Podcast appearances and mentions of John Donvan

As the Iran war reshapes the Middle East and raises new questions about America's role in the world, Danielle Pletka and Julia Ioffe join moderator-in-chief John Donvan at the Cascade PBS Ideas Festival for a debate-esque conversation on U.S. foreign policy in President Trump's second term. From Iran and Russia to global stability and American leadership, they offer competing visions for navigating an increasingly volatile world.  Our Guests:  Julia Ioffe, Founding Partner and Washington Correspondent at Puck; Author of "Motherland"  Danielle Pletka, Distinguished Senior Fellow in Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute  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 democratic governments, universities, and civil society organizations grapple with how to engage China, an ethical question persists: should cooperation with Chinese state institutions, which involve every industry from education to commerce, be pursued as a pathway to gradual, meaningful progress, or does such engagement ultimately legitimize repression and undermine fundamental freedoms? In partnership with the Human Rights Foundation, we debate: Is It Ethical to Cooperate with Chinese State Institutions to Secure Incremental Change?  Arguing Yes: Joanna Chiu, Managing Partner of Nüora Global Advisors; Author of "China Unbound"  Arguing No: Isaac Stone Fish, CEO and Founder of Strategy Risks  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

Birthright citizenship guarantees citizenship to anyone born within the United States' territory, regardless of a parent's nationality. But should this legal principle be removed from the Constitution? Those arguing it shouldn't say that it prevents children from being punished for their parents' status, while encouraging long-term economic and civic contributions. But those calling to end the practice argue it fuels illegal immigration and strains the overburdened immigration system. Now, we debate: Should America End Birthright Citizenship? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in October 2025. Arguing Yes:   Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies  Horace Cooper, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research; Chairman of the Project 21 National Advisory Board  Arguing No:   Kris Mayes, Arizona Attorney General  Chris Newman, Legal Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON)  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

John Donvan, moderator-in-chief of the radio show Open to Debate, discusses what the show Open to Debate, which airs on WNYC (and many other NPR stations) aims to do, and spotlights some of the recent issues they've taken on. Image: Podcast logo, courtesy of Open to Debate Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Modern science has given us the ability to edit our genes, life-saving vaccines, and glimpse the origins of the universe. But is the same system holding itself back? Critics argue that the pressure to publish and fierce competition for funding rewards safe, incremental work over bold thinking. Others see a system still capable of paradigm-shifting discoveries — one where global collaborations and long-term thinking motivate scientists to pursue grand, ambitious ideas. Now we debate: Is the Scientific Enterprise Too Risk-Averse?  This debate was produced in partnership with the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University, as part of The Hopkins Forum series. Arguing Yes:  Tyler Cowen, Author of "The Great Stagnation"; Economics Professor at George Mason University; Founder of Emergent Ventures; Host of "Conversations with Tyler" podcast   Brandon Ogbunu, Computational Biologist; Associate Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Yale University; Professor at the Santa Fe Institute  Arguing No:   Kate Biberdorf (“Kate the Chemist”), Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at the University of Notre Dame; Science Entertainer  The Honorable Sethuraman Panchanathan, 15th Director of the National Science Foundation; University Professor of Technology and Innovation and Foundation Chair at Arizona State University  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For centuries, museums in Europe and the U.S. built their collections during eras of empire and unequal power. Now, institutions face growing calls to return artifacts taken through colonial rule or war, from the Benin Bronzes to Indigenous objects. Supporters say repatriation corrects historical injustice and restores sacred objects to their communities. Critics argue that museums serve a global public and that these works represent shared human heritage. Now we debate: Should Museums Repatriate Cultural Artifacts? Arguing Yes:   Chika Okeke-Agulu, Artist, Curator, and Professor of Art and Archaeology and African American Studies at Princeton University  Leila Amineddoleh, Art and Cultural Heritage Lawyer; Chair of the Firm's Art Law Group at Tarter Krinsky & Drogin  Arguing No:   Dominic Selwood, Historian, Author, Journalist, and Barrister  Mario Trabucco della Torretta, Classical Archaeologist  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It turns out your favorite artist is a monster. Say they committed murder, advocated genocide, or engaged in some other act so outside the scope of a dignified, respectable society that it cannot be redeemed. What now? Must you throw the art out with the artists? It's a question at the heart of both pop culture and high art critique. For some, a work of art is an entity in itself. It should be appreciated and revered without regard to the life of its creator. If we disregard all great art for the sins of the artists, we risk losing many of the world's greatest cultural touchstones and masterpieces. But for others, the act of supporting a work of art translates directly affirming its creator's evil acts. In this timeless debate, we ask: Should we separate the art from the artist? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in September 2022. ARGUING YES:  Randy Cohen, Writer & Humorist     ARGUING NO:  Aruna D'Souza, Writer & Art Critic      Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Your doctor tells you that, should you wish to have a child, that child is likely also to carry the disease. But a new gene-editing technology could ensure that your baby is -- and remains -- healthy. Should you do it? Critics say the technology will exacerbate inequality and meddle in the most basic aspect of our humanity. Now, we debate: Should We Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in February 2022. Arguing Yes: Dr. George Church, Geneticist & Founder, Personal Genome Project; Professor, Genetics, Wyss Institute and Harvard Medical School Amy Webb, Chief Executive Officer, Future Today Strategy Group; Professor, NYU Stern School of Business  Arguing No: Marcy Darnovsky, Executive Director, Emerita, Center for Genetics and Society  Françoise Baylis, Distinguished Research Professor, Emerita, Dalhousie University; President, Royal Society of Canada  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Artificial intelligence has ignited one of the most spectacular surges of investment, hype, and technological promise, but some worry that the enthusiasm is resembling a bubble, with valuations racing ahead of fundamentals and enormous compute and energy costs that could undermine long-term profitability. But others note this bubble is different because AI is already embedded across the economy, not confined, and infrastructure is being created to sustain demand. Now we debate: Will the AI Bubble Burst?  Arguing Yes: Ryan Cummings, Chief of Staff at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policymaking  Arguing No: Magnus Grimeland, Venture Capital Investor; Founder and CEO of Antler  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Even with a fragile ceasefire in place between the U.S., Israel, and Iran, we wanted to revisit this prescient debate from last fall. In the past few weeks of war, autonomous systems, AI-driven targeting, and drones were heavily used by both sides leading some to fear we're rapidly approaching a future of warfare that takes human decision making out of the loop entirely. Are we ready for that? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in October 2025. Arguing "Human":  Elliot Ackerman, Former Marine Raider Officer and CIA Special Activities Officer; Bestselling Author  Laura Walker McDonald, Senior Advisor for New Technologies & Conflict at the International Committee of the Red Cross   Arguing "AI":   Michael C. Horowitz, Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation at the Council on Foreign Relations; Director of Perry World House and Richard Perry Professor at the University of Pennsylvania  Jack Shanahan, Inaugural Director of Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, Office of the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Where do you watch the latest movie everyone's talking about—on Netflix at home or in a packed theater? Are theaters the irreplaceable heart of cinema, creating cultural moments and spectacle, or is streaming the future with its convenience and global reach? Two high-level Hollywood insiders, a former president of The Academy versus a film executive, debate in time for the Oscars: The Future of Film: Big Screen or Stream?  Arguing "Big Screen": Hawk Koch, Film Producer; Former President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the Producers Guild of America  Arguing "Stream": Chris Aronson, Former President Of Domestic Theatrical Distribution at Paramount Pictures  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

AI can write code, diagnose diseases, design buildings, and create art. Tools like ChatGPT, Claude and autonomous robots are transforming industries once seen as automation-proof, fueling fears of mass job loss. Some argue that machines will become so efficient that they will one day replace most human labor. Others say AI will augment work, not erase it, and historically, people have feared innovation killing jobs, which arguably hasn't come to pass. Now we debate: Will AI Make Work Obsolete?  Arguing Yes:  Andrew Yang, Founder of the Forward Party, Former Presidential Candidate  Simon Johnson, Nobel Prize-winning Economist; Professor of Entrepreneurship and Head of the Global Economics and Management Group at MIT  Arguing No:  Chris Hughes, Co-Founder of Facebook; Chair of the Economic Security Project; Author of "Marketcrafters"  Rumman Chowdhury, CEO of Humane Intelligence PBC; Former U.S. Science Envoy for Artificial Intelligence  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.  The Hopkins Forum is a partnership between Open to Debate and Johns Hopkins University's SNF Agora Institute. This flagship series consists of live debates in Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, bringing together diverse perspectives to tackle today's most pressing issues. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Your smartphone feels sleek and futuristic—but the supply chain behind it is anything but. In this conversation with moderator-in-chief John Donvan, journalist and “The Elements of Power” author Nicolas Niarchos showcases how lithium-ion batteries rely on cobalt mined under dangerous, exploitative conditions. Tracing a line from colonialism to today's U.S.–China power struggle, he asks us to Think Twice on this question: what human and environmental costs are hidden inside the technology that powers modern life?  Our Guest: Nicolas Niarchos, Journalist and Author of “The Elements of Power”  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

Greenland has become a geopolitical flashpoint. President Trump wants control of it, or at least sovereignty over some areas for military purposes, arguing that the United States gaining some territorial rights in Greenland is a necessity for U.S. security. But some leaders worry that a power grab could pit NATO against the U.S. and weaken an already fragile world order. Now we debate: Is U.S. Control of Limited Territory In Greenland a Strategic Necessity?  Arguing Yes:  Alexander B. Gray, Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council; Former Deputy Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff of the White House National Security Council  Michael Pillsbury, Senior Advisor for the President's Office at The Heritage Foundation  Arguing No:  Kori Schake, Senior Fellow and the Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)  Max Boot, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; Columnist at The Washington Post  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

Prostitution remains heavily stigmatized and legally complex globally. Those in favor of paying for sex and support decriminalization argue that it's a profession that deserves as much respect as any other. Those against it, and who support the Nordic Model, argue that prostitution leads to inequities between sex buyers and workers, exploitation, and coercion, and can open the door to human trafficking. Now we debate: Is It OK to Pay for Sex?  Arguing Yes: Kaytlin Bailey, Sex Workers Rights Advocate; Founder & Executive Director of Old Pros and Host of “The Oldest Profession Podcast”   Arguing No: Yasmin Vafa, Human Rights Attorney; Co-Founder and Executive Director at Rights4Girls  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

America is suffering from a loneliness epidemic. Some groups have suggested religious communities may be key to solving it. Could it help? Those arguing “yes” say it gives people regular social contact, support systems, and a sense of purpose that could combat isolation. Those arguing “no” say that secular options would provide better, broad-based solutions. Now we debate: Can Religion Cure the Loneliness Epidemic?    Arguing Yes:   Harold Koenig, Director of Duke University's Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health   Chris Murphy, Senator from Connecticut     Arguing No:  Ruth Whippman, Author of "America the Anxious: How Our Pursuit of Happiness Is Creating a Nation of Nervous Wrecks" and "BOYMOM: Reimagining Boyhood in the Age of Impossible Masculinity."  Dan Barker, Co-President of the Freedom from Religion Foundation  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

 Couples have arguments over many topics. However, it's through resolving conflict that both people in the relationship feel heard and seen. Psychotherapist, relationship expert, and New York Times-bestselling author Esther Perel says conflict when navigated skillfully can lead to growth, resilience, and a stronger bond. In this conversation with John Donvan, Perel shares her experience working with different relationship types, strategies for transforming conflict into a constructive dialogue, and the importance of validating both sides' perspectives.    Our guest: Esther Perel, Psychotherapist and New York Times bestselling author     Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Has Big Tech become too powerful? Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, Meta, and Microsoft shape how we shop, communicate, and consume information. But has their dominance gone too far? Advocates argue these firms are monopolies that harm competition, exploit consumer data, and wield disproportionate influence over public discourse. Structural reforms would restore fairness and innovation. But critics warn that breakups could damage user experience, slow innovation, and disrupt integrated ecosystems people rely on. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Government Break Up Big Tech? Arguing Yes:   Bharat Ramamurti, Founder of The Bully Pulpit; Former Deputy Director of the National Economic Council   Matt Stoller, Director of Research at the American Economic Liberties Project     Arguing No:   Geoffrey A. Manne, President and Founder of the International Center for Law & Economics  Jennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow in Technology Policy at the Cato Institute    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What does it take to moderate a debate? How do we keep conversations civil when the world feels so polarized? In celebration of our launch on Substack, moderator-in-chief John Donvan joins Nayeema Raza and Reason's Nick Gillespie for a lively conversation on the craft of moderation and the art of asking questions that reveal rather than inflame. Featuring audience Q&A and behind-the-scenes insight, this episode offers a candid look at how meaningful dialogue is created today.  Our Guests:   John Donvan, Open to Debate's Moderator-in-Chief and Emmy award-winning journalist  Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions"  Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Effective altruism is a philosophical and social movement that uses empirical data to maximize the impact of charitable efforts. Those who champion EA praise its methodological framework for maximizing the effectiveness of donations, thus ensuring equal consideration for all individuals. Those who challenge EA argue that its emphasis on measurable outcomes may overlook important yet hard-to-quantify causes, potentially restricting the scope of what's considered beneficial. Now we debate: Does the Effective Altruism Movement Get Giving Right?    Arguing Yes: Peter Singer, Author of “The Most Good You Can Do”; Philosopher and Emeritus Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University   Arguing No: Alice Crary, Co-Editor of “The Good it Promises, The Harm it Does: Critical Essays on Effective Altruism”; University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at The New School for Social Research  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit our Substack to watch more insightful debates and subscribe to our newsletter.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

