Open to Debate

The digital currency craze started with at least one anonymous Bitcoin founder and a community of futuristic, tech-savvy investors willing to take a bet on a new form of money. But over the past decade, the world of digital currency has coined a host of new types of online cash. In fact, Central Banks in more than 80 countries have, or are in the process of gearing their monetary systems in that direction. They consider them a means of modernizing and serving as a check against the growth of crypto. In China, an estimated 140 million people have already begun using the new digital yuan, which accounts for nearly $10 billion worth of transactions. In that context, does the world's reserve currency -- the U.S. dollar -- need its own version? Those who are argue “yes” say it is a fundamental step to remain competitive; to ensure the dollar remains in its preferred global standing. A digital dollar, they argue, would also create a new ease of exchange, reduce delays in processing times, and help the underbanked Americans into the digital economy. Those who argue “no” point to the risks of failure, hackings, and privacy breaches, which includes widespread government tracking of transactions, and could allow for unprecedented federal access to personal banks accounts. Against this backdrop, we ask: Does America Need a Digital Dollar? 

Arguing "Yes" is Gillian Tett, Editor-at-large, Financial Times 

Arguing "No" is Dante Disparte, Head of Global Policy at Circle  

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

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

An affirmative action battle is again playing out at the highest levels, only this time with Asian Americans at the center of the controversy. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether the Supreme Court should reconsider race in college admissions. The group, Students for Fair Admissions, has taken aim at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, alleging that Asian Americans are less likely to be admitted than comparably qualified white, Black, or Latino applicants. In two separate cases, the group claims that 1.) Harvard’s admissions policy is regressive and discriminates against Asian Americans, and 2.) UNC – which is a public institution and therefore covered by the 14th amendment’s equal protection guarantee – violates both Title VI and the Constitution with its use of race in admissions. But opponents say race-conscious decision making is a necessary tool to address longstanding racism and discrimination. As such, in this timely debate, we ask the question of whether affirmative action is indeed unfair to Asian Americans.  

Arguing “yes” is Lee Cheng, co-founder of the Asian American Coalition for Education 

Arguing “no is John Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice 

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

Processed food is bad for you, right? Well, there’s more to this story. As new technologies create foods that can’t be made in home kitchens, such as plant-based meats and dairy products made with plant proteins, the question of whether we should all be consuming more highly processed foods is up for debate. Advocates say a substantial increase in food processing is the best way to feed growing human populations while also reducing food waste. We should trust – and invest – in food technology that can make our global food supply healthier and more sustainable, including highly or ultra-processed foods. Opponents argue that these kinds of foods are often less nutritious, and are commonly linked to adverse health indices, particularly when it comes to ultra-processing. As this debate blooms, Intelligence Squared partners with the Institute of Food Technologists to debate this question: Should We Eat More Processed Foods?  

Arguing in favor of the motion is Amy Webb and Michael Gibney. Arguing against the motion is Kevin Hall and Marion Nestle. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

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

Many Americans grew up with a transistor radio somewhere in the home. Out of it emanated the commentaries, stories, news, and analysis. Public radio was a key means of getting information. But between podcasts, satellite radio and on-demand streaming, some argue that signal is fading. Nimble upstarts and emerging technologies have created wildly successful new platforms, enabling a broad diversity of creators to broadcast their views. What does this mean for the future of public radio? Intelligence Squared host and moderator John Donvan moderates a debate between two media luminaries, who zero in on this existential question: Is Public Radio Still Relevant? 

Arguing "No" is Kmele Foster, political commentator and Co-Founder of Freethink. Arguing "Yes" is podcast creator and Co-Founder of Magnificent Noise, Eric Nuzum. 

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

The age of “information disorder” is upon us. Deep fakes, false political narratives, and flawed COVID rumors are all rampant online, threatening America’s national security, as well as democracy itself. Though bad actors have always had the capacity to deceive, the ease, speed, and degree to which anyone can create misleading information has engendered a dangerous new world. And yet many solutions can also run directly against longstanding western principles, such as free speech and a lack of censorship. Prescriptions, some argue, can be as dangerous as the disorder itself. So, what can be done? In partnership with the Homeland Security Experts Group, Intelligence Squared U.S. debates how to combat this dangerous new phenomenon, termed “information disorder.” Our expert panel takes a look at what the private sector should do, what the public sector can do, and how political actors who spread false information should be handled. 

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

The fate of Taiwan is uncertain. As a revanchist China builds up forces near the island, the Biden administration is warning Beijing against an invasion, bolstering its defense with the sale of military hardware. Beijing sees Taiwan as lost territory, which needs to be “reunified” with the mainland. The United States is now faced with a geopolitical quandary: Can the U.S. military defend Taiwan from Beijing, and should it? Or, is Taiwan indefensible? Arguing in favor of the motion is Lyle J. Goldstein of the Naval War College, with Charlie Glaser of George Washington University. Arguing against the motion is former deputy assistant secretary of defense Elbridge Colby, with Elizabeth Larus of the University of Mary Washington. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.

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

The U.S. Constitution has a lot to say about elections. But nowhere is there any mention of political primaries, the process by which candidates are winnowed down ahead of a general election. Though they may seem integral to the U.S. system, primaries in fact are a relatively new phenomenon, borne of the turn of the 20th century when reformers sought to wrangle power from political party bosses. Of course, quite a lot has changed since the days of Tammany Hall. Gerrymandering has greatly reduced competitive districts, while the urban-rural divide has grown exponentially. Divisions run deep, with social media capable of dramatically shifting the political landscape at unprecedented speed. Many see primary elections as a principal culprit of what they consider an undermined democracy, fueling extremism, hindering compromise, and lending too much power to partisans. Others argue that primaries are an important bulwark against political corruption and a hedge against elitism. In this context, we ask: Are Primary Elections Ruining Democracy? 

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

How does one balance two important, though at times competing, public interests? In this case, it’s the need to hold public officials accountable versus the need to shield those officials from harassment and legal liability. In 1967, the US Supreme Court lay the foundations of an answer during a case involving two police officers, sued over civil rights violations carried out at a segregated bus stop in Jackson, Mississippi. The court effectively ruled that if unconstitutional arrests were made in good faith and with probable cause, officers then enjoyed a degree of legal immunity.  That case then served as bedrock for a legal doctrine that later came to be known as “qualified immunity;” a concept that effectively provides government officials with immunity from civil suits in certain circumstances. In 1982, the court went further, codifying qualified immunity for officials and rendering subjective intent of the official immaterial. In other words, whether or not a defendant was acting in good faith was effectively considered irrelevant. Under the revised doctrine, cases could proceed to trial only when there was a clear violation of “established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Since then, critics have argued that this doctrine stands as a central barrier to substantive police reform, allowing officers to more easily to kill or injure with impunity. But advocates say it’s a necessary protection, shielding police officers – who are tasked with making split-second life-and-death decisions – from bankruptcy and vindictive personal lawsuits. In this context, we debate this question: Is It Time to End Qualified Immunity for Cops? 

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

Unions may be on the verge of a resurgence. After decades of decline, workers are organizing at well-known companies, like Starbucks, Amazon, and Google, at a pace not seen since the 1930s. Decades of stagnant wages, recent labor shortages, and the most vocally pro-union President in recent memory have all stoked key wins for American labor, including successful strikes at John Deere and Kellogg. In fact, recent polling shows public support for labor unions has climbed to 71%, its highest level since 1965. During the old industrial days, unions had broad influence over the American economy. But their power waned. In 1983, one in 5 employees belonged to a union. Last year, that number had dwindled to one in 10, with most of the declines occurring in the private sector. Some say good riddance. They argue that unions actually hurt workers and the economy under the guise of supporting both. Union dues sap salaries, they say, and can actually increase unemployment. They also make the economy more rigid to change, raise consumer prices, and ultimately render unionized companies less competitive. Advocates, however, argue that in light of yawning income inequality, organized labor is desperately needed. Unions increase workers’ pay and benefits, they say, and can also settle disputes more equitably, improve wages, and encourage a more robust middle class. Of course, not all unions are created equal. And the difference between private and public-sector unions needs to be explored. Yet as public support for organized labor has grown as more workers push to join unions, an overarching question looms large: Do Unions Work For The Economy? 

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

With cyber threats and ransomware on the rise globally, the Biden administration has enlisted America’s tech titans to help blunt their effects. Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, are all in discussions with Washington over how to strengthen the nation’s critical infrastructure defenses against a growing array of both private and state-sponsored attacks. Skeptics question just how much can be achieved, given how connected U.S. society has become. But solutions are emerging, from lifting the veil of cryptocurrencies, a favored transaction among hackers, to making the paying of ransoms illegal. In this special edition of Intelligence Squared’s Agree-to-Disagree series, John Donvan sits down with David Sanger of The New York Times for a closer examination of these attacks before launching into a much more specific debate with two cyber security experts. The debate: Should paying hacker ransoms be illegal? Cyber Threat Alliance president and chief executive Michael Daniel and Rapid7 vice-president Jen Ellis square off in light of recent high-profile hackings. 

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