Open to Debate

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

Men are falling behind in our society, and some point to traditional ideas of masculinity as the cause. What does it mean to “be a man” today, and how do labels like toxic masculinity impact that question? For some men, masculinity is a continually evolving identity that goes beyond narrow definitions placed upon it. For others, it's a rigid set of expectations that results in emotional isolation and other negative outcomes. Now we debate: Is Masculinity A Prison? Arguing Yes: Lux Alptraum, Writer, Journalist, and Sex Educator Arguing No: Mike Pesca, Host of "The Gist" Podcast Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator. 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. 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

Pope Leo XIV’s accession could mean a new opportunity to reform the Catholic Church by allowing women as ordained deacons. Those advocating for this change argue that allowing women would represent a return to early Church tradition and showcase an evolving Church ready for modernity. Those against this argue that it would blur theological lines and that women already play substantial leadership roles within the Church. Now we debate: Is It Time for the Catholic Church to Ordain Women as Deacons? Arguing Yes: Casey Stanton, Co-director of Discerning Deacons Arguing No: Pia de Solenni, Theologian; Former Chancellor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange in California Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator. 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

Love in the time of AI? Some people seeking romance or friendship are turning to AI chatbots to fulfill those desires, but could they surpass traditional human relationships? Those who say they can argue that AI can offer empathy and safety, and it’s a solution for those left out of traditional dating. Those saying they can’t argue that intimacy is complicated and cannot be replicated in code. Now we debate: Could Dating an AI Be Better Than Dating a Human? Arguing Yes: Thao Ha, Associate Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University Arguing No: Justin Garcia, Executive Director & Senior Scientist at the Kinsey Institute; Chief Scientific Advisor to Match.com Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Host of "Smart Girl Dumb Questions", is the guest moderator. 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

Open to Debate, in partnership with the Human Rights Foundation and the Oslo Freedom Forum, is examining a strategy employed by many countries to respond to aggressive or authoritarian regimes. In recent years, these have been levied against countries such as Russia, Venezuela, and Iran, which have ranged from freezing assets and trade bans to travel restrictions and full embargoes. But do sanctions work in deterring repression? Those arguing that they’re effective claim that they’re a nonviolent way to force change and serve as a deterrent for other countries. Those who are skeptical about the efficacy of sanctions say they are leaky, don’t lead to regime change, and can harm civilians and exacerbate humanitarian crises. Now with this background, we debate the question: Are Sanctions an Effective Policy Tool? This debate was produced in partnership with the Human Rights Foundation and was recorded at the Oslo Freedom Forum in Oslo, Norway, on May 26, 2025. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Under President Trump, America’s role on the global stage is being redefined — but can other countries trust its allyship under his leadership? Critics argue his transactional approach and threats to abandon allies undermine trust and force nations to reconsider their security. Supporters counter that demanding more from partners is “tough love” that will lead to stronger, more balanced alliances. Now we debate: Is Trump’s America a Reliable Ally? Arguing Yes: Joshua Shifrinson, Associate Professor at University of Maryland's School of Public Policy; Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute Kelly Grieco, Senior Fellow with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program at the Stimson Center Arguing No: Liana Fix, Fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations Charles Kupchan, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The new Trump presidency has led to pressure on the First Amendment, and the lines between free expression and political enforcement are blurring. Those who say speech is now freer argue that his actions are restoring viewpoint diversity. Those who argue it’s more restricted argue it’s a crackdown on speech that doesn’t align with the administration’s views, especially in Harvard’s case. In partnership with the Cascades PBS Ideas Festival, we debate free speech’s evolution in the Trump 2.0 era. Nadine Strossen, Senior Fellow at FIRE; Former President of the ACLU Brandi Kruse, Host of "unDivided with Brandi Kruse” Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason, is the guest moderator. 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

In light of today's breaking news—Israel’s targeted airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, and Iran's retaliation—we are re-releasing our episode that confronts one of the most urgent questions of our time. Originally aired in January 2025, this debate has only grown more relevant, with our two experts offering insights critical for understanding the road ahead. 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 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