he Trump administration is taking the War on Drugs in a bold direction, using aircraft carriers, intelligence networks, and direct military strikes to target alleged smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. Supporters of militarization argue that previous strategies to stop cartels have failed, and only aggressive deterrence will stop the crisis. Others warn that militarization usually fails to stop drug flows, risking civilian casualties, and rarely achieves lasting results. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Militarize the War on Drugs?    Arguing Yes:  Sean McFate, Author and Professor of Strategy at the National Defense University and Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service  Andrés Martínez-Fernández, Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America at The Heritage Foundation's Allison Center for National Security    Arguing No:   Will Freeman, Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations  Aileen Teague, Assistant Professor of International Affairs at Texas A&M University's Bush School of Government and Public Service    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit our Substack to watch more insightful debates and subscribe to our newsletter.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Birthright citizenship guarantees citizenship to anyone born within the United States' territory, regardless of a parent's nationality. But should this legal principle be removed from the Constitution? Those arguing it shouldn't say that it prevents children from being punished for their parents' status, while encouraging long-term economic and civic contributions. But those calling to end the practice argue it fuels illegal immigration and strains the overburdened immigration system. Now, we debate: Should America End Birthright Citizenship?  This debate was recorded on October 9, 2025 at 1 PM at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University in Phoenix, AZ.  This event is part of a new partnership between Open to Debate and Arizona State University's Institute of Politics to bring live debate programming to ASU's campus in a special series titled PRO/CONversations. Produced by Arizona PBS in the Arizona State University Media Enterprise—which will air and promote the recorded programs—the series is designed to model civil discourse for students while offering hands-on production experience to ASU journalism students.     Arguing Yes:   Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies  Horace Cooper, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research; Chairman of the Project 21 National Advisory Board    Arguing No:   Kris Mayes, Arizona Attorney General  Chris Newman, Legal Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON)    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From ancient battles to modern proxy wars, conflicts have been a constant in human history. But does that mean we are destined to continue treating it as an option? Those saying war is inevitable argue that our global system is anarchic and no overarching authority exists to stop war, so states prioritize survival and power. But others argue that conflict is not the only form of dispute resolution; trade, diplomacy, international law, mediation, and peace treaties can avert war. Now we debate: Is War Inevitable?    Arguing Yes: Dylan Motin, Visiting Scholar at the Seoul National University Asia Center  Arguing No: Gabrielle Rifkind, Conflict Mediator; Director of Oxford Process  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As modern warfare becomes increasingly automated and AI-reliant, questions arise about the use of a “kill switch” overriding autonomous weapons in conflict zones. Should the ultimate decision be in humans' or AI's hands? Those arguing for human oversight say moral reasoning, empathy, and legal accountability are essential, especially in wartime. Supporters of AI integration argue that machines can make faster, more precise, and less emotional decisions, which could prove more humane than past approaches. Now we debate: Wartime Kill Switch: Human or AI?  Arguing "Human":  Elliot Ackerman, Former Marine Raider Officer and CIA Special Activities Officer; Bestselling Author  Laura Walker McDonald, Senior Advisor for New Technologies & Conflict at the International Committee of the Red Cross  Arguing "AI":    Michael C. Horowitz, Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation at the Council on Foreign Relations; Director of Perry World House and Richard Perry Professor at the University of Pennsylvania  Jack Shanahan, Inaugural Director of Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, Office of the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's been five years since the pandemic began, but was our public health system or society to blame for our country's failures to stop the spread? Some argue that public health leaders were unprepared, mismanaged the crisis, and provided inconsistent guidance. Others argue the failures were societal, citing widespread mistrust, misinformation, and other guidance, which undermined compliance and effectiveness. Now, in a new format, our debaters argue both sides of this nuanced and complex question: Was COVID a Public Health Failure or Did Society Fail Public Health?    Dr. Tom Frieden, Former Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); President and Chief Executive Officer at Resolve to Save Lives    Doctor Mike Varshavski, Board-certified family medicine physician, UNICEF Ambassador, and Influencer     Dr. Jerome Adams, 20th Surgeon General of the United States    Dr. Dara Kass, Practicing ER physician and medical news contributor during the COVID pandemic, Former Regional Director in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's Back to School season, and TikTok has been taking a larger role in helping students learn — but should it? Some teachers argue that using TikTok can help make whatever subjects they study more digestible and adaptable to different types of learners. Others call the app distracting and capable of undermining classroom authority and prioritizing entertainment and short attention spans over education. Now we debate: TikTok in the Classroom: Enhancing or Eroding the Teaching Profession?  Enhance: Phil Cook, Education Influencer and High School Chemistry Teacher    Erode: Adrian Dingle, Second Schoolteacher and Education Consultant    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In some policy circles, the idea of the U.S. electing a CEO-style dictator running the country like a company is gaining momentum. But should the idea be embraced? Those proposing the Dictator CEO, like Curtis Yarvin, argue it would challenge existing institutions and deliver cutthroat efficiency. But democracy advocates, like E. Glen Weyl, argue that consolidating power under one leader undermines the core values fundamental to America's political system. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Be Ruled by a CEO Dictator?  Arguing Yes: Curtis Yarvin, Anti-democracy theorist and Tech Entrepreneur  Arguing No: E. Glen Weyl, Co-Founder of the RadicalxChange Foundation, Plurality Institute, and the Faith, Family and Technology Network  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

More Americans are moving away from eating meat toward a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. But is continuing to eat animals a personal choice—or an ethical failure? Those favoring a plant-based lifestyle argue that eating animals is morally indefensible when plant-based alternatives can provide the same nutrition without pain. But meat lovers argue there's more to eating meat than seems obvious and caution against vilifying meat consumption. Now, we debate this motion: Don't Eat Anything With A Face.  Arguing Yes:  Neal Barnard, Clinical Researcher, Author of "21-Day Weight Loss Kickstart"  Gene Baur, President and Co-Founder of the Farm Sanctuary  Arguing No:   Chris Masterjohn, Nutritional Sciences Researcher; Blogger at The Daily Lipid  Joel Salatin, Farmer & Author  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Take our podcast listener survey here: https://bit.ly/opentodebatesurvey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Fast fashion has taken over the fashion industry, but is less expensive, trendy clothing really worth the purchase? Those who say to “stop” argue fast fashion harms the environment in many ways and exploits workers in countries with lax regulations. Those who say “keep shopping” argue it's up to shoppers to choose, as fast fashion offers affordable options, supports jobs, and boosts local economies. Now we debate: Fast Fashion: Shop or Stop?  Arguing Stop: Kenneth Pucker, Former COO of Timberland; Professor at The Fletcher School at Tufts University   Arguing Shop: Katherine Mangu-Ward, Editor-in-Chief at Reason    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The pressure to constantly be productive and achieve has become an aspiration one should aspire. But is this mindset worth the effort? Those claiming it's toxic argue it creates impossible standards, opening the door for anxiety, burnout, and disconnection. But some argue the problem isn't productivity itself, but how we've come to define success — and the unrealistic expectations that come with it. Now we debate: Is Our Productivity Culture Toxic?    Arguing Yes:     Jennifer Moss, Workplace Culture Expert; Author of "The Burnout Epidemic"    Rahaf Harfoush, Digital Anthropologist and New York Times Best-Selling Author    Arguing No:     David Allen, Creator of the "Getting Things Done" Time Management Method and Author   Amy Edmondson, Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Take our podcast listener survey here: https://bit.ly/opentodebatesurvey  Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The shocking 2022 murder of four University of Idaho students have resulted in a life sentence for the killer and still-unanswered questions — about new genealogy tech, media exposure, lessons for law enforcement —worth Thinking Twice about. John Donvan sits down with journalist Vicky Ward, who co-authored with James Patterson “The Idaho Four: An American Tragedy,” and discuss what drew her to the case, how collaborating with Patterson changed her process, and reconsidering elements of the criminal justice system.    Our Guest: Vicky Ward, Co-Author of "The Idaho Four: An American Tragedy"    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Take our podcast listener survey here: https://bit.ly/opentodebatesurvey  Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump has officially signed the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act into law. There is debate among conservatives about whether it will end up driving economic growth or increasing our debt. One side argues that ordinary Americans will pay the price and the long-term fiscal outcome is terrible. Another side argues these policies will encourage investment, growth, and job creation. Now, two conservatives debate: Is the Big, Beautiful Bill a Disaster?    