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

Should Artists Be Allowed to Borrow From Cultures Besides Their Own?

After the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, economic sanctions led to frozen Russian assets abroad inaccessible and could be relocated to Ukraine. Those arguing yes say it would serve as restitution for Russia’s aggression and compensate for damages and economic disruptions. Those arguing no say relocating the frozen assets could set a concerning precedent, leading to escalated tensions and retaliatory actions. Now we debate: Should Ukraine Get Russia’s Frozen Assets?

Arguing Yes: Lawrence H. Summers, Former Secretary of the Treasury  
Arguing No: Benn Steil, Senior Fellow and Director of International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations 
 Gillian Tett, Editorial Board Chair and Editor-at-Large US of the Financial Times and Incoming Provost at King’s College Cambridge, guest moderates. 
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Should Ukraine Get Russia's Frozen Assets?

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

Is Modi's India Heading in the Right Direction?

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

Does America Need A Third Party?

According to an October 2022 Pew survey, “88% of US adults say that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use.” While marijuana legalization is gaining more and more cultural acceptance, effectively regulating drugs has long flummoxed policy and lawmakers. Some are even starting to have second thoughts, especially when it comes to how to practically enforce legal sales. In fact, voters in Oklahoma – one of the nation’s leading weed markets –overwhelmingly rejected recreational legalization earlier this year, even though voters backed medical marijuana legalization by a double-digit margin in 2018. Those who argue “Yes” for marijuana legalization say legalization creates more problems for our legal system because it requires extra enforcement to crack down on already robust illegal markets to make way for new, regulated, and legal markets. Additionally, competition from illegal weed markets is undercutting legal sales, which means the expected revenue stream from a legalized industry is far lower than expected. Those who argue “No” say legalization can reduce the burden on law enforcement and criminal justice systems, allowing resources to be redirected to more pressing issues. They also highlight marijuana’s medical benefits, such as for pain management and treatment of certain health conditions, which have made a difference in people’s lives. 
 
With this context, it’s time to debate — and reconsider — “Is Legalizing Marijuana A Mistake?” 

Arguing Yes: Paul J. Larkin, Jr, Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation and Teresa Haley, senior policy advisor at the Foundation for Drug Policy Solution   
Arguing No: Toi Hutchinson, CEO of the Marijuana Policy Project; former member of the Illinois Senate, and Cat Packer, Director of Drug Markets and Legal Regulation at Drug Policy Alliance  
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Is Legalizing Marijuana a Mistake?

For decades, objectivity has been cited as journalism's gold standard, promising that journalists would stick “to the facts" and deliver both sides of the story, excluding their personal views. Those in support say it builds trust and gives newsreaders the information they need to form their own opinions. Those against say it suppresses certain valuable viewpoints and that some issues don’t merit the "both sides" treatment. Now, we debate: "Is Objectivity Essential in Journalism?”

Arguing Yes: Bret Stephens, Opinion Columnist at The New York Times   
Arguing No: Leonard Downie, Jr, Former Executive Editor of The Washington Post 
Nayeema Raza, Journalist and executive producer and co-host of Vox Media’s "On with Kara Swisher" podcast, is the guest moderator. 
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Is Objectivity Essential to Journalism?

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

Should we Erase Bad Memories?

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 podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Does Color Blindness Perpetuate Racism?

In the wake of the Russian invasion, Ukraine has applied on a fast-track membership bid to join NATO. Those who argue “yes” say admitting Ukraine would keep the country protected, affirm its sovereignty, and solidify alignment with the West. Those who argue “no” say it will provoke Putin, escalate the conflict, and that it doesn’t yet meet NATO’s standards. Now we debate: Should NATO Admit Ukraine? 
Arguing Yes: Garry Kasparov, Founder of the Renew Democracy Initiative and former World Chess Champion   
Arguing No: Charles Kupchan, Senior Fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations and Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University 
Gillian Tett, Editorial Board Chair and Editor-at-Large US of the Financial Times and Incoming Provost at King’s College Cambridge, moderates. 
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Should NATO Admit Ukraine?

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 podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Is Social Media Bad For Kids' Mental Health?

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 podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Is the FDA Too Cautious?

In the US, misdemeanors count for 80% of cases filed annually, but district attorneys around the country are implementing policies stating they’ll no longer prosecute certain low-level, nonviolent crimes. Those who argue “yes” say it keeps communities safe and not strengthening sentencing will let violent criminals back in public and increase crime. Those who argue “no” say it doesn’t deter criminals and distracts from better solutions. Now, we debate: “Should Prosecutors Pursue Minor Crimes?” 

Arguing Yes:  John Milhiser, former US attorney for the Central District of Illinois  
Arguing No: Paul Butler, former federal prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice  
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Should Prosecutors Pursue Minor Crimes?

The oldest members of the Millennial generation are reaching their forties and feel they’ve been left behind emotionally and financially. Those who agree say Millennials pay more for basic items, leading them unable to afford to buy a home or have children. Those who disagree say that not buying a house or having kids are their choices and they will soon be doing well financially. With this context, we debate: Will Millennials Be Left Behind? 
 
Arguing Yes: Jill Filipovic, Journalist, lawyer, and author   
Arguing No: Scott Winship, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center of Opportunity and Social Mobility at the American Enterprise Institute 
Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large of Reason, is the guest moderator. 
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Will Millennials Be Left Behind?

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 podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Should the Government Raise the Retirement Age?

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 podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Should SCOTUS Focus on the Original Meaning of the Constitution?

The US has more than $31 trillion in national debt. If it is breached, the government may go into default, leading to national and global consequences. Supporters in favor of abolishing the debt ceiling say it is counterproductive, leads to political drama, and an economic threat. Those arguing “no” say it’s an effective tool of governance that allows discussion about national spending and keeps lawmakers accountable. Now we debate: Should Congress Abolish the Debt Ceiling?  

Arguing Yes: Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics 

Arguing No: Parker Sheppard, director for Center of Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation  
 
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Should Congress Abolish the Debt Ceiling?

Since his 2022 re-election, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has introduced plans for a new judiciary reform, leading to large-scale public protests. Supporters say these changes will better balance the power between lawmakers and judges and bring Israel’s judiciary system closer to other countries. Others argue these reforms will undermine the judiciary branch’s independence and affect the country’s relationship with the U.S. and Palestinians. So we debate: Is Netanyahu’s Government Heading in the Wrong Direction? 

Arguing Yes: Jeremy Ben-Ami, President of J Street and Executive Director of JStreetPac 
Arguing No: Caroline Glick, Former Senior Contributing and Chief Columnist for the Jerusalem Post and Senior Columnist for Maariv 
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 
 
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Is Netanyahu's Government Heading in the Wrong Direction?

Are certain books beyond reproach? It’s a fundamental question making its way across America’s school boards. Those who argue “yes” say schools should not expose children to topics they deem inappropriate like gender, sexuality, and race. Others say that reading controversial books fosters critical thinking, encourages empathy, and that professional educators should be involved in guiding students through such literature. In this context, we debate: Should Certain Books Be Banned in School? 
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Should Certain Books Be Banned in School?

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 podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What Does It Mean to "Win" An Argument?  Mehdi Hasan in Conversation with John Donvan

When it comes to carbon dioxide, last year was a record year. The world emitted more of the climate-warming gas in 2022 than in any year since scientists began recording levels in 1900. The culprit, says the International Energy Agency, is society’s voracious appetite for fossil fuels, and the need to burn them. So … what can be done to prevent dangerous levels of warming? One potential method is called carbon capture and storage, a technology in which CO2 is extracted and stored in underground facilities. In fact, as recently as February, Exxon Mobil announced that it will use Honeywell technology in Texas to capture some seven million tons of carbon dioxide per year. Other companies, meanwhile, have followed suit. But it is not without controversy. Critics say the technology is not cost effective, is unreliable in large scales, and that the level of carbon removal needed to help the planet is well beyond current capacity. As such, they say, it is a dangerous distraction in the broader fight against climate change, potentially diluting the urgency in reducing emissions. Others say these systems are ever more adept at capturing gases from the air, and that they have the potential to become a critical tool in the battle against rising emissions. It is in this context that we debate the following question: Is Carbon Capture Essential to Fighting Climate Change? 

Arguing “YES” is Katherine Romanak, Research Scientist, Bureau of Economic Geology   
Arguing is “NO”: Mark Zachary Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, Director of its Atmosphere/Energy Program & Co-founder of The Solutions Project 
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Get Started

Download the App