『Open to Debate』のカバーアート

Open to Debate

Open to Debate

著者： Open to Debate
無料で聴く

概要

 America is more divided than ever—but it doesn’t have to be. Open to Debate offers an antidote to the chaos. We bring multiple perspectives together for real, nonpartisan debates. Debates that are structured, respectful, clever, provocative, and driven by the facts. Open to Debate is on a mission to restore balance to the public square through expert moderation, good-faith arguments, and reasoned analysis. We examine the issues of the day with the world’s most influential thinkers spanning science, technology, politics, culture, and global affairs. It’s time to build a stronger, more united democracy with the civil exchange of ideas. Be open-minded. Be curious. Be ready to listen. Join us in being Open to Debate. (Formerly Intelligence Squared U.S.)343f45f0-d52a-11f0-8aa9-e1c43713a701 政治・政府 社会科学
エピソード
  • Is U.S. Control of Limited Territory in Greenland A Strategic Necessity?

    Is U.S. Control of Limited Territory in Greenland A Strategic Necessity?
    2026/02/06
    Greenland has become a geopolitical flashpoint. President Trump wants control of it, or at least sovereignty over some areas for military purposes, arguing that the United States gaining some territorial rights in Greenland is a necessity for U.S. security. But some leaders worry that a power grab could pit NATO against the U.S. and weaken an already fragile world order. Now we debate: Is U.S. Control of Limited Territory In Greenland a Strategic Necessity? Arguing Yes: Alexander B. Gray, Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council; Former Deputy Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff of the White House National Security Council Michael Pillsbury, Senior Advisor for the President’s Office at The Heritage Foundation Arguing No: Kori Schake, Senior Fellow and the Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Max Boot, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; Columnist at The Washington Post 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
    続きを読む 一部表示
    53 分
  • Legalize Assisted Suicide

    Legalize Assisted Suicide
    2026/01/30
    In 1994, Oregon voters passed the Death with Dignity Act, which legalized physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Since then, it has become legal in 4 more states, including New Mexico, where the state court ruling that it is constitutional is under appeal. Is it, in the words of the American Medical Association's code of ethics, "fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer"? Will these laws lead to a slippery slope, where the vulnerable are pressured to choose death and human life is devalued? Or do we need to recognize everyone's basic right to autonomy, the right to end pain and suffering, and the right to choose to die with dignity? ARGUING YES: Peter Singer: Co-Founder of the Effective Altruism movement; Author of “The Most Good You Can Do" Andrew Solomon: Author of “Far From the Tree”, Professor of Clinical Psychology at Columbia University ARGUING NO: Baroness Ilora Finlay: President of the British Medical Association, Member of the House of Lords Daniel Sulmasy: Prof. of Medicine and Ethics at University of Chicago, Member of the Presidential Bioethics Commission Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on our 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
    続きを読む 一部表示
    53 分
  • Innovation or Intrusion: The Big Data Debate

    Innovation or Intrusion: The Big Data Debate
    2026/01/23
    Every click, search, and online purchase feeds the data economy, driving AI, global business, and even political campaigns. But with risks growing in the private and public spheres, is Big Data advancing society or undermining its foundations? Supporters argue Big Data powers innovation by fueling breakthroughs in medicine, public health, and everyday efficiency. Yet critics warn that it erodes privacy, concentrates power, and threatens democracy. In the age of algorithms and analytics, is Big Data a necessary innovation or a dangerous intrusion? Arguing "Innovation": Kenneth Cukier, Deputy Executive Editor at The Economist Arguing "Intrusion": Carissa Véliz, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Philosophy and the Institute for Ethics in AI at the University of Oxford Xenia Wickett, Geopolitical strategist, moderator at Wickett Advisory, and Trustee of Transparency International UK, is the guest moderator. Join the conversation on our 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
    続きを読む 一部表示
    53 分
まだレビューはありません