Arguing Yes: Jessica Riedl, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute  Arguing No: Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy at The Heritage Foundation  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Trump administration enacted severe actions against Harvard University that threaten its endowment, funding, and ability to enroll international students, based on accusations of antisemitism. Do these actions go too far? Prominent voices long affiliated with Harvard – former university president Larry Summers and law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz — engage in a nuanced debate and provocative discussion: Did Harvard Have It Coming?  Arguing Yes: Alan Dershowitz, Emeritus Professor of Law at Harvard Law School   Arguing No: Lawrence Summers, President Emeritus of Harvard; Former Secretary of the Treasury   Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court for almost three decades, Stephen Breyer was no stranger to hearing arguments for different sides in major cases. In this episode, our moderator-in-chief, John Donvan, and Chief Content Officer, Lia Matthow, interview Justice Breyer and discuss his book “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, not Textualism.” He discusses how he used this philosophy to guide his decisions and why he thinks jurists should choose this approach.    Our Guest: Stephen Breyer, Former United States Supreme Court Justice    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan and Lia Matthow, Chief Content Officer of Open to Debate, moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As he did in this first presidential term, President Trump has continued to signal closer alignment with Vladimir Putin. This included a tense February Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, where he claimed Ukraine was responsible for the war.   The U.S. also joined Russia in voting against a UN resolution condemning Russia's action in Ukraine and Vice President Vance has called for a re-evaluation of the U.S.'s relationship with NATO. Could these actions, and others, help chart a return to a state of improved U.S.-Russia diplomatic relations or lead America toward defeat in the region and beyond? Those who argue that Trump's actions signal a return to normalcy say that European security should be Europe's responsibility, which could lead to a stronger, more self-sufficient NATO, and that recent years of antagonism have failed to alter Russian behavior. The Trump administration could help bring U.S.-Russia relations into constructive focus at a high-stakes moment.  However, those who declare this a defeat for America argue that Trump warming up to Putin will only encourage Russian aggression, hurt Ukraine, and erode our allies' trust.     With this background, we debate Trump's Russia Policies: Return to Normalcy or Defeat for America?  Arguing "Defeat for America":  Bill Browder, Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign   Alina Polyakova, President and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA)  Arguing "Return to Normalcy":   Jeffrey Sachs, Economist, Public Policy Analyst, and Professor at Columbia University  Thomas Graham, Distinguished Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; Co-founder of Yale University's Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies Program     Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Coming off the long weekend, an early release of this week's episode: The first 2024 presidential debate was a turning point in President Biden's candidacy. In this episode, moderator-in-chief John Donvan and chief content officer Lia Matthow sit down with CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios's Alex Thompson to discuss the book that has Washington buzzing: “Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.” They discuss what transpired before, during, and after that debate and what it might mean for the future of journalism, the Democratic party, and politics overall.    Our Guests:    Jake Tapper, News Anchor; Host of CNN's "The Lead"  Alex Thompson, National Political Correspondent at Axios    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan & Lia Matthow, Open to Debate's Chief Content officer, moderate    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With Trump's return to office, some have high hopes for his relationship with Israel. But amid the Gaza war, will his policies help? Those arguing “yes” say Trump has given Israel unprecedented backing and would continue shifting U.S. policy in favor of Israeli sovereignty and security. Those arguing “no” are concerned that his policies would result in trouble for Gaza and make a two-state solution less feasible. Now we debate: Is Trump Good for Israel?  Arguing Yes: Einat Wilf, Former Member of Israeli "Knesset"; Co-author of "The War of Return"  Arguing No: Jeremy Ben-Ami, Founder and President of J Street  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The AI revolution is underway, and the U.S. and China are racing to the top. At the heart of this competition are semiconductors—especially advanced GPUs that power everything from natural language processing to autonomous weapons. The U.S. is betting that export controls can help check China's technological ambitions. But will this containment strategy work—or could it inadvertently accelerate China's drive for self-sufficiency? Those who think chip controls will work argue that restricting China's access gives the U.S. critical breathing room to advance AI safely, set global norms, and maintain dominance. Those who believe chip controls are inadequate, or could backfire, warn that domestic chipmakers, like Nvidia and Intel, also rely on sales from China. Cutting off access could harm U.S. competitiveness in the long run, especially if other countries don't fully align with U.S. policy.     