnerabilities within its technology sector, and a problematic demographic profile have all raised questions about the scope of China’s future power. Those who say it has peaked say the Chinese system is facing significant economic headwinds, uneven innovation, a heavy debt burden, as well as mounting frustrations among its younger populations with regard to upward mobility and censorship. Those who say it hasn’t peaked argue that while the nation’s economic growth has indeed slowed, massive Chinese spending in infrastructure, defense, and technology will nonetheless allow it to enlarge its global power projections well into the future. Against this backdrop, we debate this question: Has China’s Power Peaked? 

Arguing “Yes” is Michael Beckley, formerly of the Harvard Kennedy School, the US Department of Defense, the RAND Corporation, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is the author of “Unrivaled: Why America Will Remain the World’s Sole Superpower,” has a PhD in political science from Columbia University, and is currently associate professor of political science at Tufts University.  

Arguing “No” is Ian Bremmer, president and founder of Eurasia Group, a leading global political risk research and consulting firm. He is also a founder of the digital media firm GZERO Media. Bremmer is the foreign affairs columnist and editor-at-large at Time magazine, where he writes about China, U.S. foreign policy, and geopolitics. He has published ten books, including “Superpower,” “The Power of Crisis,” and the national bestsellers “The End of the Free Market” and “Every Nation for Itself.”  

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

Sexual violence is arguably the most devastating kind. But the sex offender registry has come under increasing scrutiny. Some suggest that it actually encourages further criminal offenses by making it virtually impossible for offenders to reintegrate into society. Others say that reducing such a proactive approach and tool will endanger communities. In this context, we debate the following question: Does the Sex Offender Registry Do More Harm Than Good?    

Arguing "YES" is Emily Horowitz, a sociologist who researches sex offense law and policy, and the author of "Protecting Our Kids? How Sex Offender Laws Are Failing Us" and "From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear." 

Arguing "No" is Cary Federman, author of "Democracy and Deliberation: The Law and Politics of Sex Offender Legislation" and associate professor at Montclair State University who focuses law and jurisprudence, free speech, democratic theory, prisons and prisoners’ rights.  

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

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

What shapes us more: our DNA, or the way we’re raised? This debate, commonly recognized as “nature versus nurture,” has drawn disagreement for thousands of years. So which one matters more? Emerging genetic research indicates that the scale may be tipping toward biology – but not all trust the research. Proponents of the “nature” camp argue it is DNA that determines who we are, as evidenced by identical twins and triplets who are separated at birth and, once reunited, show remarkable similarities despite different upbringings. Rather than trying to identify the perfect parenting style, they argue, caregivers should look to their children’s DNA to identify natural strengths and challenges to promote overall health and well-being. But others strongly disagree, saying that parenting is very important, and the individuals who rear us influence our development, growth, and, ultimately, our lives. The “nurture” camp also points to studies that show how beliefs and behaviors are not innate, as evidenced by stark differences in the expression of adolescence and other life stages across different cultures. Are they right? Or is parenting overrated?

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

These days, the bird’s the word. Since shelling out $44 billion for Twitter, critics say Elon Musk is knocking the social media giant off its perch. Under his guidance, a slew of firings, a resurgence of unsavory Tweeters, and a bevy of on-again, off-again bans, have all raised questions about the platform’s long-term viability. Some investors have labeled Musk an albatross around Twitter’s neck, calling for him to stay focused on Tesla and SpaceX. Others say Musk is actually freeing the bird from anti-conservative censorship, which will engender more open discourse. His moves, they say, are all a part of a broader business acumen that has proven successful in the past. In that context, we ask the timely question of whether Elon Musk is killing Twitter. 

Kara Swisher, Host of “On with Kara Swisher,” Co-host of “Pivot” Podcast, and Editor-at-large of New York Magazine 

Anthony Scaramucci, Founder and Managing Partner of SkyBridge, Former White House Communications Director, Host of the new podcast "Open Book"

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

For a period of time, going global just seemed to make sense. But with China’s rise, Covid-19, and the war in Ukraine, words like “localnomics,” “friends-shoring,” and “decoupling” have helped codify a growing movement that calls for less interdependence between economies. Those in favor of a more “deglobalized” system of trade argue that it is not only more environmentally friendly and responsive to regional needs, but also less of a driver of income inequality. Indeed, globalization’s three-decade trend of trade growing at twice the speed of the world economy has not lifted all boats, they argue. For many, including middle income populations in the industrialized west, it has backfired. Deglobalization is a welcome a shift. Others disagree. Globalization’s virtues are unmistakable, they say, resulting in less poverty and higher incomes across the world. People once cut off from markets benefit from new connections in commerce, culture, and communications. For them, it has not backfired. In fact, in the face of political challenges and volatile markets, more regionally-focused trade constitutes a dangerous circling of the wagons. In this context, we ask the question: Has Globalization Backfired?  

