Podcasts about great debates

Updates on Uber being held liable for driver misconduct, rear seat safety and Manhattan congestion pricing. Waymo gets more gaslight love, Ford gaslights itself, the Feds want to stop funding speed cameras, we get updates to the underrides act plus recent vehicle recalls impacting Toyota, Chrysler and BMW. Support the show!https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/05/business/uber-safety-rape-verdict.htmlhttps://www.npr.org/2026/02/03/nx-s1-5696544/crash-test-dummy-rear-seathttps://www.jalopnik.com/2089056/manhattan-congestion-pricing-drive-time-suburbs/https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/hands-free-driving-ford-investigation-4fc87266https://waymo.com/safety/impact#faq-how-does-waymos-perf-P0-2https://www.freightwaves.com/news/a-billion-dollar-fix-for-a-distraction-problem-disguised-as-an-underride-problemhttps://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/usdot-limits-traffic-safety-camera-funding/811191/https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2026/RCLRPT-26V049-9292.pdfhttps://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2026/RCLRPT-26V051-3975.pdfhttps://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2026/RCLRPT-26V056-6534.pdfhttps://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2026/RCLRPT-26V059-8421.pdf

Welcome to Hot Topics! Join us on another journey as our host, Gabrielle Crichlow, and returning guest Daniel Tausan explore the complex relationship between science and religion in this episode, with a focus on the afterlife.Who is Daniel Tausan?Daniel Tausan is a freelance scientist specializing in health and communication. He works with everyone from CEOs to everyday individuals, guiding them through what he calls practical longevity—or dissolving disease through applied biology. Daniel shares his scientific frameworks to help strengthen team cohesion, communication, and effectiveness for business and the everyday man. His approach centers on the N of 1 principle—where personalized health becomes a discovery of what's possible for you. He helps you uncover what works best, and when, based on your unique biology, genetics, history and purpose.You can find Daniel:On the web: https://timelinesciences.com/On Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/timelinesciences/On X: https://twitter.com/TimelineScienceOn LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-tausan-0330a0293On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJE4qWAAtABWGa8ksxJr1-wFreebie: https://timelinesciences.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/TLS-Issue-1-The-Science-of-You.pdfWatch this episode on YouTube: https://youtube.com/live/CPh6-vYW_j4Rate this episode on IMDB: TBA********************************************Follow Gabrielle Crichlow:On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/gabrielle.crichlowOn Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/gabrielle.crichlowOn LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gabrielle-crichlow-92587a360Follow A Step Ahead Tutoring Services:On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/astepaheadtutoringservicesOn Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/astepaheadtutoringservicesOn X: https://www.x.com/ASATS2013On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a-step-ahead-tutoring-services/On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@astepaheadtutoringservicesOn TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@asats2013On Eventbrite: https://astepaheadtutoringservices.eventbrite.comVisit us on the web: https://www.astepaheadtutoringservices.comSign up for our email list: https://squareup.com/outreach/a41DaE/subscribeSign up for our text list: https://tapit.us/cipPJOCheck out our entire "Hot Topics!" podcast: https://www.astepaheadtutoringservices.com/hottopicspodcastSupport us:Cash App: https://cash.app/$ASATS2013PayPal: https://paypal.me/ASATS2013Venmo: https://venmo.com/u/ASATS2013Zelle: success@astepaheadtutoringservices.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/hot-topics--5600971/supportOriginal date of episode: October 15, 2025

Welcome back to another episode of the 360 Money Matters Podcast!  In this episode, Billy and Andrew reveal why most Australians - including the "experts" - fundamentally misunderstand this backyard barbecue favourite. The real question isn't which asset class has better returns. It's about leverage, tax structure, liquidity, and behavioral discipline. We break down the hidden costs everyone conveniently forgets (stamp duty, interest, maintenance, selling fees), explain why concentration risk matters more than you think, and expose the psychological tricks that make property "feel" safer than shares. You'll discover why the right answer depends on your cash flow, life stage, and ability to handle market noise - not what your mate's grandfather made on his investment property. Tune in to finally understand what actually matters when building long-term wealth. - This podcast contains information that is general in nature. It does not take into account the objectives, financial situation, or needs of any particular person. You need to consider your financial situation and needs before making any decisions based on this information. This information is provided by Billy Amiridis &  Andrew Nicolaou of 360 Financial Strategists Pty Ltd, authorized representatives and credit representatives of Akumin Financial Planning – AFSL 232706   Episode Highlights Why headline return comparisons are meaningless The leverage trap: how debt magnifies both gains and losses Hidden property costs that destroy your actual returns Liquidity matters: selling a bedroom vs selling shares Concentration risk - one tenant vs diversified income streams The behavioral edge property has over shares Tax structures that change everything   Connect with Billy and Andrew! 360 Financial Strategists    Check out our latest episode here:  Apple Podcast Spotify  

Atheist Admits Atheism Can’t Justify Science A slightly shorter episode due to sickness by the editor but nonetheless still an important part of the Great Debate. Here, Stein, the atheist admits atheism can’t justify science especially when it comes to induction. This issue that David Hume identified the problem with not having justification that the future will be like the past was identified all the way back during the Enlightenment and those enlightened ones who wanted to shake off God also shook off the justification of the use of science. TIMELINE: 00:00 – Introduction 01:19 – How To Deal With Hume’s Issue With Induction 03:40 – Atheists Want To Have Brute Facts Just Because 04:39 – Atheist Admits Atheism Can’t Justify Science 06:29 – Evolution Should Have Us Except Science To Change 09:24 – What Right Do We Have To Assume The Future Will Be Like The Past? 10:53 – Conclusion BOOK LINKS: The Great Debate – Does God Exist? – Edited and Commentary by Joshua Pillows Debate Transcript Video The Bahnsen Institute       All episodes, short clips, & blog – https://www.cavetothecross.com

YOU CANT TALK ABOUT SUPER-BOWL WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT SUPERSIZED Screens!as our home theater chapter continues the team finds there flow, in this super sized episode!Topics Discussed: Projector VS TV'S, How to modify your home theater to achieve the home cinema look and feel! tips and tricks.The Great Debate between Justin and Ray, as they compare Commercial Cinema styles to Residential and where they differ.REL 3D Discussed Atmos Discussed and why room treatment is important!The Difference between a Home Theater and Home Cinema Show Cast Ian Gran Byron Wallace Ray Garcia Justin J

In Part II of the continuing celebration of Bobby Weir and his life well-lived, I'm joined by lifelong Deadheads, Ted “The” Bahr and Paul “Nud” Schmitz.  Nud kicks off the conversation by sharing his thoughts on Bobby's one-of-a-kind “rhythmic-lead” style, and how this unique approach to the guitar was unlike any rhythm guitarist.  We walk through the early days in the mid-60's when, as Nud puts it, Bobby “couldn't play very well, and couldn't sing very well either” through his mastery of the axe by the early and mid-70's.Ted brings his Top 20 Bobby Songs to the table for discussion and debate (similar to a recent “spirited conversation” that I had on The Great Debate episode The Great Debate ) acknowledging that some songs on the list aren't technically Bobby songs at all.  Being a self-described “picky Deadhead”, he's unafraid to admit which songs he's heard enough of and which Bobby songs still give him joy with each listen today.Join us once again, as we celebrate the well-lived life of Bobby “Ace” Weir, and let's see where the energy takes us!BobbyEasy WindPassengerBrother EsauFeel Like a StrangerThe Other Onehttps://www.facebook.com/groups/1983015048745357

First, a brief discussion about plans for the Super Bowl. Next, Katie & her husband disagree about how to handle the big drinking hole! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's time for that hallowed annual tradition - the Podcast Championship Debate! Moderator Marty is back to challenge both Ron and Brian in a tense back and forth to determine the future of the show...and the world!

