As world attention descends on the United Nations General Assembly, Open to Debate is once again casting a critical lens on this over 80-year-old global organization. To this day, questions are still mounting as to whether the United Nations itself is both ineffective and outdated, or whether an institution created for the world of 1945 is equipped for, and can effectively meet, today's challenges. Now we debate: Is the United Nations Obsolete?  
ARGUING YES: 
Rajan Menon, Political Scientist & Spitzer Professor Emeritus of International Relations at the City College of New York 
Nile Gardiner, Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at The Heritage Foundation 
ARGUING NO: 
Angela Kane, German Diplomat and Senior Fellow at Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation; Former UN Under-Secretary-General 
Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, Scholar & Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mauritania 
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 
Join the conversation on <a href="https://bit.ly/4jTMvQ1">Substack</a>—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 
Follow us on <a href="https://bit.ly/49BwJ94">YouTube</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4sVnBU4">Instagram</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4pWlXiq">LinkedIn</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4pX2JZT">X</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4qyzw8J">Facebook</a>, and <a href="https://bit.ly/4r9sgjL">TikTok</a> to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a>

As world attention descends on the United Nations General Assembly, Open to Debate is once again casting a critical lens on this over 80-year-old global organization. To this day, questions are still mounting as to whether the United Nations itself is both ineffective and outdated, or whether an institution created for the world of 1945 is equipped for, and can effectively meet, today's challenges. Now we debate: Is the United Nations Obsolete? ARGUING YES: Rajan Menon, Political Scientist & Spitzer Professor Emeritus of International Relations at the City College of New York Nile Gardiner, Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at The Heritage Foundation ARGUING NO: Angela Kane, German Diplomat and Senior Fellow at Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation; Former UN Under-Secretary-General Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, Scholar & Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mauritania 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

As world attention descends on the United Nations General Assembly, Open to Debate is once again casting a critical lens on this over 80-year-old global organization. To this day, questions are still mounting as to whether the United Nations itself is both ineffective and outdated, or whether an institution created for the world of 1945 is equipped for, and can effectively meet, today's challenges. Now we debate: Is the United Nations Obsolete?&nbsp;&nbsp;
ARGUING YES:&nbsp;
Rajan Menon, Political Scientist &amp; Spitzer Professor Emeritus of International Relations at the City College of New York&nbsp;
Nile Gardiner, Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at The Heritage Foundation&nbsp;
ARGUING NO:&nbsp;
Angela Kane, German Diplomat and Senior Fellow at Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation; Former UN Under-Secretary-General&nbsp;
Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, Scholar &amp; Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mauritania&nbsp;
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates&nbsp;
Join the conversation on <a href="https://bit.ly/4jTMvQ1" rel="noopener noreferrer">Substack</a>—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.&nbsp;
Follow us on <a href="https://bit.ly/49BwJ94" rel="noopener noreferrer">YouTube</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4sVnBU4" rel="noopener noreferrer">Instagram</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4pWlXiq" rel="noopener noreferrer">LinkedIn</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4pX2JZT" rel="noopener noreferrer">X</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4qyzw8J" rel="noopener noreferrer">Facebook</a>, and <a href="https://bit.ly/4r9sgjL" rel="noopener noreferrer">TikTok</a> to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.&nbsp; Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices" rel="noopener noreferrer">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a>

Is the United Nations Obsolete? (Encore)

Capitalism has long been credited with driving innovation and prosperity, yet many Americans increasingly believe the system is no longer working for them. Is the problem capitalism itself or the policies surrounding it? In this debate, an entrepreneur and venture capitalist faces a prominent economist with a competing vision to examine inequality, economic opportunity, and the future of the American economy. Now we debate: Is Capitalism Broken? 
Arguing Yes: Nick Hanauer, Entrepreneur and Venture Capitalist  
Arguing No: Jason Furman, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government 
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 
After you’ve listened to the debate, let us know where you stand on the motion! 
VOTE HERE: <a href="https://bit.ly/podcastcapitalismvote">⁠https://bit.ly/podcastcapitalismvote ⁠</a>
We will reveal the results of the vote in our Substack newsletter on Saturday, September 5th, so make sure to <a href="https://bit.ly/4jTMvQ1">⁠subscribe⁠</a>.
Join the conversation on <a href="https://bit.ly/4jTMvQ1">Substack</a>—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 
Follow us on <a href="https://bit.ly/49BwJ94">YouTube</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4sVnBU4">Instagram</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4pWlXiq">LinkedIn</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4pX2JZT">X</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4qyzw8J">Facebook</a>, and <a href="https://bit.ly/4r9sgjL">TikTok</a> to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a>

Capitalism has long been credited with driving innovation and prosperity, yet many Americans increasingly believe the system is no longer working for them. Is the problem capitalism itself or the policies surrounding it? In this debate, an entrepreneur and venture capitalist faces a prominent economist with a competing vision to examine inequality, economic opportunity, and the future of the American economy. Now we debate: Is Capitalism Broken? Arguing Yes: Nick Hanauer, Entrepreneur and Venture Capitalist Arguing No: Jason Furman, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates After you’ve listened to the debate, let us know where you stand on the motion! VOTE HERE: ⁠https://bit.ly/podcastcapitalismvote ⁠ We will reveal the results of the vote in our Substack newsletter on Saturday, September 5th, so make sure to ⁠subscribe⁠. 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

Capitalism has long been credited with driving innovation and prosperity, yet many Americans increasingly believe the system is no longer working for them. Is the problem capitalism itself or the policies surrounding it? In this debate, an entrepreneur and venture capitalist faces a prominent economist with a competing vision to examine inequality, economic opportunity, and the future of the American economy. Now we debate: Is Capitalism Broken?&nbsp;
Arguing Yes: Nick Hanauer, Entrepreneur and Venture Capitalist&nbsp;&nbsp;
Arguing No: Jason Furman,&nbsp;Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government&nbsp;
Emmy award-winning journalist&nbsp;John Donvan&nbsp;moderates&nbsp;
After you’ve listened to the debate, let us know where you stand on the motion! 
VOTE HERE:&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/podcastcapitalismvote" rel="noopener noreferrer">⁠https://bit.ly/podcastcapitalismvote ⁠</a>
We will reveal the results of the&nbsp;vote&nbsp;in our Substack newsletter on Saturday, September 5th, so make sure to&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4jTMvQ1" rel="noopener noreferrer">⁠subscribe⁠</a>.
Join the conversation on&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4jTMvQ1" rel="noopener noreferrer">Substack</a>—share your perspective on this episode and&nbsp;subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.&nbsp;
Follow us on&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/49BwJ94" rel="noopener noreferrer">YouTube</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4sVnBU4" rel="noopener noreferrer">Instagram</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4pWlXiq" rel="noopener noreferrer">LinkedIn</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4pX2JZT" rel="noopener noreferrer">X</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4qyzw8J" rel="noopener noreferrer">Facebook</a>, and&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4r9sgjL" rel="noopener noreferrer">TikTok</a>&nbsp;to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.&nbsp; Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices" rel="noopener noreferrer">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a>

Is Capitalism Broken?

As America celebrates 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, the legacy of the Founders is under renewed scrutiny. Were they visionary architects of liberty whose achievements and creations should be celebrated, or has reverence for them sanitized the past, how we think of democracy, and the compromises embedded in the nation's founding? As the U.S. marks its semiquincentennial, we debate: Is It Time to Stop Idolizing the Founders? 
Arguing Yes: Osita Nwanevu, Contributing Editor at The New Republic; Columnist at The Guardian 
Arguing No: Helena Rosenblatt, Distinguished Professor of History, French, and Political Science, and the MA Program in Liberal Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center 
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 
Join the conversation on <a href="https://bit.ly/4jTMvQ1">Substack</a>—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 
Follow us on <a href="https://bit.ly/49BwJ94">YouTube</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4sVnBU4">Instagram</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4pWlXiq">LinkedIn</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4pX2JZT">X</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4qyzw8J">Facebook</a>, and <a href="https://bit.ly/4r9sgjL">TikTok</a> to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a>

As America celebrates 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, the legacy of the Founders is under renewed scrutiny. Were they visionary architects of liberty whose achievements and creations should be celebrated, or has reverence for them sanitized the past, how we think of democracy, and the compromises embedded in the nation's founding? As the U.S. marks its semiquincentennial, we debate: Is It Time to Stop Idolizing the Founders? Arguing Yes: Osita Nwanevu, Contributing Editor at The New Republic; Columnist at The Guardian Arguing No: Helena Rosenblatt, Distinguished Professor of History, French, and Political Science, and the MA Program in Liberal Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center 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

As America celebrates 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, the legacy of the Founders is under renewed scrutiny. Were they visionary architects of liberty whose achievements and creations should be celebrated, or has reverence for them sanitized the past, how we think of democracy, and the compromises embedded in the nation's founding? As the U.S. marks its&nbsp;semiquincentennial, we debate: Is It Time to Stop Idolizing the Founders?&nbsp;
Arguing Yes:&nbsp;Osita Nwanevu, Contributing Editor at The New Republic; Columnist at The Guardian&nbsp;
Arguing No:&nbsp;Helena Rosenblatt, Distinguished Professor of History, French, and Political Science, and the MA Program in Liberal Studies&nbsp;at the CUNY Graduate Center&nbsp;
Emmy award-winning journalist&nbsp;John Donvan&nbsp;moderates&nbsp;
Join the conversation on&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4jTMvQ1" rel="noopener noreferrer">Substack</a>—share your perspective on this episode and&nbsp;subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.&nbsp;
Follow us on&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/49BwJ94" rel="noopener noreferrer">YouTube</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4sVnBU4" rel="noopener noreferrer">Instagram</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4pWlXiq" rel="noopener noreferrer">LinkedIn</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4pX2JZT" rel="noopener noreferrer">X</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4qyzw8J" rel="noopener noreferrer">Facebook</a>, and&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4r9sgjL" rel="noopener noreferrer">TikTok</a>&nbsp;to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.&nbsp; Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices" rel="noopener noreferrer">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a>

America 250: Is It Time To Stop Idolizing the Founders?

What shapes us more: our DNA or the way we’re raised? The “nature” camp points to genetic research and studies of twins raised apart, arguing that traits from personality to abilities are strongly influenced by inherited biology, limiting how much parenting can shape who children become. The “nurture” camp argues upbringing, culture, and parental choices profoundly influence development and behavior. So which matters more? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in November 2019
 
ARGUING YES: 
Robert Plomin, Professor of Behavioral Genetics at King’s College London 
Nancy Segal, Professor of Psychology at California State University, Fullerton and Director at the Twin Studies Center 
ARGUING NO: 
Paige Harden, Psychology Professor at the University of Texas 
Ann Pleshette Murphy, Author & Parenting Expert 
 
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 
 
Recent twin studies:
<a href="https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2025/04/power-affectionate-mothering">⁠Parenting in Childhood Predicts Personality in Early Adulthood: A Longitudinal Twin-Differences Study⁠</a> (APA, 2025)
<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-025-02193-7">⁠Genetics of monozygotic twins reveals the impact of environmental sensitivity on psychiatric and neurodevelopmental phenotypes⁠</a> (Nature Human Behavior, 2025)
<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-37786-3.epdf">⁠Longitudinal associations between cognitive ability and socioeconomic status are partially genetic in Nature⁠</a> (Scientific Reports, 2026)
 
Join the conversation on <a href="https://bit.ly/4jTMvQ1">Substack</a>—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 
Follow us on <a href="https://bit.ly/49BwJ94">YouTube</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4sVnBU4">Instagram</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4pWlXiq">LinkedIn</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4pX2JZT">X</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4qyzw8J">Facebook</a>, and <a href="https://bit.ly/4r9sgjL">TikTok</a> to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a>

What shapes us more: our DNA or the way we’re raised? The “nature” camp points to genetic research and studies of twins raised apart, arguing that traits from personality to abilities are strongly influenced by inherited biology, limiting how much parenting can shape who children become. The “nurture” camp argues upbringing, culture, and parental choices profoundly influence development and behavior. So which matters more? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in November 2019 ARGUING YES: Robert Plomin, Professor of Behavioral Genetics at King’s College London Nancy Segal, Professor of Psychology at California State University, Fullerton and Director at the Twin Studies Center ARGUING NO: Paige Harden, Psychology Professor at the University of Texas Ann Pleshette Murphy, Author & Parenting Expert Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Recent twin studies: ⁠Parenting in Childhood Predicts Personality in Early Adulthood: A Longitudinal Twin-Differences Study⁠ (APA, 2025) ⁠Genetics of monozygotic twins reveals the impact of environmental sensitivity on psychiatric and neurodevelopmental phenotypes⁠ (Nature Human Behavior, 2025) ⁠Longitudinal associations between cognitive ability and socioeconomic status are partially genetic in Nature⁠ (Scientific Reports, 2026) 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

What shapes us more: our DNA or the way we’re raised? The “nature” camp points to genetic research and studies of twins raised apart, arguing that traits from personality to abilities are strongly influenced by inherited biology, limiting how much parenting can shape who children become. The “nurture” camp argues upbringing, culture, and parental choices profoundly influence development and behavior. So which matters more? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in November 2019
 
ARGUING YES:&nbsp;
Robert Plomin, Professor of Behavioral Genetics at King’s College London&nbsp;
Nancy Segal, Professor of Psychology at California State University, Fullerton and Director at the Twin Studies Center&nbsp;
ARGUING NO:&nbsp;
Paige Harden, Psychology Professor at the University of Texas&nbsp;
Ann Pleshette Murphy, Author &amp; Parenting Expert&nbsp;
 
Emmy award-winning journalist&nbsp;John Donvan&nbsp;moderates&nbsp;
 
Recent twin studies:
<a href="https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2025/04/power-affectionate-mothering" rel="noopener noreferrer">⁠Parenting in Childhood Predicts Personality in Early Adulthood: A Longitudinal Twin-Differences Study⁠</a> (APA, 2025)
<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-025-02193-7" rel="noopener noreferrer">⁠Genetics of monozygotic twins reveals the impact of environmental sensitivity on psychiatric and neurodevelopmental phenotypes⁠</a> (Nature Human Behavior, 2025)
<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-37786-3.epdf" rel="noopener noreferrer">⁠Longitudinal associations between cognitive ability and socioeconomic status are partially genetic in Nature⁠</a> (Scientific Reports, 2026)
 
Join the conversation on&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4jTMvQ1" rel="noopener noreferrer">Substack</a>—share your perspective on this episode and&nbsp;subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.&nbsp;
Follow us on&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/49BwJ94" rel="noopener noreferrer">YouTube</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4sVnBU4" rel="noopener noreferrer">Instagram</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4pWlXiq" rel="noopener noreferrer">LinkedIn</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4pX2JZT" rel="noopener noreferrer">X</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4qyzw8J" rel="noopener noreferrer">Facebook</a>, and&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4r9sgjL" rel="noopener noreferrer">TikTok</a>&nbsp;to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.&nbsp; Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices" rel="noopener noreferrer">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a>

Is Parenting Overrated? (Encore)

A century after Henry Ford helped popularize the five-day, 40-hour week, could working 32 hours be next? Supporters say shorter weeks can improve well-being without sacrificing productivity, especially as AI would make workers more efficient. Others warn it would strain industries that require continuous staffing and force Americans to rethink everything from school and healthcare schedules to expectations of around-the-clock availability. We debate: Is America Ready for a Four-Day Work Week? 
Arguing Yes: Juliet Schor, Economist and Sociologist at Boston College   
Arguing No: Joanne Lipman, Bestselling Author, Journalist, and Former Media Executive 
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 
Join the conversation on <a href="https://bit.ly/4jTMvQ1">Substack</a>—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. 
Follow us on <a href="https://bit.ly/49BwJ94">YouTube</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4sVnBU4">Instagram</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4pWlXiq">LinkedIn</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4pX2JZT">X</a>, <a href="https://bit.ly/4qyzw8J">Facebook</a>, and <a href="https://bit.ly/4r9sgjL">TikTok</a> to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a>

A century after Henry Ford helped popularize the five-day, 40-hour week, could working 32 hours be next? Supporters say shorter weeks can improve well-being without sacrificing productivity, especially as AI would make workers more efficient. Others warn it would strain industries that require continuous staffing and force Americans to rethink everything from school and healthcare schedules to expectations of around-the-clock availability. We debate: Is America Ready for a Four-Day Work Week? Arguing Yes: Juliet Schor, Economist and Sociologist at Boston College Arguing No: Joanne Lipman, Bestselling Author, Journalist, and Former Media Executive 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

A century after Henry Ford helped popularize the five-day, 40-hour week, could working 32 hours be next? Supporters say shorter weeks can improve well-being without sacrificing productivity, especially as AI would make workers more efficient. Others warn it would strain industries that require continuous staffing and force Americans to rethink everything from school and healthcare schedules to expectations of around-the-clock availability. We debate: Is America Ready for a Four-Day Work Week?&nbsp;
Arguing Yes: Juliet Schor, Economist and Sociologist at Boston College&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Arguing No: Joanne Lipman,&nbsp;Bestselling Author, Journalist, and Former Media Executive&nbsp;
Emmy award-winning journalist&nbsp;John Donvan&nbsp;moderates&nbsp;
Join the conversation on&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4jTMvQ1" rel="noopener noreferrer">Substack</a>—share your perspective on this episode and&nbsp;subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.&nbsp;
Follow us on&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/49BwJ94" rel="noopener noreferrer">YouTube</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4sVnBU4" rel="noopener noreferrer">Instagram</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4pWlXiq" rel="noopener noreferrer">LinkedIn</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4pX2JZT" rel="noopener noreferrer">X</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4qyzw8J" rel="noopener noreferrer">Facebook</a>, and&nbsp;<a href="https://bit.ly/4r9sgjL" rel="noopener noreferrer">TikTok</a>&nbsp;to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.&nbsp; Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices" rel="noopener noreferrer">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a>

Is America Ready for a Four-Day Work Week?

As the economy slowly begins to recover from the financial meltdown, should the Obama administration get credit for turning things around? Or has the administration failed to do what it takes to really help the economy? A panel of experts takes on the question in the latest Intelligence Squared U.S. debate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a>

As the economy slowly begins to recover from the financial meltdown, should the Obama administration get credit for turning things around? Or has the administration failed to do what it takes to really help the economy? A panel of experts takes on the question in the latest Intelligence Squared U.S. debate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As the economy slowly begins to recover from the financial meltdown, should the Obama administration get credit for turning things around? Or has the administration failed to do what it takes to really help the economy? A panel of experts takes on the question in the latest Intelligence Squared U.S. debate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices" rel="noopener noreferrer">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a>

Are Obama's Economic Policies Working Effectively?

As newspapers go under, the network newscasts lose viewers and the mainstream media in general see more and more of their audience shift online, are we as a society better or worse off? A panel of experts debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a>

As newspapers go under, the network newscasts lose viewers and the mainstream media in general see more and more of their audience shift online, are we as a society better or worse off? A panel of experts debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As newspapers go under, the network newscasts lose viewers and the mainstream media in general see more and more of their audience shift online, are we as a society better or worse off? A panel of experts debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices" rel="noopener noreferrer">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a>

Good Riddance To Mainstream Media?

"Buy American" provisions included in legislation such as President Obama's stimulus package have touched off a heated debate. A panel of experts argues whether they help or hurt the United States in the latest Intelligence Squared U.S. debate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a>

"Buy American" provisions included in legislation such as President Obama's stimulus package have touched off a heated debate. A panel of experts argues whether they help or hurt the United States in the latest Intelligence Squared U.S. debate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

"Buy American" provisions included in legislation such as President Obama's stimulus package have touched off a heated debate. A panel of experts argues whether they help or hurt the United States in the latest Intelligence Squared U.S. debate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices" rel="noopener noreferrer">podcastchoices.com/adchoices</a>

Will 'Buy American' Policies Backfire?

America is more divided than ever—but it doesn’t have to be. Open to Debate offers an antidote to the chaos. We bring multiple perspectives together for real, nonpartisan debates. Debates that are structured, respectful, clever, provocative, and driven by the facts. Open to Debate is on a mission to restore balance to the public square through expert moderation, good-faith arguments, and reasoned analysis. We examine the issues of the day with the world’s most influential thinkers spanning science, technology, politics, culture, and global affairs. It’s time to build a stronger, more united democracy with the civil exchange of ideas. Be open-minded. Be curious. Be ready to listen. Join us in being Open to Debate.&nbsp;(Formerly Intelligence Squared U.S.)

Society & Culture

News

Education

America is more divided than ever—but it doesn’t have to be. Open to Debate offers an antidote to the chaos. We bring multiple perspectives together for real, nonpartisan debates. Debates that are structured, respectful, clever, provocative, and driven by the facts. Open to Debate is on a mission to restore balance to the public square through expert moderation, good-faith arguments, and reasoned analysis. We examine the issues of the day with the world’s most influential thinkers spanning science, technology, politics, culture, and global affairs. It’s time to build a stronger, more united democracy with the civil exchange of ideas. Be open-minded. Be curious. Be ready to listen. Join us in being Open to Debate. (Formerly Intelligence Squared U.S.)

Share Open to Debate

Sign up to save your podcasts

Open to Debate

Open to Debate episodes

About Open to Debate

Best of Open to Debate

More shows like Open to Debate

Freakonomics Radio

Planet Money

Hidden Brain

Left, Right & Center

The Gray Area with Sean Illing

Intelligence Squared

Making Sense with Sam Harris

EconTalk

Conversations with Tyler

We the People

Radio Atlantic

Interesting Times

Throughline

The Munk Debates Podcast

The Ezra Klein Show