Podcast appearances and mentions of John Donvan

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

Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more My conversation with John Donvan begins at 29 minutes after headlines and cips   John Donvan is the moderator of Open to Debate since 2008, John Donvan is an author and correspondent for ABC News. He has served as ABC's White House Correspondent, along with postings in Moscow, London, Jerusalem, and Amman. John is the coauthor of In a Different Key: The Story of Autism (Crown, 2016). In addition to premiering his first one-man show, “Lose the Kid,” in 2013 in Washington, D.C., John is a four-time Emmy Award winner and was a National Magazine Award finalist in 2010. Nightline Essay John mentions :The forgotten waves of hope in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Former ABC News Correspondent John Donvan digs into the archive of his decades of reporting to reflect on Israel's current war against Hamas and the past moments where hope existed for peace   Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  

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

Eylon Levy vs Mehdi Hasan - Debate of the Century"Were Israel's actions in the Gaza War justified?" Eylon Levy proves: Mehdi Hasan won't condemn Hamas's strategy – because he's part of Hamas's strategy. This debate between Eylon Levy and Mehdi Hasan took place in New York City on September 21, 2024. It was hosted by Open to Debate and moderated by John Donvan.Eylon Levy is co-founder of the Israeli Citizen Spokespersons' Office and host of the State of a Nation podcast. He served as an Israeli Government Spokesman in the October 7 War with Hamas, becoming one of the leading voices for Israel.Stay up to date at:https://www.stateofanationpodcast.com/X: https://twitter.com/stateofapodInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/stateofapod/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?... LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/state-of-a-nation

Over 103,000 people need organ donations in the U.S. Some economists and health experts wonder whether creating a free or regulated market would resolve this. Those in support argue that with proper regulations, it can be safe, ethical, and financially beneficial for both sellers and buyers. Those against this have ethical concerns and point out the risk of abuse and undermining of the medical system. Now we debate: Should We Legalize the Market for Human Organs? Arguing Yes: Sally Satel, Psychiatrist, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Lecturer at the Yale University School of Medicine  Arguing No: Jeremy Chapman, Editor-in-Chief of The Transplantation Journal and Past President of the International Transplantation Society    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

While the two-party system has been the standard in the US government, third parties have often challenged this status quo and now advocates to be added to election ballots permanently. Those who agree say third parties offer non-partisan solutions and are more representative of ideologies, unlike the polarized partisanship present now. Those who disagree say the two-party system fosters stability and simplifies voting decisions. Now we debate: Does America Need A Third Party?   Arguing Yes: Andrew Yang, Founder of the Forward Party, Former Presidential Candidate  Arguing No: Daniel DiSalvo, Senior Fellow at Manhattan Institute; Political Science Professor at City College of New York–CUNY Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  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 Professor Emeritus 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  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The two-state solution proposes establishing a separate Palestinian state alongside Israel as one way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But post-October 7th and the ongoing war, is it still a possible outcome? Those who say “yes” argue it's the most logical path toward achieving regional peace. Those who disagree say that the current circumstances and previous failed attempts makes the solution unlikely. Now we debate, in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations: Is the Two-State Solution Still Viable?  Arguing Yes:     Ambassador Dennis Ross, Counselor and Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy;     Mohammed Dajani Daoudi, Palestinian Peace Activist and Scholar; Founding Director of the Wasatia Academic Institute    Arguing No:     Elliott Abrams, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations;     Fleur Hassan-Nahoum, Former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem, Israel's Special Envoy for Trade & Innovation      Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Donald Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, but legal scholars question whether it could be overturned in an appeal or due to a new Supreme Court ruling. Those arguing for New York say no individual, even a president, is above the law. Those arguing for the defendant say his actions were within the scope of his official duties. Now we debate: Mock Trial: Should Trump's Conviction Stand? For the Appellee: Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law  For the Appellant:  Randy Zelin, Trial Attorney; Adjunct Law Professor at Cornell Law School    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Biden continues to dismiss concerns about seeking re-election. But after a disappointing debate performance, some Democratic leaders are increasingly concerned about whether he's still fit to lead. Those in support of Biden argue his withdrawal would fragment Democrats and they don't want to risk losing undecided voters to Trump. Those calling for him to step aside argue that a new candidate could re-energize the Democratic base and improve election chances. Now, we debate: Should Biden Step Aside?   Arguing Yes: Michelle Goldberg, Opinion Columnist at The New York Times   Arguing No: Dmitri Mehlhorn, Co-Founder of Investing In US  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Please note: This discussion was recorded on July 11th before the assassination attempt on former President Trump.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From AI to the political climate during an election year, our modern world is constantly changing and facing more polarization than before. How can we combat it and adapt to a changing America? CNN host and bestselling author Fareed Zakaria says you have to be open-minded and embrace compromise. In this conversation with John Donvan, Zakaria discusses our current revolutionary times, how past revolutions can help us understand our present, and why despite everything, he's still hopeful. Our Guest: Fareed Zakaria, Host of CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS; Author of "Age of Revolutions: Progress and Backlash from 1600 to the Present"    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week in Open to Debate a sex worker rights advocate and a human rights attorney have a passionate and vigorous debate about these laws, with the common goal of figuring out what's best for sex workers. Arguing “yes” it is ok to pay for sex, is Kaytlin Bailey, who is the founder and executive director of a nonprofit organization that seeks to change how society views sex workers. Arguing “no” is Yasmin Vafa, who has advocated on the federal and international level for protecting women and other vulnerable populations as the founder and executive director of Rights4Girls. She is also on several national task forces that help educate policymakers on preventing sex trafficking and violence.  

Marriage has long been considered a goal to aspire to and a conventional path to happiness. But over the last few decades, the traditional view of marriage as the cornerstone of adult life has been questioned. Changes in economic conditions, gender roles, and cultural values have fueled a reevaluation of whether marriage is still desirable or necessary for personal fulfillment and social stability. Those who believe it's better to get married argue that married individuals report better physical and mental well-being, compared to single adults. They also experience economic and social benefits. Those who believe it's better to be single say singledom helps promote independence, allows individuals to make decisions freely, makes it likely to create broader social networks and communities, and feel more fulfilled than they would if they felt pressured to be partnered.     Whether you are in a relationship or not, we debate the following prompt: Married or Single?  Arguing Married: Jonathan Rothwell, Principal Economist at Gallup   Arguing Single: Bella DePaulo, Social Scientist and Author of "Singled Out" and "Single at Heart"    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Though they share similar values, guidelines, and principles, Islam and Judaism have a long, complicated relationship that has led to tension recorded within the Quran that might engender antisemitism. Those who agree argue that certain Quranic verses could be used to justify some people's hostility towards Jews. Those who disagree say that references to Jews must be understood in their historical and textual contexts and there have been multiple periods of Muslim-Jewish tolerance. Now we debate: Is Islam Antisemitic?  Arguing Yes: Tim Dieppe, Head of Policy at Christian Concern    Arguing No: Reza Aslan, Iranian-American Religion Scholar; Bestselling Author of "Zealot"   Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One of the oldest professions in human history, prostitution remains heavily stigmatized and legally complex globally, ranging from full decriminalization or criminalization to controlled regulation like the Nordic Model, where only purchasers of sex, not sellers of sex are penalized. This model has been implemented in eight countries, including Sweden, Canada, and Israel, as well as in the U.S. state of Maine. Those who argue that it is ok to pay for sex say that it's a profession that deserves as much respect as any other and that those who do it for a living have a right to do with their bodies as they please. They also argue that decriminalizing the profession is the only method to reduce violence against sex workers. Those who argue that it is not ok to pay for sex and in support of the Nordic model object to it morally, stating that it is degrading and harmful to individuals and their communities, and that it often involves exploitation and coercion, sometimes even opening the door to human trafficking.     With this background, we debate the following question: 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

China recently conducted two days of military exercises around Taiwan as a “punishment” for “separatist acts” by Taiwan's new president. Beijing sees Taiwan as territory that needs to be “reunified” with the mainland, while the U.S. is Taiwan's strongest backer. Some argue that China's military presence is too large to stop and the island nation is indefensible. Those who disagree argue that American credibility is on the line and they should stand by their political posturing. Now we debate: Is Taiwan Indefensible?    With this background, we debate the question: Is Taiwan Indefensible?  Arguing Yes: Lyle L. Goldstein, Research Professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute at the U.S. Naval War College; Charlie Glaser, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University    Arguing No: Elbridge Colby, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense; Elizabeth Larus, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at University of Mary Washington      Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Many colleges during the pandemic decided to make their applications test-optional, but new research has elite colleges rethinking that policy. Those in favor of reinstating say the SAT is the best way to bring talented students from all socioeconomic levels into the fold. Those against it say it favors the affluent and argue that admissions decisions should be based on a holistic, more inclusive review that considers a wide range of factors Now we debate: Should Elite Universities Reinstate the SAT? Arguing Yes: John Friedman, Professor and Chair of the Economics Department at Brown University   Arguing No: Ben Nelson, Founder of Minerva University  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Tensions have been ramping up at universities across the country as students continue to protest the war in Gaza. Reports of antisemitism, islamophobia, and harassment have led to concerns that some students have crossed a line into hateful and threatening speech that requires intervention. Others contend that efforts to clamp down on protests in the name of campus safety suppresses free speech. Within that context, we revisit this debate on adjacent issues from a few years back to see what lessons that can be applied to the current situation: Is Free Speech Threatened on Campus?  Arguing Yes: John McWhorter, Linguist and Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University; Wendy Kaminer, Writer and Lawyer    Arguing No: Shaun Harper, Founder and Executive Director of the USC Race and Equity Center; Jason Stanley, Professor of Philosophy at Yale University  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Former criminal offenders in the United States face challenges reentering the job market after incarceration and so-called “Ban the Box” policies aim to fix this. This criminal justice initiative calls for removing questions about criminal history from job applications and delaying background checks. Those against "the box" argue former offenders shouldn't continue to be punished and it prevents societal reintegration. Those in favor of early screening argue employers have a responsibility to ensure their business's safety and make informed hiring decisions. Those who are against it argue former offenders shouldn't continue to be punished and it prevents societal reintegration. Now we debate: Ban the Box: Should We Banish the Criminal History Check Box from Job Applications?    Arguing Yes: Beth Avery, Senior Staff Attorney at the National Employment Law Project  Arguing No: Jennifer Doleac, Executive Vice President of Criminal Justice at Arnold Ventures    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Religion has long shaped human civilization, and many have wondered whether it's good for society. Those who argue “yes” say it offers a sense of identity and belonging and provides a moral compass to do good acts. Those who argue “no” say that religious beliefs are a source of historical and conflict and discrimination and can hinder social progress that clash with modern values. Now we debate: Is Religion a Force for Good?  Arguing Yes: Shadi Hamid, Columnist and Editorial Board Member of The Washington Post; Assistant Research Professor of Islamic Studies at Fuller Seminary  Arguing No: Annie Laurie Gaylor, Co-Founder and 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

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released new guidelines to address childhood obesity, affecting over 14 million children, including recommendations for weight loss medications and surgery. Those who consider the guidelines good medicine say that it is a step forward in recognizing obesity as a condition requiring a range of medical interventions. Those who think the guidelines are too extreme worry these approaches could impact mental health and body image, contributing to weight stigma and shame. Now we debate: Childhood Obesity Guidelines: Good Medicine or Too Extreme? Arguing "Good Medicine: Dr. Julia Nordgren, Pediatric Lipid Specialist at Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Attending Physician at the Stanford Weight Clinic  Arguing "Too Extreme": Dr. Janna Gewirtz O'Brien, Pediatrician and Assistant Professor at University of Minnesota Medical School  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

During Black History Month, we reflect on a debate that confronts America's complex history with racial and social inequality. How can we ensure fair treatment for all in the workplace, on campuses, and in our personal interactions? Is it possible to imagine a future beyond race? As we honor this month of remembrance and celebration, we revisit a conversation that confronts the challenges of our past and the promise of a future that aspires to secure equitable opportunities for all.     Arguing Yes: Jamelle Bouie, Columnist for the New York Times    Arguing No: Coleman Hughes, Host of the “Conversations with Coleman” podcast and Contributing Writer at The Free Press      Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates     Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Iran's regional role has changed post-October 7, but is Iran a bigger global threat than we think? In partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations, National Security Council and State Department veterans will debate in our Unresolved format Biden's Iran diplomacy, Iran's use of proxies in the Middle East, its nuclear ambitions, and whether Iran now poses a threat to the global order.  Michael Doran, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at the Hudson Institute  Barbara Slavin, Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Center  Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations  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 discusses her new online course, 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  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With polarization rising within our society and two wars encouraging division, people are feeling more afraid to engage with people who have differing perspectives. How can we solve that issue, build deeper connections, and get to know someone? New York Times columnist David Brooks says you help them feel seen and understood. John Donvan sits down with Brooks to discuss his book “How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen”, how to foster connections in daily life, and offers a solution to a society in need of appreciating each other's differences. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In response to a surge in migrants and asylum seekers at America's borders, the Secure the Border Act of 2023 aims to enforce stricter limitations on immigration, migrants, and more. Those arguing for passage say it is a necessary response to improve national security and modernize border security infrastructure. Those against it are concerned about the humanitarian impact and question its effectiveness. Now we debate: Should Congress Pass the Secure the Border Act?  Arguing Yes: Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies    Arguing No: Kristie De Peña, Senior Vice President for Policy and Director of Immigration Policy at Niskanen Center   Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From AI-generated paintings to writing scripts and novels, AI is challenging our endeavor to create, innovate, and connect. Will the human touch be obsolete? Those arguing yes say since AI-created art can't experience human emotions, it will lack depth, and it will come at an economic cost for human artists. Those arguing no say it's another tool in a toolkit and will help express talent like never before. Now we debate: Will AI Kill the Future of the Creative Arts?  Arguing Yes: Jonathan Taplin, Author; Director Emeritus of the Annenberg Innovation Lab at the University of Southern California  Arguing No: Rebecca Fiebrink, Professor at the University of the Arts, London's Creative Computing Institute    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The centrist group No Labels is planning a bipartisan nominating convention, leading to speculation that they may promote a third-party candidate for voters who don't support Donald Trump or Joe Biden. Those who agree say a third-party ticket will affect the election by helping Trump get more votes and diluting opposition. Those who disagree say voters may like the third-party candidate better, reducing Trump's chances. Now we debate: “How Would A No Labels Presidential Candidate Change the Outcome in 2024?”  Arguing Yes: Rahna Epting, Executive Director of MoveOn    Arguing No: Ryan Clancy, Chief Strategist of No Labels   Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How can you have meaningful conversations in increasingly divided times, whether it's against the backdrop of American politics or the Israel-Gaza war? To author Mónica Guzmán, it's by asking yourself, “What am I missing?” John Donvan sits down with Guzmán to talk about her work at Braver Angels, staying hopeful in times of conflict or during world events, and why using curiosity to navigate today's polarized landscape is easier than you think.     Mónica Guzmán is the author of "How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times" and Senior Fellow for Public Practice at Braver Angels.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

More American colleges are adopting DEI as a core value, affecting professors' tenure, hiring, and promotion. Has what was intended as solidarity turned into a “loyalty oath”? Those who agree say evaluations based on DEI statements harm professors who may not embrace an agenda, affecting academic freedom. Those disagreeing say the statements aren't intended to push a viewpoint but to reward a professor's actions. Now we debate: “Are DEI Mandates for University Faculties a Bad Idea? Arguing Yes: Randall L. Kennedy, Professor at Harvard Law School    Arguing No: Brian Soucek, Law Professor and Chancellor's Fellow at University of California, Davis  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

 Economic growth is a central goal of many economies, but there are questions about how sustainable relentless growth is. Those arguing “yes” say the right measurements aren't being used for societal well-being and how much it costs the environment, and call for a new economic model for more equitable and sustainable futures. Those arguing “no” say growth drives today's prosperity, brings public good, and fuels advancements. Now we debate: Does Economic Growth Cost Too Much?    Arguing Yes: Peter Victor, Environmental Studies Professor Emeritus and Senior Scholar at York University  Arguing No: Katherine Mangu-Ward, Editor-in-Chief at Reason    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Modern art, runway fashion, and music today are in the middle of a cultural reckoning, where artists must find a balance between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation. Those in support of borrowing say placing restrictions on what artists can be inspired by may stifle artistic expression. Those against it say doing so erases a tradition's context while echoing past mistreatment. Now we debate: Should Artists Be Allowed to Borrow From Cultures Besides Their Own?  Arguing Yes: Yascha Mounk, political scientist, author, and associate professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies    Arguing No: C. Thi Nguyen, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Utah; Author of "Games: Agency as Art"  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Under prime minister Narendra Modi, pro-Hindu nationalism and civil rights issues have led to India's downgrade to an electoral autocracy (according to V-Dem Institute), and many question whether better times are ahead. Those who agree with Modi's leadership highlight the new strong economic growth as well as his efforts to improve India's global influence. Those who disagree point to increasingly divisive policies and their effects on the non-Hindu population. Now we debate: Is Modi's India Heading in the Right Direction? Arguing Yes: Sameer Lalwani, Senior Expert in South Asia Programs at the United States Institute of Peace  Arguing No: Prerna Singh, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Brown University    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

While the two-party system has been the standard in the US government, third parties have often challenged this status quo and now advocates to be added to election ballots permanently. Those who agree say third parties offer non-partisan solutions and are more representative of ideologies, unlike the polarized partisanship present now. Those who disagree say the two-party system fosters stability and simplifies voting decisions. Now we debate: Does America Need A Third Party? Arguing Yes: Andrew Yang, Founder of the Forward Party, Former Presidential Candidate   Arguing No: Daniel DiSalvo, Senior Fellow at Manhattan Institute; Political Science Professor at City College of New York–CUNY    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Similar to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, neurotechnology techniques like decoded neurofeedback open the possibility of modifying or erasing memories that aren't pleasant or beneficial to our well-being. Those in favor argue it could help offer a path to a mentally healthier and happier life. Those against it say that tampering with memories could be dangerous to our sense of self and undermine our experiences. Now we debate: Should We Erase Bad Memories?    Arguing Yes:  Nita Farahany, Author of "The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology", Professor at Duke University, and the Founding Director of the Duke Initiative for Science & Society    Arguing No: Sigal Samuel, Senior Reporter for Vox Future Perfect and co-host of the Future Perfect podcast    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When you think about the world's most intractable problems, racial inequality is among the most challenging. Societies have grappled not just with how to treat community members equitably in public spaces, but how to judge individuals based on qualities that extend beyond race in personal interactions. For many decades, some have pointed to “color blindness,” or treating people without regard to race or ethnicity, as the best way to promote equal opportunity. But, there are many who believe the approach downplays racial bias and silently maintains discrimination.    Arguing YES is Jamelle Bouie, Columnist for the New York Times  Arguing NO is Coleman Hughes, Host of the “Conversations with Coleman” podcast and Contributing Writer at The Free Press    Emmy Award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Social media platforms have become an integral part of the modern digital landscape, shaping how young individuals connect, communicate, and perceive the world around them. However, concerns have been raised regarding the potential negative consequences on children's mental well-being. Even recently, the US Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy released an advisory stating there's a risk of profound harm to children and adolescents' mental health and well-being. Those who agree claim that excessive social media usage can make children experience low self-esteem and negative body image. They also highlight cyberbullying and online harassment, which can contribute to increased stress, anxiety, and depression. Those who disagree say that when used responsibly and with proper guidance, social media can enhance social and creative skills, foster a sense of belonging, provide access to valuable educational resources, and help support communities. They also note that studies measuring social media's impact on kids' mental health don't always take into account other prominent factors.     With this context, we debate the question: Is Social Media Bad for Kids' Mental Health?     Arguing “YES” is Jim Steyer, founder and CEO of Common Sense Media.  Arguing “NO” is Candice Odgers, Professor of Psychological Science and Informatics at University of California, Irvine, and Director of Research and Faculty Development at University of California, Irvine's School of Social Ecology     Emmy Award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) needs to approve safe and effective drugs as quickly as possible to patients who need them, it must also maintain the diligence and rigor necessary to prevent harm. Two health experts look at the pace of FDA approvals and argue about whether the agency is getting it right on keeping the public safe or stifling health innovations. Now we debate: Is the FDA Too Cautious?  Arguing Yes: Colin Hill, CEO & Co-Founder, Aitia    Arguing No: Peter Lurie, President and Executive Director of Center for Science in the Public Interest   Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The age of eligibility for full Social Security benefits is currently 67, but the cash reserves behind it are expected to run out by 2034. Those arguing “yes” to raising the retirement age say people these days are living longer, and it will lead to more economic growth. Those arguing “no” say not everyone is able to work longer and it'll make large benefit cuts. Now we debate: Should the Government Raise the Retirement Age?  Arguing Yes: Marc Goldwein, Senior Vice President and Senior Policy Director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget      Arguing No: Teresa Ghilarducci, Irene and Bernard L Schwartz Professor of Economics and Policy Analysis at The New School    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Originalism is a way of interpreting the Constitution that could help it be understood through either framer's intent or what the public would've intended at the Constitution's ratification. Supporters say the Constitution needs modern interpretation, even if some pre-existing circumstances are nonexistent. Others argue it doesn't make sense to keep our laws limited to what society back then would've valued.  In this context, we debate: Should the Supreme Court Focus on the Original Meaning of the Constitution?  Arguing Yes: Randy Barnett   Arguing No: Prof. Thomas Colby  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How can we argue in good faith? How can we communicate with confidence? How can we uncover new ideas through the art of debate? Journalist, broadcaster, and best-selling author Mehdi Hasan has made a career out of doing just that. Named one of the 100 'most influential' Britons on Twitter, and included in the annual global list of 'The 500 Most Influential Muslims' in the world, Hasan has become a bit an expert on deconstructing arguments and nudged disagreements toward mutual understanding. His book, "Win Every Argument," seeks to sharpen those skills among its readers, and relay the intrinsic value—and pleasure–of debate. John Donvan sits down with Hasan to go over the tricks of the trade, and examining methods of rooting out truths through argument.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices