Open to Debate

Amazon has come a long way since online book sales. In fact, when it comes to revenue, Jeff Bezos’ creation is the world’s biggest internet-based company. But what makes the "everything store" so ubiquitous? In large part, it’s the small and medium-sized businesses that use the platform to sell their goods. This year, more than 1.9 million of these businesses participated in its marketplace, which accounted for some 60 percent of Amazon's retail sales. But was it ultimately good for them? In the midst of this historic transition in shopping, that's our debate: Is Amazon good for small business? 

Debating in favor of the motion is Mark Jamison, economist at the American Enterprise Institute, with Kunal Chopra, tech executive and former Amazon GM. Arguing against the motion is Rana Foroohar, global business columnist at the Financial Times and author of “Don’t Be Evil”, with co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Stacy Mitchell. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

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

The hereditary lottery, in many democracies, has effectively been replaced by a system in which talent, grit, and ability are meant to determine success. Yet, amidst income inequality and legacy of racism, many wonder whether meritocracy works. Critics point to generational wealth and networks that lead to lucrative jobs and fancy educations. Those who defend meritocracy argue that talent ultimately wins out, and despite its flaws, meritocracy remains the most effective way of lifting disenfranchised groups.  

Arguing “yes” is Daniel Markovits, professor at Yale Law School and author of "The Meritocracy Trap: How America's Foundational Myth Feeds Inequality, Dismantles the Middle Class, and Devours the Elite."  

Arguing “no” is Adrian Wooldridge, political editor and "Bagehot" columnist for The Economist and author of "The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World." 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

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

You know the drill. Someone does, or says, something offensive. A public backlash -- typically on Twitter -- ensues. Then come the calls to "cancel" that person, brand, or institution. That usually means the loss of cultural cache, political clout, and often a job or career. Some see "cancelling" as a modern-day means of holding people to account, while others express concerns about digital mobs policing speech. So, we ask: Is cancel culture toxic? 

Arguing in favor of the motion is Kmele Foster of FreeThink with chess grandmaster and political activist Garry Kasparov. Arguing against the motion is Erich Hatala Matthes of Wellesley College with Karen Attiah of the Washington Post. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.

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

The boosters are rolling out. In places likes the U.S., Britain, and Israel, authorities are providing additional Covid-19 vaccines with the goal of bolstering immune systems and shoring up their economies. Though vaccines such as Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have proven highly effective against the virus, efficacy wanes after six months, rendering older adults and those with weakened immune systems more vulnerable. Yet a debate about fairness, when much of the planet is unvaccinated, is growing. 

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 made 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

Nine justices hold tremendous power. Advocates on the left see a Supreme Court out of touch with the electorate, obstructed by partisan interests, and rendered illegitimate by years of controversial appointments. But those opposed believe dramatically changing one of the three core pillars of American government would undermine the court’s legitimacy. 

Intelligence Squared U.S. in partnership with The Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law asks: Should we expand the Supreme Court?  

Arguing in favor of the motion is Dhalia Lithwick, legal commentator and Slate's Amicus podcast host with Tamara Brummer of advocacy group Demand Justice. Arguing against the motion is Carter Phillips, a Supreme Court and appellate litigator with Akhil Reed Amar, a constitutional law scholar and professor at Yale University. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

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

As world attention descends on the United Nations General Assembly, Intelligence Squared U.S. casts a critical lens on this nearly 76-year-old global organization. In light of recent controversies in places like Haiti, and its recent absence in places such as Afghanistan -- where the Taliban has regained control -- questions are mounting as to whether the United Nations itself is both ineffective and outdated. In light of these emerging questions, we ask an especially timely question: Is the United Nations is Obsolete?  

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

The Biden administration wants to spend big. Its $4.5 trillion "Build Back Better" plan includes hefty investments in infrastructure, unprecedented spending on the labor force, and funding for a host of Democratic policy priorities. But just what would this mean for the American economy?  As Washington takes up this historic plan, we ask: Should Congress spend trillions to “Build Back Better”?   

Arguing in favor of the motion is Mark Zandi . Arguing against the motion is Michael Strain. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. 

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

As more and more Americans become vaccinated, schools, employers, and health care facilities are facing a tough decision: Will they require students, employees, and care givers to get the jab? Those who say “yes” cite safety concerns – particularly when dealing with vulnerable populations – and call it a necessary step to return to normal. Those who say “no” argue these sorts of mandates violate individual rights, could expose recipients to potential dangers from the vaccines themselves, and set dangerous broader precedents when it comes to government overreach in public health. It is an especially timely question that pits health concerns up against ideals of personal liberty. And it has practical implications as societies emerge from lockdown. Having it out in the public square, Intelligence Squared host John Donvan presides over a spirited debate between Michael J. Anderson, a Wisconsin attorney who has represented employees resisting vaccine mandates, and Lawrence Gostin, a professor of law at Georgetown University, which is enforcing a vaccine mandate. Originally released on July 2, 2021.

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

The Taliban have won. Twenty years after the 2001 invasion, the U.S.-backed government in Kabul has fallen. The Afghan president has fled. Taliban leadership, which ran the country in the late 1990s, is now firmly in place within the presidential palace. But after two decades of war, tens of billions spent, hundreds of thousands of lives lost – including more than 2,300 U.S. military personnel – bigger questions have emerged: Is the cost of leaving greater than the cost of staying? And was pulling out the right decision? Intelligence Squared and its host John Donvan examine these competing perspectives in this special timely edition of Agree-to-Disagree: Leaving Afghanistan.  

First, a conversation with Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist and best-selling author, who is one of the world’s leading experts on the social and political situations in Pakistan and Afghanistan. His first book, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, explores the shadowy world of the Taliban and quickly became a #1 New York Times bestseller.  Rashid has been called “Pakistan’s best and bravest reporter” (Christopher Hitchens). 

Then, a competition of ideas: Arguing in favor of leaving is Daniel Markey, Senior Research Professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. Arguing against leaving is Kori Schake is a senior fellow and the director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan is the moderator. 

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