 John Donvan, Host and Moderator, Intelligence Squared U.S. 

 Arguing “YES” – Rana Foroohar, Global Business Columnist, Financial Times; Author, “Homecoming: The Path To Prosperity In A Post-Global World”  

  Arguing “NO” – Parag Khanna, Founder & CEO of Climate Alpha and Founder & Managing Partner of FutureMap

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

By now it is clear, the Red Wave election-denying candidates had hoped to ride left most still waiting on the beach. Those who questioned the outcome of the 2020 election lost key midterm races, which seemed to calm the nerves of many of those fearful as to where the Republic itself was headed. But as the parties begin to prepare for their respective presidential runs, a bigger question looms; one that has taken its cues from President Biden himself. Shortly after the January 6th attacks on the capitol — which were prompted by unfounded messaging about the election’s illegitimacy — Biden sought to convey the severity of what had just happened. “The insurrection was an existential crisis — a test of whether our democracy could survive,” he said. Now, on the heels of the midterms, many not only openly wonder whether that democracy crisis is over, but also question if the words Biden chose were overblown in the first place. It is in that context, and as the 2024 elections come into focus, that we debate this question: Was January 6 an existential threat to American democracy? 

On December 15th, Andrew Keen, Internet Entrepreneur, Author, and Host of the “How to Fix Democracy” podcast, squares off against Election Strategist, Managing Partner at CAE Strategies, and Vice President of the Fair Elections Center, Rebekah Caruthers, as part of the “No Laughing Matter” series at the Comedy Cellar at the Village Underground in New York.  

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

What does it take to admit you’re wrong? And why is it so difficult? Cognitive psychology and neuroscience studies reveal that human decision-making relies on a host of factors that don’t always lead to objective evaluations. Opinions can form as a result of fear, anger, pleasure, and other emotions that not only contribute to bias, but can also harden over time. The resulting misconception often then rattles through every aspect of our lives, from our work to our politics to the very relationships we hold dear. But what if there were a way to break out of that process? Three luminaries in the field of business, psychology, and debate sit down for a fascinating discussion on how to argue well, and how to be open to changing your mind. 

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

2022 has finally ended. 

Some of it bad, some of it splendid.   

There was Russia’s invasion.   

And Ukraine’s self-defense.   

The west lobbed isolation 

against Moscow’s offense.   

This was also the year America closed the door  

despite a generation of fighting   

its 20-year-war 

We saw economic turmoil  

And those who could not tweet  

We debated inflation 

And whether small investors could beat the street  

We debated food, SATs, and if the Classics were overrated  

Aliens, and whether Britain’s Monarchy should be abated  

Affirmative action, cancel culture, and if Trump should be indicted, 

Unions, public radio, and what information disorder has ignited.  

Gene editing and digital dollars were fresh to the palette.  

We debated adaptation, and whether your Tesla helps the planet, 

And of course there was Roe, and if AI does more harm than good, 

Kissinger, Covid, and just how we all withstood  

midterms elections 

and if globalization backfired 

soft landings, and cities, and if democracy is mired  

in existential threat.    

OK...hold on, that’s not cheery.   

We can’t end this year leaving you tired and weary.   

So here’s to you listeners and watchers of debate 

Who at times may have wondered what is the fate  

Of a discourse that is broken  

Or at least a bit hobbled.  

When listening to a nation that yells and a people who squabble.  

Fear not, dear listeners, we say with some hope.  

We do in fact have a way you can cope.  

Real debate and discussion offers intellectual cheer.  

And so with that we wish you safe holidays…. 

… and a happy new year.  

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

With the wealth gap widening, some Americans are starting to consider socialism as a viable economic and political model. Supporters of capitalism claim that no other system has been as effective in creating value, increasing prosperity, and producing the wealth that has lifted billions of people out of poverty. The free market, they argue, encourages competition and human ingenuity, values individual choice, and organizes society in a fair and just way. Critics of capitalism, however, paint a different picture. They argue that capitalism is inherently exploitative and that business owners seek profits above all else, leading to the distortion of human worth as one distilled to an individual’s labor power. Further, they claim that a capitalist system is inherently rigged to benefit the wealthy and powerful, and the byproducts of which have created unsustainable waste and decimated the world’s wildlife and natural resources. In light of this emerging divide, we ask this question: Is capitalism a blessing?

With John Mackey, Bhaskar Sunkara, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Richard D. Wolff.

John Donvan is our moderater.

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