Open to Debate

Global powers are increasingly shaping markets and taking equity positions in strategic industries. But recently, Washington’s role in the economy has expanded, with stakes in companies like Intel, different from its traditionally hands-off approach. Could strategic government investment be a source of strength and competitiveness—or should it remain a true last resort, preserving a system that allows markets to determine winners and losers? We debate: Government as Shareholder: Proactive Competitive Strategy or Last Resort? 

This debate was created in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations and was recorded on May 18, 2026, at 6 PM. 

Arguing "Proactive Competitive Strategy": 

Laura Taylor-Kale, Senior Fellow for Geoeconomics and Defense at the Council of Foreign Relations and Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy 

Richard Falkenrath, Senior Fellow for National Security at the Council on Foreign Relations; MJ Chung Distinguished Chair at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University 

Arguing "Last Resort": 

Bob Pozen, Distinguished Senior Lecturer at MIT Sloan School of Management; Former President of Fidelity Investments 

Yasheng Huang, Epoch Foundation Professor of Global Economics and Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management; Author of "The Rise and the Fall of the EAST” 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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

Modern science has given us the ability to edit our genes, life-saving vaccines, and glimpse the origins of the universe. But is the same system holding itself back? Critics argue that the pressure to publish and fierce competition for funding rewards safe, incremental work over bold thinking. Others see a system still capable of paradigm-shifting discoveries — one where global collaborations and long-term thinking motivate scientists to pursue grand, ambitious ideas. Now we debate: Is the Scientific Enterprise Too Risk-Averse? 

This debate was produced in partnership with the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University, as part of The Hopkins Forum series.

Arguing Yes: 

Tyler Cowen, Author of "The Great Stagnation"; Economics Professor at George Mason University; Founder of Emergent Ventures; Host of "Conversations with Tyler" podcast 

 Brandon Ogbunu, Computational Biologist; Associate Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Yale University; Professor at the Santa Fe Institute 

Arguing No: 

 Kate Biberdorf (“Kate the Chemist”), Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at the University of Notre Dame; Science Entertainer 

The Honorable Sethuraman Panchanathan, 15th Director of the National Science Foundation; University Professor of Technology and Innovation and Foundation Chair at Arizona State University 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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

For centuries, museums in Europe and the U.S. built their collections during eras of empire and unequal power. Now, institutions face growing calls to return artifacts taken through colonial rule or war, from the Benin Bronzes to Indigenous objects. Supporters say repatriation corrects historical injustice and restores sacred objects to their communities. Critics argue that museums serve a global public and that these works represent shared human heritage. Now we debate: Should Museums Repatriate Cultural Artifacts?

Arguing Yes:  

Chika Okeke-Agulu, Artist, Curator, and Professor of Art and Archaeology and African American Studies at Princeton University 

Leila Amineddoleh, Art and Cultural Heritage Lawyer; Chair of the Firm’s Art Law Group at Tarter Krinsky & Drogin 

Arguing No:  

Dominic Selwood, Historian, Author, Journalist, and Barrister 

Mario Trabucco della Torretta, Classical Archaeologist 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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

It turns out your favorite artist is a monster. Say they committed murder, advocated genocide, or engaged in some other act so outside the scope of a dignified, respectable society that it cannot be redeemed. What now? Must you throw the art out with the artists? It's a question at the heart of both pop culture and high art critique. For some, a work of art is an entity in itself. It should be appreciated and revered without regard to the life of its creator. If we disregard all great art for the sins of the artists, we risk losing many of the world's greatest cultural touchstones and masterpieces. But for others, the act of supporting a work of art translates directly affirming its creator's evil acts. In this timeless debate, we ask: Should we separate the art from the artist? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in September 2022.

ARGUING YES: 

Randy Cohen, Writer & Humorist  

ARGUING NO: 

Aruna D'Souza, Writer & Art Critic   

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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

Your doctor tells you that, should you wish to have a child, that child is likely also to carry the disease. But a new gene-editing technology could ensure that your baby is -- and remains -- healthy. Should you do it? Critics say the technology will exacerbate inequality and meddle in the most basic aspect of our humanity. Now, we debate: Should We Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in February 2022.

Arguing Yes:

Dr. George Church, Geneticist & Founder, Personal Genome Project; Professor, Genetics, Wyss Institute and Harvard Medical School

Amy Webb, Chief Executive Officer, Future Today Strategy Group; Professor, NYU Stern School of Business 

Arguing No:

Marcy Darnovsky, Executive Director, Emerita, Center for Genetics and Society 

Françoise Baylis, Distinguished Research Professor, Emerita, Dalhousie University; President, Royal Society of Canada 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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

Artificial intelligence has ignited one of the most spectacular surges of investment, hype, and technological promise, but some worry that the enthusiasm is resembling a bubble, with valuations racing ahead of fundamentals and enormous compute and energy costs that could undermine long-term profitability. But others note this bubble is different because AI is already embedded across the economy, not confined, and infrastructure is being created to sustain demand. Now we debate: Will the AI Bubble Burst? 

Arguing Yes: Ryan Cummings, Chief of Staff at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research

Arguing No: Magnus Grimeland, Venture Capital Investor; Founder and CEO of Antler 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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

Even with a fragile ceasefire in place between the U.S., Israel, and Iran, we wanted to revisit this prescient debate from last fall. In the past few weeks of war, autonomous systems, AI-driven targeting, and drones were heavily used by both sides leading some to fear we’re rapidly approaching a future of warfare that takes human decision making out of the loop entirely. Are we ready for that? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in October 2025.

Arguing "Human": 

Elliot Ackerman, Former Marine Raider Officer and CIA Special Activities Officer; Bestselling Author 

Laura Walker McDonald, Senior Advisor for New Technologies & Conflict at the International Committee of the Red Cross  

Arguing "AI":  

Michael C. Horowitz, Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation at the Council on Foreign Relations; Director of Perry World House and Richard Perry Professor at the University of Pennsylvania 

Jack Shanahan, Inaugural Director of Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, Office of the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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

At some point, we all ask: “Is this what I’m meant to do?” In this "Think Twice" episode, social scientist Arthur C. Brooks joins Open to Debate's CEO Lia Matthow to explore why meaning feels harder to find. Drawing on research from his book "The Meaning of Your Life: Finding Purpose in an Age of Emptiness," Brooks argues modern life pushes us toward shallow solutions that miss deeper human needs, and offers a path back to purpose, connection, and a life that truly feels lived. 

Our Guest: Arthur C. Brooks, New York Times Bestselling Author of "The Meaning of Your Life: Finding Purpose in an Age of Emptiness"; Professor at Harvard University; Columnist at The Free Press  

Lia Matthow, CEO of Open to Debate, is the guest moderator. 

Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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

NASA is preparing for the Artemis II mission — a major step back into deep space to explore the Moon. But as NASA, SpaceX, and other private companies are also working on plans to make Mars humanity’s next frontier, what comes next, and should Mars be the bigger priority? Those arguing “yes” say the U.S. should do it first before China, while opponents say major challenges make colonization unrealistic. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Prioritize Settling Mars?

Arguing Yes: Eric Berger, Senior Space Editor at Ars Technica 

Arguing No: Shannon Stirone, Freelance Science Writer 

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 

 Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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

Sports fans can place bets on their favorite teams and athletes faster and easier than before, thanks to legalized sports gambling. But was it the wrong bet to make? Advocates say it’s been good for fans, the economy, and the sports industry.  Those who say that what’s happened since legalization is a bad thing, say it’s driven a rise in gambling addiction and created a public health crisis. Now we debate: Has Legalizing Sports Gambling Become A Bad Bet?

Arguing Yes: Harry Levant, Director of Gambling Policy at the Public Health Advocacy Institute  

Arguing No: Bill Pascrell III, Partner at Princeton Public Affairs Group 

Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator. 

Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. 

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