Open to Debate

The dangers of climate change are “no longer over the horizon.” Humanity may soon pass the “point of no return.” These are the phrases U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres used to describe what he called an “utterly inadequate” global response to rising temperatures. But if we were to decisively act and restructure our global economy with the climate in mind, who would shoulder the burden? Or should our collective focus orient more toward humans’ capacity for adaptation? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in July, 2022



Arguing Yes:

Bjorn Lomborg, Author of the Bestsellers "Cool It" and "The Skeptical Environmentalist"; Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center

Matthew Kahn, Provost Professor of Economics and Spatial Sciences at the University of Southern California

Arguing No:

Michele Wucker, Economic Policy Expert & Founder of Gray Rhino & Company

Kaveh Madani, Environmental Scientist; Former Vice President of the United Nations Environment Assembly Bureau; Former Deputy Head of Iran’s Department of Environment

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

Near-death experiences have long challenged our understanding of consciousness and mortality. Some who come close to death report leaving their bodies, encountering vivid visions, or feeling profound peace. Are these experiences evidence that consciousness can survive death — or can they be explained by what happens in a dying brain? This 2014 debate is one we're still thinking about today. We ask whether science can reveal what, if anything, awaits us after we die.

Arguing Yes:

Eben Alexander, Former Neurosurgeon; Author of "Proof of Heaven"

Raymond Moody, Medical Doctor; Author of "Life After Life"

Arguing No:

Sean Carroll, Physicist & Writer

Steven Novella, Academic Neurologist at the Yale School of Medicine

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

The midterms are coming up this fall, and right now we are in the middle of a contentious primary season, with a lot of new faces challenging incumbents—and many winning. It’s in this context that we revisit our debate from 2022: Are Primary Elections Ruining Democracy?

Arguing YES

Elaine Kamarck, Founding Director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution

Arguing NO

Jed Ober, Former Director of Programs at Democracy International and Former Chief of Staff for Pennsylvania Congresswoman Susan Wild

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates

Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As America celebrates 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, the legacy of the Founders is under renewed scrutiny. Were they visionary architects of liberty whose achievements and creations should be celebrated, or has reverence for them sanitized the past, how we think of democracy, and the compromises embedded in the nation's founding? As the U.S. marks its semiquincentennial, we debate: Is It Time to Stop Idolizing the Founders?

Arguing Yes: Osita Nwanevu, Contributing Editor at The New Republic; Columnist at The Guardian

Arguing No: Helena Rosenblatt, Distinguished Professor of History, French, and Political Science, and the MA Program in Liberal Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates



Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.

Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Fifty years after the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment, the death penalty remains one of America's most divisive issues. Supporters argue it delivers justice for the most heinous crimes, provides closure for victims’ families, and ensures the worst offenders can never kill again. Opponents point to wrongful convictions, racial disparities, and the moral consequences of allowing the state to take a life, arguing that life without parole is enough. Now we debate: Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in April 2015.

Arguing YES:

Diann Rust-Tierney, Executive Director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

Barry Scheck, Co-Director of the Innocence Project and Professor at Cardozo Law School

Arguing NO:

Robert Blecker, Professor at New York Law School

Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

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