Debating if the Patriots can beat the Seahawks without causing a turnover // Greg, Wiggy + Ted debate Belichick's merits as a first ballot Hall of Famer // Does Mike Vrabel believe Bill Belichick was a first ballot Hall of Famer? //

Debating if the Patriots can beat the Seahawks without causing a turnover // Greg, Wiggy + Ted debate Belichick's merits as a first ballot Hall of Famer // Does Mike Vrabel believe Bill Belichick was a first ballot Hall of Famer? //

What’s The Atheist’s Metaphysical Basis For Anything? While this is supposed to be Stein’s 2nd cross-examination of Bahnsen, we see Bahnsen causes the atheist to stumble by trying to get him to provide the atheist’s metaphysical basis for anything – here specifically for math and the laws of logic. The Christian has a basis, one that the atheist doesn’t like, but that’s better than nothing or a lack of the ability to provide anything. TIMELINE: 00:00 – Introduction 02:09 – Is Math Theistic Or Atheistic 04:30 – Math Is Christian Because It Couldn’t Be Anything Else 06:12 – Delving Further Into This 08:11 – Is No Other Explanation Needed? 09:27 – The Christian’s External Answer That Is Required 11:29 – Unreasonable Demand On The Atheist? 12:31 – How Does An Atheist Justify Non-Material Laws? 14:10 – How Does A Christian Know Logic Reflects The Mind Of God? 19:06 – Atheist Doesn’t Buy, Or Understand 20:34 – Atheists Don’t Desire Metaphysical Proof Of Other Concepts They Agree With BOOK LINKS: The Great Debate – Does God Exist? – Edited and Commentary by Joshua Pillows Debate Transcript Video The Bahnsen Institute       All episodes, short clips, & blog – https://www.cavetothecross.com

Send Us A Message! Let us know what you think.In this episode, Debbie Roberts from Property Apprentice discusses the hot topic of whether KiwiSaver should be made compulsory or remain voluntary. With recent media attention and political proposals suggesting a shift toward a mandatory model similar to Australia's, it is a conversation that every New Zealander should be following.Debbie breaks down the potential impact of these changes on your take-home pay, your ability to secure a first-home deposit, and your long-term retirement goals.Key Topics Discussed:The Case for Compulsion: How mandatory savings could close the "savings gap" for New Zealanders and strengthen the national economy.The Impact on Your Wallet: The potential downsides of reduced take-home pay during a cost-of-living crisis and the increased costs for businesses.The First-Home Gateway: Why KiwiSaver remains the primary tool for many to enter the property market and how compulsory savings could lead to larger deposits and better bank lending terms.Financial Discipline: Why the habit of living on slightly less than you earn is a crucial trait for any successful property investor.Taking Control: Why you shouldn't wait for government legislation to secure your financial future.Take Action for Your FutureWhether the rules change or not, your focus should remain on a long-term strategy. If you aren't already a client of Property Apprentice, we invite you to take control of your financial journey today.

Atheist Logic By Experiment Or Agreement? Finishing up Bahnsen’s attempt to help out his atheist opponent provide justification for his use of logic, we look at logic being shown through experimentation or agreement. And like the good Christian Bahnsen is, he provides a good overview and then sinks the foundation of the atheist to claim any grounding for logic. TIMELINE: 00:00 – Introduction 01:47 – Atheist Logic From A Posteriori? 04:07 – Are Laws Of Logic Contingent Under Atheism? 06:29 – Why Do Laws Of Logic Work In Different Areas The Same 07:50 – Atheist Logic Just Linguistic Convention? 09:27 – If So Then They’re Culturally Relative 11:59 – Why Do Atheists Decry Moral Failure Of Christians 13:13 – What Type Does One Give To Back Up Atheistic Materialistic Logic 15:04 – Atheists Steal From Christians To Use Logic 15:45 – Conclusion BOOK LINKS: The Great Debate – Does God Exist? – Edited and Commentary by Joshua Pillows Debate Transcript Video The Bahnsen Institute       All episodes, short clips, & blog – https://www.cavetothecross.com

This week on Netflix vs. Cinema, host Tosin Ajayi and the team dive into the biggest releases across the big and small screens. From harrowing historical dramas to sci-fi trilogies and quirky mysteries, there is plenty to debate. In the Spotlight 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple (Cinema): The team explores this highly anticipated sequel. While the atmosphere and performance of Jack O'Connell (as Lord Sir Jimmy Crystal) earn praise, the crew debates the "one-note" performance of the young lead, Spike. The Voice of Hind Rajab (Cinema): Tosin leads a discussion on this powerful, harrowing documentary from Gaza. Utilizing actual distress call recordings, the film is described as a "masterclass in tension" and a vital, if difficult, watch. Agatha Christie's The Seven Dials Mystery (Netflix): Holly introduces this three-part series starring Mia McKenna-Bruce . Is it just "Sunday afternoon fare," or a refreshing take on a lesser-known classic? Primate (Cinema): A "secret screening" that divided the room. While some enjoyed the "rabid chimp" chaos, others were left frustrated by the illogical character choices common in the horror genre. The Great Debate: "The Salt Path Scandal" The team gets heated discussing the Sky Documentary, The Salt Path Scandal. Following the massive success of the book and film, this documentary investigates claims that the "true story" of a couple walking the coastal path might have been heavily embellished. > "It's what journalism should be—taking a story no one wants to debunk because they want to believe the magic, and asking the hard questions." — Sharon Bollen 0:00 – Intro: Host Tosin Ajayi introduces co-hosts Shaun Harris, Sharon Bollen, and Holly Nessling. 1:45 – Wuthering Heights Controversy: A discussion on the upcoming Emerald Fennell adaptation and the polarizing nature of the original story. 8:14 – Primate (Cinema): Sharon reviews this "secret screening" horror film about a rabid chimpanzee. 10:04 – 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple (Cinema): A deep dive into the zombie sequel, Jack O'Connell's performance, and the divisive character of Spike. 19:20 – Agatha Christie's The Seven Dials Mystery (Netflix): Holly reviews the three-part series starring Mia McKenna-Bruce. 23:23 – Field Post (Streaming): Shaun reviews the German World War II drama available on Prime Video. 26:22 – The Voice of Hind Rajab (Cinema): Tosin discusses the harrowing documentary featuring actual distress calls from Gaza. 30:16 – The Salt Path Scandal (Sky/Streaming): The team debates the documentary that questions the authenticity of the famous memoir. 34:55 – The Verdict: The final scores are tallied, and the "Streaming" category is declared the weekly winner. Is Netflix killing cinemas? Each week we weigh up what we've seen in cinemas with what we've watched online at home and figure out which provided the best time. At least, we did before COVID jumped in and declared Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney + and friends the winner. Listen and subscribe on Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/netflix-vs-cinema/id1448277363 Listen and subscribe on Youtube Music https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8xPMfsDQIDjM70v1Tah6BiKV4E3UQbaK Listen on Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/6beXVeSImcgHLsPB22BgE3?si=wdoNI6E0SNqNfoqg4qnw4Q Support Netflix vs Cinema by contributing to their tip jar: https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/netflixvscinema Find out more at https://netflixvscinema.com This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

In this episode, we hear the dramatic story of the great debate between the Alter Rebbe and the men of the Beis Din, and what it revealed to the crowd.

The Failure Of Atheistic Logic Where Stein has claimed that the laws of logic are only agreed upon but useful, Bahnsen is having a hard time accepting that – because it’s wrong. It’s up to Bahnsen to try and make the case for the atheist metaphysical use of the laws of logic. But it’s also up to Bahnsen to shoot those down too and show the failure of atheistic logic. TIMELINE: 00:00 – Introduction 01:57 – A Battle Of Worldviews 05:46 – The Atheist Doesn’t Have Reason To Use Reason 07:10 – The Christian’s Reason For Reason 08:08 – The Laws Of Logic Need A Mind 08:28 – Helpful Remind Of The Laws Of Logic 10:06 – Justifying Truth Of Logic Without Needing To Test It 11:42 – Not Proven Because They’re Used 13:40 – Logic Is More Conceptual Than Empirical 14:31 – Why Logic Can Always Be Used Consistently If They’re Only Agreed Upon 17:12 – If Logic Relies On People Only Why Don’t We Have Different Scholarships 18:49 – To The Library! 21:06 – Conclusion BOOK LINKS: The Great Debate – Does God Exist? – Edited and Commentary by Joshua Pillows Debate Transcript Video The Bahnsen Institute       All episodes, short clips, & blog – https://www.cavetothecross.com

Dr. Kahn kicks off 2026 by reviewing recent media reports on aspirin use and dosing for the prevention of cardiovascular events in the President of the United States. Much of the coverage overlooks an important factor: the relationship between aspirin dose and body weight. Dr. Kahn examines data from multiple studies suggesting that, in some cases, only higher-dose aspirin was effective in preventing cardiovascular events. As always, listeners are encouraged to discuss aspirin use and dosing with their own medical team. Additional topics this week include the health impact of carryout meals, kidney function and cystatin C, statin use in patients with diabetes, the risks associated with tramadol, cold drink–induced atrial fibrillation, and recent health reports involving Chevy Chase and Jelly Roll. Dr. Kahn also invites listeners to join an upcoming group 5-day PROLON Fasting Mimicking Diet, supported by dietitians and health educators. Order your PROLON kit now at prolonlife.com/drkahn to be ready to participate.

Host Dr. Joe Patterson talks with Drs. Charles Moon and Christopher Lee on the debate topic rings vs. nailing for open tibia fractures. Live from the 2025 OTA.  For additional educational resources visit OTA.org

Corticosteroids in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remain a topic of clinical curiosity and mixed opinions. In this unique episode, two expert guests share opposing perspectives—one advocating for corticosteroid use in CAP and the other urging caution—offering pharmacists a balanced view of the current evidence and practice considerations. Tune in to explore both sides of the debate and walk away with insights to inform your role in collaborative patient care.HOSTRachel Maynard, PharmDGameChangers Podcast Host and Clinical Editor, CEimpactLead Editor, PyrlsGUESTSSam Markle, PharmDCritical Care PharmacistSanford HealthTristan Houle, PharmDPGY2 Critical Care Pharmacy ResidentSanford Health Pharmacists, REDEEM YOUR CPE HERE!CPE is available to Health Mart franchise members onlyTo learn more about Health Mart, click here: https://join.healthmart.com/CPE INFORMATION Learning ObjectivesUpon successful completion of this knowledge-based activity, participants should be able to:1. Describe current evidence supporting and challenging the use of corticosteroids in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).2. Identify key considerations for pharmacists when evaluating corticosteroid use as adjunctive therapy in CAP.Rachel Maynard, Sam Markle, and Tristan Houle have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.0.05 CEU/0.5 HrUAN: 0107-0000-26-032-H01-PInitial release date: 1/5/2026Expiration date: 1/5/2027Additional CPE details can be found here.

Corticosteroids in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remain a topic of clinical curiosity and mixed opinions. In this unique episode, two expert guests share opposing perspectives—one advocating for corticosteroid use in CAP and the other urging caution—offering pharmacists a balanced view of the current evidence and practice considerations. Tune in to explore both sides of the debate and walk away with insights to inform your role in collaborative patient care.HOSTRachel Maynard, PharmDGameChangers Podcast Host and Clinical Editor, CEimpactLead Editor, PyrlsGUESTSSam Markle, PharmDCritical Care PharmacistSanford HealthTristan Houle, PharmDPGY2 Critical Care Pharmacy ResidentSanford HealthPRACTICE RESOURCEPurchase this course to receive the exclusive downloadable practice resource handout to use as a reference guide to the podcast.CPE REDEMPTIONThis course is accredited for continuing pharmacy education! Click the link below that applies to you to take the exam and evaluation:If you are already enrolled in this course, click here to redeem your credit. To purchase this episode and claim your CPE credit, click here. CPE INFORMATIONLearning ObjectivesUpon successful completion of this knowledge-based activity, participants should be able to:1. Describe current evidence supporting and challenging the use of corticosteroids in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).2. Identify key considerations for pharmacists when evaluating corticosteroid use as adjunctive therapy in CAP.Rachel Maynard, Sam Markle, and Tristan Houle have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.0.05 CEU/0.5 HrUAN: 0107-0000-26-032-H01-PInitial release date: 1/5/2026Expiration date: 1/5/2027Additional CPE details can be found here.Follow CEimpact on Social Media:LinkedInInstagram

Send us feedback/questions via TextWelcome to another episode of Ask the Podcast Coach! I'm Dave Jackson from School of Podcasting, joined by podcasting legend Rob Greenlee from the New Media Show. In today's episode, we dive into a ton of topics ranging from the definition of a podcast to AI-generated content, and industry trends. Sponsors:PodcastBranding.co - They see you before they hear youBasedonastruestorypodcast.com - Comparing Hollywood with History?Video Version (unedited)Mentioned In This EpisodeSchool of Podcastinghttps://www.schoolofpodcasting.com/joinPodpagehttp://www.trypodpage.comNew Media Showhttps://www.newmediashow.comPodcaster Hall of Famehttps://www.podcasthof.comPod SEOhttps://www.podseo.com (use coupon schoolofpodcasting )Answer Socrateshttps://answersocrates.com?via=sopAnswer the Publichttps://www.answerthepublic.comFeatured Supporter: Shane from SpybraryWe interview spy authors, espionage historians and fans of spy books, spy movies and spy TV series! Check it out at https://spybrary.com/ Podcast Hot Seat Black Friday DealNot happy with your downloads? Get some honest, constructive, feedback to get your show going in the right direction AND get a free month at the School of Podcasting (now through the end of the year). Take advantage of this black friday deal and get your podcast going in the right direction. Go to podcasthotseat.com Leave Your QuestionGo to askthepodcastcoach.com/voicemail and leave your message to be answered on the next show.PodMatchPodMatch Automatically Matches Ideal Podcast Guests and Hosts For InterviewsSupport the showBE AWESOME!Thanks for listening to the show. Help the show continue to exist and get a shout-out on the show by becoming an awesome supporter by going to askthepodcastcoach.com/awesome

Great Debate Series: Biggest Sports Story of 2025. Callers weigh in on the Great Debate. Do referees need to be held more accountable?

Jenna and Willie go head-to-head debating a few topics that tend to divide the masses. Also, Tisha Campbell and D-Nice join to discuss bringing a night of joyful music, good vibes, and holiday magic to people with their party and concert, ‘A Merry Club Quarantine Live.' Plus, author Jonathan Haidt and health and science journalist Catherine Price talk about teaming up for their new book ‘The Amazing Generation: Your Guide to Fun and Freedom in a Screen-Filled World.' And, baker Duff Goldman whips up some delicious holiday cookies. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Atheist Knows How God Would Act If He Did Exist Throughout this second part of Stein’s opening, he shows himself to be an atheist who doesn’t believe in God but definitively knows how that god would act if he did exist. Stein attempts to conflate logical contradiction with a psychological ickiness he perceives in the argument for God. Suffering, evil, justice, and how to act are things Stein knows how his made up god would act – a weird thing for someone who claims that he just lacks a belief. TIMELINE: 00:00 – Introduction 02:10 – All God Has To Do Is Appear To A Group Of People For Stein To Believe 06:14 – Stein Is Just Using His Unargued Presuppositions 10:00 – Stein Thinks He His god Wouldn’t Allow Suffering 12:48 – Stein Doesn’t Provide His Basis For Evil Or Good Or Logic 17:04 – Stein Doesn’t Think Sin Or Justice Is Fair 20:55 – Stein Doesn’t Believe In God Because Of Religious Pluralism 21:44 – Stein Sees Christianity As A Failure Because Christians Can Be Bad 24:06 – Stein Should Ask These Questions To A Christian 27:52 – What Does Stein Think He’s Left With? 29:33 – Conclusion BOOK LINKS: The Great Debate – Does God Exist? – Edited and Commentary by Joshua Pillows Debate Transcript Video The Bahnsen Institute All episodes, short clips, & blog – https://www.cavetothecross.com

Paul, Scott, and Lauren discuss the Statue of Liberty, Simlish, and the farmers’ market before playing The Great Debate. Send Threetures and emails to threedomusa@gmail.com.Leave us a voicemail asking us a question at hagclaims8.comFollow us on Instagram @ThreedomUSA.Unlock every episode of THREEDOM and THREEMIUM, ad-free, on cbbworld.comGrab some new Threedom merch at cbbworld.com/merchSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Where Can One Stand To Call Out Evil? For the second opening to The Great Debate, Dr. Stein wants to call out Christians for not having any good proofs and also having a system that allows evil to be present in a world created by God. However, one must ask, where can one stand to call out evil? Or even good for that matter. TIMELINE: 00:00 – Introduction 02:34 – Two Main Cases For Why God’s Existence Hasn’t Been Proven 03:34 – Long Period Of Time With Failure Of Main Arguments For God’s Existence 06:37 – The Problem Of Evil Is An Issue For Theists 08:02 – God Definitely Doesn’t Exist But If He Did Exist He Wouldn’t Allow Evil 09:23 – Atheists Fail To Establish An Evil Standard Exists For Them To Use The Problem Of Evil 12:57 – Stein Not Convinced Of Next Life Justice Takes Care Of Evil 16:15 – Stein Allows For God Not To Be All Powerful – Uses Specific Christian Attack 17:22 – Stein Does Not Buy The Free Will Defense – One That Bahnsen Didn’t Make 18:04 – The Atheist Putting Onto The Christian Elements Of Their Worldview 22:48 – Conclusion BOOK LINKS: The Great Debate – Does God Exist? – Edited and Commentary by Joshua Pillows Debate Transcript Video The Bahnsen Institute All episodes, short clips, & blog – https://www.cavetothecross.com

Welcome to Hot Topics! Join us on a journey as our host, Gabrielle Crichlow, and returning guest Daniel Tausan explore the intricate relationship between science and religion in this episode. We delve into the historical, philosophical, and contemporary aspects of this age-old conflict, sharing our insights and experiences. The episode focuses on the debate between faith and empirical evidence, examining how science and religion can coexist and even align despite common misconceptions. Both realms seek to explain existence and the universe's origins, often from different perspectives.We emphasize the importance of personal interpretation of religious texts, suggesting that many descriptions may be metaphorical rather than literal. Science is portrayed as a tool for understanding the universe, while religion provides moral and ethical guidance. Our discussion also addresses historical inaccuracies and misguided beliefs within religious doctrines that science has challenged.The universal principle of "do unto others," found across many religious teachings, resonates with scientific observations about cooperation and community dynamics. Throughout the episode, we encourage listeners to nurture curiosity, ask questions, and remain open to fresh interpretations of both scientific and religious ideas.Ultimately, we suggest that both science and religion can enhance our understanding of humanity and the cosmos, advocating for a harmonious relationship rather than a divisive one. Be sure to tune in and share your thoughts with us!Who is Daniel Tausan?Daniel Tausan is a freelance scientist specializing in health and communication. He works with everyone from CEOs to everyday individuals, guiding them through what he calls practical longevity—or dissolving disease through applied biology. Daniel shares his scientific frameworks to help strengthen team cohesion, communication, and effectiveness for business and the everyday man. His approach centers on the N of 1 principle—where personalized health becomes a discovery of what's possible for you. He helps you uncover what works best, and when, based on your unique biology, genetics, history and purpose.You can find Daniel:On the web: https://timelinesciences.com/On Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/timelinesciences/On X: https://x.com/TimelineScienceOn LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-tausan-0330a0293On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJE4qWAAtABWGa8ksxJr1-wFreebie: https://timelinesciences.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/TLS-Issue-1-The-Science-of-You.pdfWatch this episode on YouTube: https://youtube.com/live/5N0lfF9nkWIRate this episode on IMDB: TBA********************************************Follow Gabrielle Crichlow:On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/gabrielle.crichlowOn Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/gabrielle.crichlowOn LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gabrielle-crichlow-92587a360Follow A Step Ahead Tutoring Services:On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/astepaheadtutoringservicesOn Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/astepaheadtutoringservicesOn X: https://www.x.com/ASATS2013On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a-step-ahead-tutoring-services/On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@astepaheadtutoringservicesOn TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@asats2013On Eventbrite: https://astepaheadtutoringservices.eventbrite.comVisit us on the web: https://www.astepaheadtutoringservices.comSign up for our email list: https://squareup.com/outreach/a41DaE/subscribeSign up for our text list: https://tapit.us/cipPJOCheck out our entire "Hot Topics!" podcast: https://www.astepaheadtutoringservices.com/hottopicspodcastSupport us:Cash App: https://cash.app/$ASATS2013PayPal: https://paypal.me/ASATS2013Venmo: https://venmo.com/u/ASATS2013Zelle: success@astepaheadtutoringservices.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/hot-topics--5600971/supportOriginal date of episode: August 26, 2025

Scarlett Johansson joins Jenna for a round of The Great Debate: Holiday Edition. Also, Uma Thurman stops by to highlight one of her favorite organizations, “Room to Grow”. Plus, holiday fashion fit for the whole family. And, Felicity Jones is live in Studio 1A to discuss her new holiday movie, “Oh. What. Fun.” Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Stein’s Assessment So Far Now it’s Gordon Stein’s turn to assess the debate so far. With Stein’s assessment he believes that Bahnsen hasn’t offered anything other than feelings based arguments and non sequiturs. He doesn’t feel the need to offer an explanation for why the universe exists and he sees laws of science, logic, and math only as agreed upon by consensus items. Why? What’s wrong with that? TIMELINE: 00:00 – Introduction 02:34 – Does The Universe Require A Cause? 03:56 – Looking For How God Created 05:43 – God Is Very Knowable 08:04 – Scientific & Logic Laws Are Just Consensus According To Atheist 11:25 – Philosophical Death Is The Result 12:33 – Math Is Also Consensus 15:27 – An Atheist Universe Has Regularity Because Of Internal Properties 16:56 – The Cause Of The Universe Must Be A Part Of It Says Atheist 20:56 – Do Atheists Destroy All History Or Are Christians Only Feelings-Based? 25:35 – Stein Finally Deals With The Transcendental Argument 31:04 – Conclusion BOOK LINKS: The Great Debate – Does God Exist? – Edited and Commentary by Joshua Pillows Debate Transcript Video The Bahnsen Institute All episodes, short clips, & blog – https://www.cavetothecross.com

Subscribe on YouTube 

This Thanksgiving, we're thankful for wetlands, waterfowl, and YOU—our Ducks Unlimited family. Join us for a festive episode featuring gear recommendations, lively debates, and cherished holiday memories. Together, we'll celebrate the traditions that make hunting and conservation so special. Happy Thanksgiving from all of us at DU!DUCKS UNLIMITED GIFT GUIDEListen now: www.ducks.org/DUPodcastSend feedback: DUPodcast@ducks.orgSPONSORS:Purina Pro Plan: The official performance dog food of Ducks UnlimitedWhether you're a seasoned hunter or just getting started, this episode is packed with valuable insights into the world of waterfowl hunting and conservation.Bird Dog Whiskey and Cocktails:Whether you're winding down with your best friend, or celebrating with your favorite crew, Bird Dog brings award-winning flavor to every moment. Enjoy responsibly.

In this episode, The Cinema Guys dive into Bugonia and immediately spiral into the only question that seems to matter: is she actually an alien?

Bahnsen’s Assessment So Far Essentially round one is over and both debaters are going to give their take of the Great Debate. In Bahnsen’s assessment so far, he finds that Stein has not addressed his main argument for God and has also given up the debate with the idea that the laws of logic are just social conventions agreed upon by people. But – is that how people view logic and operate in their daily lives? TIMELINE: 00:00 – Introduction 01:25 – The Atheist Isn’t Debating The Christian Yet 05:45 – Stein Hasn’t Dealt With Bahnsen’s Argument At All 07:13 – Stein’s Problematic Atheist Idea Of The Laws Of Logic 18:38 – The Atheist Unknowingly Gives The Win To The Christian By Convention 21:11 – Conclusion BOOK LINKS: The Great Debate – Does God Exist? – Edited and Commentary by Joshua Pillows Debate Transcript Video The Bahnsen Institute All episodes, short clips, & blog – https://www.cavetothecross.com

Dr. Linda Duska and Dr. Kathleen Moore discuss key studies in the evolving controversy over radical upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Linda Duska: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am your guest host, Dr. Linda Duska. I am a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine.  On today's episode, we will explore the management of advanced ovarian cancer, specifically with respect to a question that has really stirred some controversy over time, going all the way back more than 20 years: Should we be doing radical upfront surgery in advanced ovarian cancer, or should we be doing neoadjuvant chemotherapy? So, there was a lot of hype about the TRUST study, also called ENGOT ov33/AGO-OVAR OP7, a Phase 3 randomized study that compares upfront surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval surgery. So, I want to talk about that study today. And joining me for the discussion is Dr. Kathleen Moore, a professor also of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Oklahoma and the deputy director of the Stephenson Cancer Center, also at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences.  Dr. Moore, it is so great to be speaking with you today. Thanks for doing this. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, it's fun to be here. This is going to be fun. Dr. Linda Duska: FYI for our listeners, both of our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  So let's just jump right in. We already alluded to the fact that the TRUST study addresses a question we have been grappling with in our field. Here's the thing, we have four prior randomized trials on this exact same topic. So, share with me why we needed another one and what maybe was different about this one? Dr. Kathleen Moore: That is, I think, the key question. So we have to level-set kind of our history. Let's start with, why is this even a question? Like, why are we even talking about this today? When we are taking care of a patient with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, the aim of surgery in advanced ovarian cancer ideally is to prolong a patient's likelihood of disease-free survival, or if you want to use the term "remission," you can use the term "remission." And I think we can all agree that our objective is to improve overall survival in a way that also does not compromise her quality of life through surgical complications, which can have a big effect. The standard for many decades, certainly my entire career, which is now over 20 years, has been to pursue what we call primary cytoreductive surgery, meaning you get a diagnosis and we go right to the operating room with a goal of achieving what we call "no gross residual." That is very different – in the olden days, you would say "optimal" and get down to some predefined small amount of tumor. Now, the goal is you remove everything you can see.  The alternative strategy to that is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, and that has been the, quote-unquote, "safer" route because you chemically cytoreduce the cancer, and so, the resulting surgery, I will tell you, is not necessarily easy at all. It can still be very radical surgeries, but they tend to be less radical, less need for bowel resections, splenectomy, radical procedures, and in a short-term look, would be considered safer from a postoperative consideration. Dr. Linda Duska: Well, and also maybe more likely to be successful, right? Because there's less disease, maybe, theoretically. Dr. Kathleen Moore: More likely to be successful in getting to no gross residual. Dr. Linda Duska: Right. Yeah, exactly. Dr. Kathleen Moore: I agree with that. And so, so if the end game, regardless of timing, is you get to no gross residual and you help a patient and there's no difference in overall survival, then it's a no-brainer. We would not be having this conversation. But there remains a question around, while it may be more likely to get to no gross residual, it may be, and I think we can all agree, a less radical, safer surgery, do you lose survival in the long term by this approach? This has become an increasing concern because of the increase in rates of use of neoadjuvant, not only in this country, but abroad. And so, you mentioned the four prior studies. We will not be able to go through them completely. Dr. Linda Duska: Let's talk about the two modern ones, the two from 2020 because neither one of them showed a difference in overall survival, which I think we can agree is, at the end of the day, yes, PFS would be great, but OS is what we're looking for. Dr. Kathleen Moore: OS is definitely what we're looking for. I do think a marked improvement in PFS, like a real prolongation in disease-free survival, for me would be also enough. A modest improvement does not really cut it, but if you are really, really prolonging PFS, you should see that-  Dr. Linda Duska: -manifest in OS. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, yeah. Okay. So let's talk about the two modern ones. The older ones are EORTC and CHORUS, which I think we've talked about. The two more modern ones are SCORPION and JCOG0602. So, SCORPION was interesting. SCORPION was a very small study, though. So one could say it's underpowered. 170 patients. And they looked at only patients that were incredibly high risk. So, they had to have a Fagotti score, I believe, of over 9, but they were not looking at just low volume disease. Like, those patients were not enrolled in SCORPION. It was patients where you really were questioning, "Should I go to the OR or should I do neoadjuvant? Like, what's the better thing?" It is easy when it's low volume. You're like, "We're going." These were the patients who were like, "Hm, you know, what should I do?" High volume. Patients were young, about 55. The criticism of the older studies, there are many criticisms, but one of them is that, the criticism that is lobbied is that they did not really try. Whatever surgery you got, they did not really try with median operative times of 180 minutes for primary cytoreduction, 120 for neoadjuvant. Like, you and I both know, if you're in a big primary debulking, you're there all day. It's 6 hours. Dr. Linda Duska: Right, and there was no quality control for those studies, either. Dr. Kathleen Moore: No quality control. So, SCORPION, they went 451-minute median for surgery. Like, they really went for it versus four hours and then 253 for the interval, 4 hours. They really went for it on both arms. Complete gross resection was achieved in 50% of the primary cytoreduced. So even though they went for it with these very long surgeries, they only got to the goal half the time. It was almost 80% in the interval group. So they were more successful there. And there was absolutely no difference in PFS or OS. They were right about 15 months PFS, right about 40 months OS.  JCOG0602, of course, done in Japan, a big study, 300 patients, a little bit older population. Surprisingly more stage IV disease in this study than were in SCORPION. SCORPION did not have a lot of stage IV, despite being very bulky tumors. So a third of patients were stage IV. They also had relatively shorter operative times, I would say, 240 minutes for primary, 302 for interval. So still kind of short. Complete gross resection was not achieved very often. 30% of primary cytoreduction. That is not acceptable. Dr. Linda Duska: Well, so let's talk about TRUST. What was different about TRUST? Why was this an important study for us to see? Dr. Kathleen Moore: So the criticism of all of these, and I am not trying to throw shade at anyone, but the criticism of all of these is if you are putting surgery to the test, you are putting the surgeon to the test. And you are assuming that all surgeons are trained equally and are willing to do what it takes to get someone to no gross residual. Dr. Linda Duska: And are in a center that can support the post-op care for those patients. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Which can be ICU care, prolonged time. Absolutely. So when you just open these broadly, you're assuming everyone has the surgical skills and is comfortable doing that and has backup. Everybody has an ICU. Everyone has a blood bank, and you are willing to do that. And that assumption could be wrong. And so what TRUST said is, "Okay, we are only going to open this at centers that have shown they can achieve a certain level of primary cytoreduction to no gross residual disease." And so there was quality criteria. It was based on – it was mostly a European study – so ESGO criteria were used to only allow certified centers to participate. They had to have a surgical volume of over 36 cytoreductive surgeries per year. So you could not be a low volume surgeon. Your complete resection rates that were reported had to be greater than 50% in the upfront setting. I told you on the JCOG, it was 30%. Dr. Linda Duska: Right. So these were the best of the best. This was the best possible surgical situation you could put these patients in, right? Dr. Kathleen Moore: Absolutely. And you support all the things so you could mitigate postoperative complications as well. Dr. Linda Duska: So we are asking the question now again in the ideal situation, right? Dr. Kathleen Moore: Right. Dr. Linda Duska: Which, we can talk about, may or may not be generalizable to real life, but that's a separate issue because we certainly don't have those conditions everywhere where people get cared for with ovarian cancer. But how would you interpret the results of this study? Did it show us anything different? Dr. Kathleen Moore: I am going to say how we should interpret it and then what I am thinking about. It is a negative study. It was designed to show improvement in overall survival in these ideal settings in patients with FIGO stage IIIB and C, they excluded A, these low volume tumors that should absolutely be getting surgery. So FIGO stage IIIB and C and IVA and B that were fit enough to undergo radical surgery randomized to primary cytoreduction or neoadjuvant with interval, and were all given the correct chemo. Dr. Linda Duska: And they were allowed bevacizumab and PARP, also. They could have bevacizumab and PARP. Dr. Kathleen Moore: They were allowed bevacizumab and PARP. Not many of them got PARP, but it was distributed equally, so that would not be a confounder. And so that was important. Overall survival is the endpoint. It was a big study. You know, it was almost 600 patients. So appropriately powered. So let's look at what they reported. When they looked at the patients who were enrolled, this is a large study, almost 600 patients, 345 in the primary cytoreductive arm and 343 in the neoadjuvant arm. Complete resection in these patients was 70% in the primary cytoreductive arm and 85% in the neoadjuvant arm. So in both arms, it was very high. So your selection of site and surgeon worked. You got people to their optimal outcome. So that is very different than any other study that has been reported to date. But what we saw when we looked at overall survival was no statistical difference. The median was, and I know we do not like to talk about medians, but the median in the primary cytoreductive arm was 54 months versus 48 months in the neoadjuvant arm with a hazard ratio of 0.89 and, of course, the confidence interval crossed one. So this is not statistically significant. And that was the primary endpoint. Dr. Linda Duska: I know you are getting to this. They did look at PFS, and that was statistically significant, but to your point about what are we looking for for a reasonable PFS difference? It was about two months difference. When I think about this study, and I know you are coming to this, what I thought was most interesting about this trial, besides the fact that the OS, the primary endpoint was negative, was the subgroup analyses that they did. And, of course, these are hypothesis-generating only. But if you look at, for example, specifically only the stage III group, that group did seem to potentially, again, hypothesis generating, but they did seem to benefit from upfront surgery.  And then one other thing that I want to touch on before we run out of time is, do we think it matters if the patient is BRCA germline positive? Do we think it matters if there is something in particular about that patient from a biomarker standpoint that is different? I am hopeful that more data will be coming out of this study that will help inform this. Of course, unpowered, hypothesis-generating only, but it's just really interesting. What do you think of their subset analysis? Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, I think the subsets are what we are going to be talking about, but we have to emphasize that this was a negative trial as designed. Dr. Linda Duska: Absolutely. Yes. Dr. Kathleen Moore: So we cannot be apologists and be like, "But this or that." It was a negative trial as designed. Now, I am a human and a clinician, and I want what is best for my patients. So I am going to, like, go down the path of subset analyses. So if you look at the stage III tumors that got complete cytoreduction, which was 70% of the cases, your PFS was almost 28 months versus 21.8 months. Dr. Linda Duska: Yes, it becomes more significant. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, that hazard ratio is 0.69. Again, it is a subset. So even though the P value here is statistically significant, it actually should not have a P value because it is an exploratory analysis. So we have to be very careful. But the hazard ratio is 0.69. So the hypothesis is in this setting, if you're stage III and you go for it and you get someone to no gross residual versus an interval cytoreduction, you could potentially have a 31% reduction in the rate of progression for that patient who got primary cytoreduction. And you see a similar trend in the stage III patients, if you look at overall survival, although the post-progression survival is so long, it's a little bit narrow of a margin.  But I do think there are some nuggets here that, one of our colleagues who is really one of the experts in surgical studies, Dr. Mario Leitao, posted this on X, and I think it really resonated after this because we were all saying, "But what about the subsets?" He is like, "It's a negative study." But at the end of the day, you are going to sit with your patient. The patient should be seen by a GYN oncologist or surgical oncologist with specialty in cytoreduction and a medical oncologist, you know, if that person does not give chemo, and the decision should be made about what to do for that individual patient in that setting. Dr. Linda Duska: Agreed. And along those lines, if you look carefully at their data, the patients who had an upfront cytoreduction had almost twice the risk of having a stoma than the patients who had an interval cytoreduction. And they also had a higher risk of needing to have a bowel resection. The numbers were small, but still, when you look at the surgical complications, as you've already said, they're higher in the upfront group than they are in the interval group. That needs to be taken into account as well when counseling a patient, right? When you have a patient in front of you who says to you, "Dr. Moore, you can take out whatever you want, but whatever you do, don't make me a bag." As long as the patient understands what that means and what they're asking us to do, I think that we need to think about that. Dr. Kathleen Moore: I think that is a great point. And I have definitely seen in our practice, patients who say, "I absolutely would not want an ostomy. It's a nonstarter for me." And we do make different decisions. And you have to just say, "That's the decision we've made," and you kind of move on, and you can't look back and say, "Well, I wish I would have, could have, should have done something else." That is what the patient wants. Ultimately, that patient, her family, autonomous beings, they need to be fully counseled, and you need to counsel that patient as to the site that you are in, her volume of disease, and what you think you can achieve. In my opinion, a patient with stage III cancer who you have the site and the capabilities to get to no gross residual should go to the OR first. That is what I believe. I do not anymore think that for stage IV. I think that this is pretty convincing to me that that is probably a harmful thing. However, I want you to react to this. I think I am going to be a little unpopular in saying this, but for me, one of the biggest take-homes from TRUST was that whether or not, and we can talk about the subsets and the stage III looked better, and I think it did, but both groups did really well. Like, really well. And these were patients with large volume disease. This was not cherry-picked small volume stage IIIs that you could have done an optimal just by doing a hysterectomy. You know, these were patients that needed radical surgery. And both did well. And so what it speaks to me is that anytime you are going to operate on someone with ovary, whether it be frontline, whether it be a primary or interval, you need a high-volume surgeon. That is what I think this means to me. Like, I would want high volume surgeon at a center that could do these surgeries, getting that patient, my family member, me, to no gross residual. That is important. And you and I are both in training centers. I think we ought to take a really strong look at, are we preparing people to do the surgeries that are necessary to get someone to no gross residual 70% and 85% of the time? Dr. Linda Duska: We are going to run out of time, but I want to address that and ask you a provocative question. So, I completely agree with what you said, that surgery is important. But I also think one of the reasons these patients in this study did so well is because all of the incredible new therapies that we have for patients. Because OS is not just about surgery. It is about surgery, but it is also about all of the amazing new therapies we have that you and others have helped us to get through clinical research. And so, how much of that do you think, like, for example, if you look at the PFS and OS rates from CHORUS and EORTC, I get it that they're, that they're not the same. It's different patients, different populations, can't do cross-trial comparisons. But the OS, as you said, in this study was 54 months and 48 months, which is, compared to 2010, we're doing much, much better. It is not just the surgery, it is also all the amazing treatment options we have for these patients, including PARP, including MIRV, including lots of other new therapies. How do you fit that into thinking about all of this? Dr. Kathleen Moore: I do think we are seeing, and we know this just from epidemiologic data that the prevalence of ovarian cancer in many of the countries where the study was done is increasing, despite a decrease in incidence. And why is that? Because people are living longer. Dr. Linda Duska: People are living longer, yeah. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Which is phenomenal. That is what we want. And we do have, I think, better supportive care now. PARP inhibitors in the frontline, which not many of these patients had. Now some of them, this is mainly in Europe, will have gotten them in the first maintenance setting, and I do think that impacts outcome. We do not have that data yet, you know, to kind of see what, I would be really interested to see. We do not do this well because in ovarian cancer, post-progression survival can be so long, we do not do well of tracking what people get when they come off a clinical trial to see how that could impact – you know, how many of them got another surgery? How many of them got a PARP? I think this group probably missed the ADC wave for the most part, because this, mirvetuximab is just very recently available in Europe. Dr. Linda Duska: Unless they were on trial. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Unless they were on trial. But I mean, I think we will have to see. 600 patients, I would bet a lot of them missed the ADC wave. So, I do not know that we can say we know what drove these phenomenal – these are some of the best curves we've seen outside of BRCA. And then coming back to your point about the BRCA population here, that is a really critical question that I do not know that we're ever going to answer. There have been hypotheses around a tumor that is driven by BRCA, if you surgically cytoreduced it, and then chemically cytoreduced it with chemo, and so you're starting PARP with nothing visible and likely still homogeneous clones. Is that the group we cured? And then if you give chemo first before surgery, it allows more rapid development of heterogeneity and more clonal evolution that those are patients who are less likely to be cured, even if they do get cytoreduced to nothing at interval with use of PARP inhibitor in the front line. That is a question that many have brought up as something we would like to understand better. Like, if you are BRCA, should you always just go for it or not? I do not know that we're ever going to really get to that. We are trying to look at some of the other studies and just see if you got neoadjuvant and you had BRCA, was anyone cured? I think that is a question on SOLO1 I would like to know the answer to, and I don't yet, that may help us get to that. But that's sort of something we do think about. You should have a fair number of them in TRUST. It wasn't a stratification factor, as I remember. Dr. Linda Duska: No, it wasn't. They stratified by center, age, and ECOG status Dr. Kathleen Moore: So you would hope with randomization that you would have an equal number in each arm. And they may be able to pull that out and do a very exploratory look. But I would be interested to see just completely hypothesis-generating what this looks like for the patients with BRCA, and I hope that they will present that. I know they're busy at work. They have translational work. They have a lot pending with TRUST. It's an incredibly rich resource that I think is going to teach us a lot, and I am excited to see what they do next. Dr. Linda Duska: So, outside of TRUST, we are out of time. I just want to give you a moment if there were any other messages that you want to share with our listeners before we wrap up. Dr. Kathleen Moore: It's an exciting time to be in GYN oncology. For so long, it was just chemo, and then the PARP inhibitors nudged us along quite a bit. We did move more patients, I believe, to the cure fraction. When we ultimately see OS, I think we'll be able to say that definitively, and that is exciting. But, you know, that is the minority of our patients. And while HRD positive benefits tremendously from PARP, I am not as sure we've moved as many to the cure fraction. Time will tell. But 50% of our patients have these tumors that are less HRD. They have a worse prognosis. I think we can say that and recur more quickly. And so the advent of these antibody-drug conjugates, and we could name 20 of them in development in GYN right now, targeting tumor-associated antigens because we're not really driven by mutations other than BRCA. We do not have a lot of things to come after. We're not lung cancer. We are not breast cancer. But we do have a lot of proteins on the surface of our cancers, and we are finally able to leverage that with some very active regimens. And we're in the early phases, I would say, of really understanding how best to use those, how best to position them, and which one to select for whom in a setting where there is going to be obvious overlap of the targets. So we're going to be really working this problem. It is a good problem. A lot of drugs that work pretty well. How do you individualize for a patient, the patient in front of you with three different markers? How do you optimize it? Where do you put them to really prolong survival? And then we finally have cell surface. We saw at ASCO, CDK2 come into play here for the first time, we've got a cell cycle inhibitor. We've been working on WEE1 and ATR for a long time. CDK2s may hit. Response rates were respectable in a resistant population that was cyclin E overexpressing. We've been working on that biomarker for a long time with a toxicity profile that was surprisingly clean, which I like to see for our patients. So that is a different platform. I think we have got bispecifics on the rise. So there is a pipeline of things behind the ADCs, which is important because we need more than one thing, that makes me feel like in the future, I am probably not going to be using doxil ever for platinum-resistant disease. So, I am going to be excited to retire some of those things. We will say, "Remember when we used to use doxil for platinum-resistant disease?" Dr. Linda Duska: I will be retired by then, but thanks for that thought. Dr. Kathleen Moore: I will remind you. Dr. Linda Duska: You are right. It is such an incredibly exciting time to be taking care of ovarian cancer patients with all the opportunities.  And I want to thank you for sharing your valuable insights with us on this podcast today and for your great work to advance care for patients with GYN cancers. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Likewise. Thanks for having me. Dr. Linda Duska: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to the TRUST study and other studies discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today's speakers:   Dr. Linda Duska  @Lduska Dr. Kathleen Moore Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter) ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest:    Dr. Linda Duska:   Consulting or Advisory Role: Regeneron, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Ellipses Pharma  Research Funding (Inst.): GlaxoSmithKline, Millenium, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Aeterna Zentaris, Novartis, Abbvie, Tesaro, Cerulean Pharma, Aduro Biotech, Advaxis, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Leap Therapeutics  Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UptToDate, Editor, British Journal of Ob/Gyn  Dr. Kathleen Moore: Leadership: GOG Partners, NRG Ovarian Committee Chair Honoraria: Astellas Medivation, Clearity Foundation, IDEOlogy Health, Medscape, Great Debates and Updates, OncLive/MJH Life Sciences, MD Outlook, Curio Science, Plexus, University of Florida, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Congress Chanel, BIOPHARM, CEA/CCO, Physician Education Resource (PER), Research to Practice, Med Learning Group, Peerview, Peerview, PeerVoice, CME Outfitters, Virtual Incision Consulting/Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Immunogen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Eisai, Verastem/Pharmacyclics, AADi, Caris Life Sciences, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Regeneron, zentalis, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, BioNTech SE, Immunocore, Seagen, Takeda Science Foundation, Zymeworks, Profound Bio, ADC Therapeutics, Third Arc, Loxo/Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Tango Therapeutics, Abbvie, T Knife, F Hoffman La Roche, Tubulis GmbH, Clovis Oncology, Kivu, Genmab/Seagen, Kivu, Genmab/Seagen, Whitehawk, OnCusp Therapeutics, Natera, BeiGene, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Day One Biopharmaceuticals, Debiopharm Group, Foundation Medicine, Novocure Research Funding (Inst.): Mersana, GSK/Tesaro, Duality Biologics, Mersana, GSK/Tesaro, Duality Biologics, Merck, Regeneron, Verasatem, AstraZeneca, Immunogen, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, Immunocore, Torl Biotherapeutics, Allarity Therapeutics, IDEAYA Biosciences, Zymeworks, Schrodinger Other Relationship (Inst.): GOG Partners

Hard to keep a lawn down at the moment.PLENTY happening as per usual. Updates on some ripper content and our plan to catch up with some legends in Melbourne for the Supercross. The Great Debate of Whippersnipping VS Poisoning is discussed before we rip in to the usual segments, Trip Advisor reviews are prime during Pub Of The Week. Are Elons robots on the rise? We discuss during the news, as well as recapping UFC 322. An absolute gold mine during Pep & Poo's Dump Finds For You before bringing it home with a Playboy edition during Poo's Reviews. Enjoy the rest of your week trendsetters, stay outta yaself!The ABW Bucking Bull Of The Year Shirt Pre-Sale begins Saturday, 6PM and runs until Friday, the 28th: alphablokes.com.auEver wanted to watch the Podcast? Check out full visual, uncut and ad-free versions on our Patreon. Only $5 a week plus access to all of our exclusive vlogs. The Four Part Darwin series begins this Sunday: patreon.com/alphablokespodcastBetter Beer: Jog in a can, win in a tin, the athletes choice: https://www.betterbeer.com.au/Neds: Whatever you bet on, take it to the neds level: https://www.neds.com.au/SP Tools: Schmicker tools for an even schmicker price, use code "ALPHA" at checkout for 10% off and check out their brand new catalogue: sptools.comIf you want to keep up to date with what we're up to, the best way is to follow us on the socials down below:PODCAST INSTAGRAM: www.instagram.com/alphablokespodcast/PODCAST TIKTOK: https://www.tiktok.com/@alphablokespodcastPODCAST FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/alphablokespodcast/Follow the boys on Instagram to check out their solo content too:Tommy: https://www.instagram.com/tomdahl_/Bandit: https://www.instagram.com/_thepoobandit_/0:00 - Admin + Updates8:00 - ABW Shirt Presale10:30 - Alpha Stable15:00 - Weekends41:25 - Pub Of The Week46:59 - Cooking / Eating55:27 - Alpha News1:26:22 - Motivation1:38:23 - Pep & Poo's Dump Finds For You1:45:14 - Poo's Reviews Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The First Sparring Of The Great Debate The first sparring of The Great Debate takes place here with the Christian & atheist getting five questions to ask for the other to answer. While we aren't used to this format, this really lays out the needed back and forth interaction that a lot of debates lack within a formal structure. It's not the blood-sport debates we're used to on YouTube but it helps with each side making sure the other is interacting with their points the best. TIMELINE: 00:00 - Introduction 03:22 - Q1 - Source For Atheism Definition 04:03 - A1 - Source Cited 05:15 - Q2 - Cite The Argument Used By Bahnsen 05:36 - A2 - No But You Believe It 06:49 - Q3 - Where's The Transcendental Argument 07:50 - A3 - No Because It's Not A Proof 08:12 - Commentary - Stein Was Helpful For Presuppositionalists 10:49 - Q4 - All Questions Answered The Same Way 11:08 - A4 - No They Are Not 11:34 - Q5 & A5 - What Does An Atheist Believe Laws Of Logic Are 14:21 - Atheist 14:41 - Q1 & Q2 - The Nature Of God 17:04 - Q2 & A2 - Is Your God All The Omnis 17:33 - Q3 & Q3 - If Argument Is Wrong Will God Not Exist 17:56 - Commentary - A Clarifying Comment On A "Problematic" Bahnsen 20:25 - Q4 & A4 - Is God Good 24:43 - Q5 & A5 - Can You Prove The Soul 26:38 - Conclusion BOOK LINKS: The Great Debate - Does God Exist? - Edited and Commentary by Joshua Pillows Debate Transcript Video The Bahnsen Institute       All episodes, short clips, & blog - https://www.cavetothecross.com

Bush Hager and Bibb take turns defending their sides on fun topics in “The Great Debate.” Also, actress Ali Larter stops by to discuss the new season of “Landman”, where she plays the feisty Angela navigating the world of Texas oil. Plus, learn how to refurbish and update old desks, chairs, and other furniture pieces. And, beauty expert Michelle Park and dermatologist Dr. David Kim break down the hottest K-beauty trends and reveal treatments that really work. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this new episode of Speaking of SurgOnc, Dr. Rick Greene discusses with Dr. Mecker G. Möller crucial questions regarding colorectal peritoneal metastasis (CRC-PM) management, particularly concerning the optimal applications of HIPEC in clinical practice, as reported in the article, "Great Debate: Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases—Should It Be Offered?"

On this episode of America at Night with Rich Valdés, Congressman Andy Harris (R-MD) joins the show to discuss the end of the government shutdown, the Supreme Court's decision on late mail-in ballots, and growing calls to deport Rep. Ilhan Omar. Then, political scholar and author Dr. Carol Swain shares how she won a powerful debate on Black Lives Matter at the prestigious Cambridge Union, challenging mainstream narratives with facts and conviction. Finally, Big Brother star and author Gina Marie stops by to talk about her new book, Stanley 3.0, and the life lessons behind her inspiring story. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, Isabella Matamoros, a first-year student at the University of Georgia, sits down with some of NHI's recent Great Debate participants. In the first segment, Isa interviews Emma Wulff to discuss her experience as an Oratory finalist at the 2025 Northeast Great Debate at Saint Francis University in Loretto, Pennsylvania. In the second segment, Isa talks with Andrew Mefrige, Jacob Suarez, and Sophia Tabuenca, participants of the 2025 Texas Great Debate hosted by Austin College in Sherman, Texas. Our participants got to share their first-hand experiences, their new-found strengths, and what they look forward to in 2026. Host & audio editing: Isabella Matamoros, Podcast art: Diego Garcia, Music: Zaiden WorleyTo learn more about the Great Debates, visit: www.nationalhispanicinstitute.org/great-debate

In this episode of Louisiana Unfiltered, Kiran Chawla sits down with Attorney Robert Aguiluz as they discuss the proposed merger of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and the Baton Rouge Fire DepartmentChapters0:19 The Great Debate 01:43  Robert Aguiluz Joins Kiran Chawla27:43 Legal Battles Ahead35:11 EMS Employee Concerns37:01 Job Security at Risk41:43 Chris Landry's Role52:44 Voices of the Paramedic AssociationLocal Sponsors for this episode include:Neighbors Federal Credit Union:Another Chance Bail Bonds:Dudley DeBosier Injury LawyersSound and Editing for this audio podcast by Envision Podcast Production:#louisianaunfiltered  #kiranchawla #podcast  #unfilteredwithkiran #news  #louisiana  #ems #brfd  

You've heard of East Coast vs. West Coast — but forget all that. This week, we're settling the real rivalry: the Midwest vs. the Pacific Northwest. Shea and Jody of Rainy Day Rabbit Holes, the podcast that uncovers the wild, weird, and wonderful hidden stories of the Pacific Northwest and beyond, join Trevin and Amanda for a four-round battle of regional pride, petty chaos, and pointless competition. Before the main event, our hosts bring their dreadful dilemmas, ranging from awkward public encounters with subtly racist strangers, being too busy for dog playdates, and making retirement plans far too early — plus, Amanda spots our modern-day muse, Chappell Roan, out in the wilds of Kansas City. Then, it's time for the Great Debate — a showdown across four over-the-top rounds: ⚔️ Round One: The Great Debate – Each team makes an absurdly passionate case for their homeland, backed by one bizarre local legend. From the Midwest's failed utopia of Fordlandia to Oregon's infamous exploding whale, chaos is the only constant.

The Great Midwest vs. PNW Debate (Feat. Rainy Day Rabbit Holes) You’ve heard of East Coast vs. West Coast — but forget all that. This week, we’re settling the real rivalry: the Midwest vs. the Pacific Northwest. Shea and Jody of Rainy Day Rabbit Holes, the podcast that uncovers the wild, weird, and wonderful hidden stories of the Pacific Northwest and beyond, join Trevin and Amanda for a four-round battle of regional pride, petty chaos, and pointless competition. Before the main event, our hosts bring their dreadful dilemmas, ranging from awkward public encounters with subtly racist strangers, being too busy for dog playdates, and making retirement plans far too early — plus, Amanda spots our modern-day muse, Chappell Roan, out in the wilds of Kansas City. Then, it’s time for the Great Debate — a showdown across four over-the-top rounds: Round One: The Great Debate – Each team makes an absurdly passionate case for their homeland, backed by one bizarre local legend. From the Midwest’s failed utopia of Fordlandia to Oregon’s infamous exploding whale, chaos is the only constant.

Scott, Paul, and Lauren discuss miscommunications, Paul’s DVDs, and pics with celebs before playing The Great Debate. Send Threetures and emails to threedomusa@gmail.com.Leave us a voicemail asking us a question at hagclaims8.comFollow us on Instagram @ThreedomUSA.Unlock every episode of THREEDOM and THREEMIUM, ad-free, on cbbworld.comGrab some new Threedom merch at cbbworld.com/merchSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Host Gerard Slobogean, MD talks with Raymond Pensey, MD and Phillip Lam, MD about treating the older patient faced with limb salvage vs. amputation.

Weekend Edition for October 18-19, 2025 Show Notes: Germany / Switzerland - Study Tour  Support 1517 Podcast Network 1517 Podcasts 1517 on Youtube 1517 Podcast Network on Apple Podcasts 1517 Events Schedule 1517 Academy - Free Theological Education What's New from 1517: Untamed Prayers: 365 Daily Devotions on Christ in the Book of Psalms by Chad Bird https://www.amazon.com/Untamed-Prayers-Devotions-Christ-Psalms/dp/1964419263 Remembering Your Baptism: A 40-Day Devotional by Kathryn Morales https://shop.1517.org/collections/new-releases/products/9781964419039-remembering-your-baptism Sinner Saint by Luke Kjolhaug https://shop.1517.org/products/9781964419152-sinner-saint The Impossible Prize: A Theology of Addiction by Donavan Riley https://shop.1517.org/products/9781962654708-the-impossible-prize More from the hosts: Dan van Voorhis SHOW TRANSCRIPTS are available: https://www.1517.org/podcasts/the-christian-history-almanac CONTACT: CHA@1517.org SUBSCRIBE: Apple Podcasts Spotify Stitcher Overcast Google Play FOLLOW US: Facebook Twitter Audio production by Christopher Gillespie (outerrimterritories.com).

Willie Geist joins Jenna for a game of The Great Debate. Also, Aubrey Plaza discusses her new children's book, “Luna and the Witch Throw a Halloween Party.” Plus, dating advice influencer Laurie Cooper joins for a Martini Meetup. And, Today Food culinary producer Anthony Contrino celebrates National Cake Decorating Day. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hour 3: The guys debate if Aaron Judge is deserving of the MVP or if it should go to Cal Raleigh. All that and more.