As the race for AI supremacy intensifies, we debate the question: Can the U.S. Outpace China in AI Through Chip Controls?    Arguing Yes:     Lindsay Gorman, Managing Director and Senior Fellow of the German Marshall Fund's Technology Program; Venture Scientist at Deep Science Ventures      Will Hurd, Former U.S. Representative and CIA Officer     Arguing No:    Paul Triolo, Senior Vice President and Partner at DGA-Albright Stonebridge Group     Susan Thornton, Former Diplomat; Visiting Lecturer in Law and Senior Fellow at the Yale Law School Paul Tsai China Center    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  This debate was produced in partnership with Johns Hopkins University.    This debate was recorded on May 14, 2025 at 6 PM at Shriver Hall, 3400 N Charles St Ste 14, in Baltimore, Maryland.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From modest beginnings to a distinguished career, Robert Rosenkranz, the chairman of Delphi Capital Management and founder of Open to Debate, has used Stoic wisdom to navigate challenges, innovations, and business relationships. In this conversation, John Donvan speaks with Rosenkranz about his new book, “The Stoic Capitalist: Advice for the Exceptionally Ambitious,” how ancient philosophy shaped his pivotal moments, why he launched Open to Debate, and how disciplined thinking can unlock enduring accomplishment and serve as a guide for anyone seeking success and a life well lived.    Our Guest: Robert Rosenkranz, Author, Chairman of Delphi Capital Management, and Founder and Chairman of Open to Debate    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

NASA, SpaceX, and other private companies are working on plans to make Mars humanity's next frontier. However, should settling Mars be one of America's priorities? Those arguing “yes” say the U.S. should do it first before China does, and it would lead to new advances in science and technology. But those against doing so say there are big issues that would make colonization difficult for humanity. Now we debate: Should the U.S. Prioritize Settling Mars?    Arguing Yes: Eric Berger, Senior Space Editor at Ars Technica  Arguing No: Shannon Stirone, Freelance Science Writer    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

UNRWA and other peacekeeping forces in the Middle East play an important role in the Israel-Palestine conflict, but do they do enough? Those saying they help argue that they act as buffers between warring factions, preventing wider regional escalation. Those saying they hurt argue they fail to maintain neutrality. Now we debate: UN Efforts in the Middle East: Helping or Hurting?    Arguing Helping: Richard Gowan, UN and Multilateral Diplomacy Director at the International Crisis Group  Arguing Hurting: Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch     Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have taken on a contentious role in the new Trump administration, which has affected federal agencies and thousands of workers. But are DOGE's actions legal? Those arguing they aren't worry it is overstepping and violating the Constitution. Those supporting DOGE's actions say it is operating under strict oversight while fulfilling its mandate. Now we debate: Is Musk's DOGE Dodging the Law?    Arguing Yes: Laurence Tribe, University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School  Arguing No: Michael W. McConnell, Former Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; Law Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump recently enacted a ten percent additional tariff on Chinese imports, and China has enacted retaliatory tariffs in response. Those affirming the tariffs are necessary argue they will encourage citizens to buy more domestically produced products. Those against the tariffs argue they will also create a trade war, harming both economies and global supply chains. Now we debate: Was Trump Right to Increase Tariffs on Chinese Imports? Arguing Yes:    Scott Paul, President of the Alliance for American Manufacturing  Stephen Moore, Economist, Author, and Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation; Co-founder of Unleash Prosperity    Arguing No:   Jennifer Hillman, Senior Fellow for Trade and International Political Economy at the Council on Foreign Relations   Rana Mitter, ST Lee Chair in US-Asia Relations at the Harvard Kennedy School    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Arguing Yes:    Scott Paul, President of the Alliance for American Manufacturing  Stephen Moore, Economist, Author, and Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation; Co-founder of Unleash Prosperity    Arguing No:   Jennifer Hillman, Senior Fellow for Trade and International Political Economy at the Council on Foreign Relations   Rana Mitter, ST Lee Chair in US-Asia Relations at the Harvard Kennedy School    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

America is suffering from a loneliness epidemic. Some groups have suggested religious communities may be key to solving it. Could it help? Those arguing “yes” say it gives people regular social contact, support systems, and a sense of purpose that could combat isolation. Those arguing “no” say that secular options would provide better, broad-based solutions. Now we debate: Can Religion Cure the Loneliness Epidemic?    Arguing Yes:   Harold Koenig, Director of Duke University's Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health   Chris Murphy, Senator of Connecticut     Arguing No:  Ruth Whippman, Author of "America the Anxious: How Our Pursuit of Happiness Is Creating a Nation of Nervous Wrecks" and "BOYMOM: Reimagining Boyhood in the Age of Impossible Masculinity."  Dan Barker, Co-President of the Freedom from Religion Foundation    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In recent years, multiple proposals have been made to change how the U.S. Supreme Court operates in its current form. Would these reforms help – or hurt? What is the future of the highest court in the land? In partnership with Johns Hopkins University as part of our inaugural “Hopkins Forum”, our featured guests will discuss term limits, expanding the Supreme Court, and whether external ethics codes should be applied.  Our Guests:  Ambassador Jeff Flake, Former Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee   Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law at Columbia Law School; Supreme Court Commentator  Cristina Rodríguez, Former Co-Chair of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States; Professor at Yale Law School  The Honorable Jeff Sessions, Former U.S. Attorney General and Senator    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Sports fans can place bets on their favorite teams and athletes faster and easier than before, thanks to legalized sports gambling. But was it the wrong bet to make? Advocates say it's been good for fans, the economy, and the sports industry.  Those who say that what's happened since legalization is a bad thing, say it's driven a rise in gambling addiction and created a public health crisis. Now we debate: Has Legalizing Sports Gambling Become A Bad Bet? Arguing Yes: Harry Levant, Director of Gambling Policy at the Public Health Advocacy Institute   Arguing No: Bill Pascrell III, Partner at Princeton Public Affairs Group    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Iran is getting closer to developing its first nuclear weapon. With tensions rising in the Middle East, should the U.S. and its allies take a stand? Those calling to stop Iran now argue this is a “now or never” moment for the region. Those calling for tolerance say while it's not ideal, it is manageable, and maintaining diplomacy should be the focus. Now we debate: Can America and Its Allies Tolerate A Nuclear Iran, or Is It Time to Stop Them Now?  Arguing STOP NOW: Behnam Ben Taleblu, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies  Arguing TOLERATE: Barbara Slavin, Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Center    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How long would you like to live, and could science and technology make it possible?  Longevity science aims to extend our healthy years through advancements in CRISPR, cellular reprogramming, and drug development. While private companies and philanthropists invest heavily in these innovations, should the government be responsible for funding these efforts? Those who say yes to government funding say that longevity research could revolutionize public health, keep aging populations productive in the workforce, and reduce the economic burden of age-related illnesses. Those opposed to public funding of longevity science say that true life extension beyond a decade might be unachievable, and it will take years before results are measurable. They argue that when and if these advances become available, they may only be for a smaller, affluent population. They also argue that long-known behavior choices like good nutrition and sleep should be adopted by all now, instead of chasing uncertain longevity advancements.     With this context, we debate the question: Could Longevity Science Extend Your Health Span By Decades? Should the Government Fund It?   Arguing Yes: Peter Diamandis, Founder and Chairman of the XPRIZE Foundation; Announced the XPRIZE Healthspan Competiton; Author of "Longevity Guidebook"    Arguing No: Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Bioethicist; Vice Provost for Global Initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From economic turbulence and the dilemmas posed by artificial intelligence to the big-picture challenges of our time, the pillars of money, truth, and power shape the complex global landscape. In partnership with the Future Investment Initiative (FII), join us as twelve of the world's greatest thinkers debate: “Clash of the Titans: Three Grand Challenges Facing Humanity,” “What is Europe's Economic Outlook?”, and “Will AI-Generated Entertainment Replace Human Creativity?”  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan, Open to Debate CEO Clea Conner, and moderator and journalist Edie Lush moderate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

During election seasons, Democrats and Republicans leverage identity-based platforms to engage voters. Those who think identity politics isn't holding us back argue identity politics offers a pathway for inclusion and empowerment for historically-sidelined groups. Those who believe it does hold us back argue it prevents constructive dialogue on solutions that benefit everyone, and risks alienating large segments of the population. Now we debate: In the 2024 Presidential Election, Are Identity Politics Holding Us Back?  Arguing Yes: Coleman Hughes, Host of the “Conversations with Coleman” podcast and Contributing Writer at The Free Press   Arguing No: Alicia Garza, Founder of Black Lives Matter and Black Futures Lab    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices