Open to Debate

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

Today we’re bringing you an episode of Smart Girl Dumb Questions, the new podcast by one of our frequent guest moderators, Nayeema Raza. Nayeema asks the questions we’re all thinking to big thinkers in this new show. It is brimming with curiosity, open-mindedness and a willingness to learn – values we hold dear at Open to Debate. As fertility rates plummet, and Millenials and Gen Z increasingly cite climate change and the state of the world as reasons they’re not having children, Nayeema asks: is the future really too bleak to have babies? Her guest is journalist Cleo Abram, a YouTuber who has amassed over 5 million subscribers as she tells optimistic tech stories. Nayeema and Cleo break down quantum, the rise of robots and how technology shifts from IVF to artificial wombs will change not just if, but how, we have babies. Also on the agenda: the media’s bias – not toward left or right, but toward negativity and the opportunity for more curious, independent and fact-based journalism. If you like this episode, you’ll enjoy Nayeema’s episode with Mark Cuban about capitalism, Neil deGrasse Tyson about physics, and two members of Gen Alpha about screen time. Follow Smart Girl Dumb Questions on Apple, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. The Guest: Cleo Abram, an independent tech journalist behind Huge If True The Host: Nayeema Raza, journalist and host of “Smart Girl Dumb Questions” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Reporter and podcaster Derek Thompson says we’re better at recognizing problems, but our ability to solve them has not improved. How can we make sure meaningful progress occurs? In this conversation with Open to Debate guest moderator Nayeema Raza, Thompson will discuss his new book “Abundance,” rethinking yesterday’s issues to address today’s problems, and what both sides of the political aisle should learn to ensure we have a more abundant society. Our Guest: Derek Thompson, Staff Writer at The Atlantic; Author of the "Work in Progress" Newsletter Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

American women are, on average, paid 84 cents for every dollar men make, according to the Department of Labor. This wage gap has persisted despite near-record rates of women’s participation in the labor market, with wage gaps even larger for women in minority populations, and it’s estimated that pay parity will not be achieved until 2052. Should policy interventions address these disparities, or is it more important to recognize and honor women's personal decisions and find another way to look at the gap Those in favor of fixing the gap see it as a point of fairness and equity that would bring economic benefits, such as enhanced family incomes and increased productivity, and say that new policies are needed urgently to dismantle systemic barriers stopping women from earning more. Those who aren’t in favor argue wage disparities reflect individual choices regarding career paths, work-life balance, and tenure, rather than systemic discrimination. They also point out that when adjusted for factors like job type, hours worked, and career breaks, the gap significantly narrows. Against this backdrop, we debate the question: Should We Address the Gender Wage Gap? Arguing Yes: Kadie Ward, Commissioner and Chief Administrative Officer of the Pay Equity Commission of Ontario Arguing No: Allison Schrager, Pension Economist, Bloomberg Opinion Contributor & Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute Nayeema Raza, Journalist at New York Magazine and Vox, is the guest moderator. 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

Are you ready to change the clock on Sunday? Is springing forward or falling back still an idea worth practicing? Those ready to end Daylight Savings argue it is inconvenient and has negative health and productivity effects. Those who want to keep Daylight Savings argue the time change’s effects are temporary and helps improve our quality of life. Now we debate: Is It Time to End Daylight Savings Time? Arguing Yes: Joan Costa-i-Font, Health Economist at the London School of Economics Arguing No: Binyamin Applebaum, Member of the New York Times Editorial Board 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

How’s your love life? With platforms like Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, and OkCupid offering endless opportunities to connect, many people searching for The One think signing up for a dating app should be a go-to for finding their match. However, new research is showing some users are signing off, including ninety percent of Gen Z users. Those staying on the apps point to their ease of use, accessibility, and the countless success stories of happily coupled friends who met that way. Others say dating apps aren’t offering authentic connections. A paradox of choice has also developed, with a belief there’s always someone else who you can connect with, which has made people less satisfied with their options. Before we continue to swipe right, we debate the question: Is It Time to Break Up with Dating Apps? Arguing Yes: Maria Avgitidis, Matchmaker and CEO at Agape Match Arguing No: Melissa Hobley, Global Chief Marketing Officer of Tinder Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator. 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

GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro have opened doors for people to lose weight. Should everyone have the option to take it? Those arguing “yes” say obesity needs to be treated using every available tool, especially for people for whom diet, lifestyle changes, and exercise aren’t enough. Those arguing “no” are concerned about its side effects and the risks if people don’t take them as directed. Now we debate: should prescription weight loss drugs be available for all? Arguing Yes: David Allison, Obesity Researcher; Dean and Distinguished Professor at the Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington Arguing No: Stuart W. Flint, Associate Professor of the Psychology of Obesity at the University of Leeds Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the 2024 election, the Democrats did not have messaging that resonated with men, some say and is part of the reason Kamala Harris lost. Could leaning into identity politics to engage men work for future elections? Those arguing “yes” say focusing on men-related issues could help the Dems reconnect with a demographic that feels left behind. Those arguing “no” say focusing on gender and identity politics divide voters rather than unite them. Now we debate: Could Identity Politics Help Democrats Engage Men? Arguing Yes: Jackson Katz, Educator, Author, and Co-Founder of the Young Men's Research Institute Arguing No: Thomas Chatterton Williams, Staff Writer at The Atlantic; Visiting Professor of Humanities at Bard College; Nonresident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The clock is ticking on TikTok. The popular video sharing app is facing a looming deadline of January 19th, when the law effectively banning it in the U.S. is set to go into effect. Unless, that is, the Supreme Court steps in to save it this week. While we wait, we revisit our 2023 debate that asked this prescient question: Should the U.S. Ban TikTok? Arguing Yes: Kori Schake, Senior Fellow and Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute Arguing No: Milton Mueller, Professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy; Founder and Director of the Internet Governance Project 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

Millions of people have credited Alcoholics Anonymous with helping them stay sober from alcohol, but is it the best path for everyone? Those who say “yes” argue it is easily accessible to all and that its structure through the 12-step program helps people succeed. Those who say “no” argue say the abstinence model doesn’t work for everyone and there may be better alternatives. Now we debate: Does AA Work? Arguing Yes: Dan Griffin, Expert on Alcoholics Anonymous; Author of "A Man's Way Through the Twelve Steps" Arguing No: Adi Jaffe, Founder of IGNTD; Author of "The Abstinence Myth" Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Co-Host of the Semafor Podcast "Mixed Signals", is the guest moderator. 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

Happiness is a complex emotion and mental state that can be achieved through virtue or pleasure. But should it be for the good of the individual or society? Those in favor of virtue point to the Stoics and the Founding Fathers, saying you should strive for a life of moral virtue and rationality. Those in favor of pleasure say everyone should be able to experience it and define their sources of happiness. Now we debate: The Pursuit of Happiness: Virtue or Pleasure? Arguing Virtue: Jeffrey Rosen, CEO & President of the National Constitution Center; Author of “The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America” Arguing Pleasure: Roger Crisp, Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford; Uehiro Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, Oxford Nayeema Raza, Journalist at New York Magazine and Vox, is the guest moderator. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Some scientific studies have shown evidence that psychedelic drugs, when used in controlled therapeutic settings, may help patients with their mental health — but should they be recommended by your doctor? Those advocating for psychedelic use argue that it could be a welcome relief for patients who don’t respond to traditional medicine. Those against its use argue we don’t yet understand their long-term effects. Now we debate: Psychedelics for Mental Health: Help or Hype? Arguing Help: Ismail Ali, Director of Policy and Advocacy at MAPS Arguing Hype: Kevin Sabet, President and CEO at the Foundation for Drug Policy Solutions Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices