『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
  • Should Museums Repatriate Cultural Artifacts?

    Should Museums Repatriate Cultural Artifacts?
    2026/05/07
    For centuries, museums in Europe and the U.S. built their collections during eras of empire and unequal power. Now, institutions face growing calls to return artifacts taken through colonial rule or war, from the Benin Bronzes to Indigenous objects. Supporters say repatriation corrects historical injustice and restores sacred objects to their communities. Critics argue that museums serve a global public and that these works represent shared human heritage. Now we debate: Should Museums Repatriate Cultural Artifacts? Arguing Yes: Chika Okeke-Agulu, Artist, Curator, and Professor of Art and Archaeology and African American Studies at Princeton University Leila Amineddoleh, Art and Cultural Heritage Lawyer; Chair of the Firm’s Art Law Group at Tarter Krinsky & Drogin Arguing No: Dominic Selwood, Historian, Author, Journalist, and Barrister Mario Trabucco della Torretta, Classical Archaeologist 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
  • Should We Separate the Art from the Artist?

    Should We Separate the Art from the Artist?
    2026/04/30
    It turns out your favorite artist is a monster. Say they committed murder, advocated genocide, or engaged in some other act so outside the scope of a dignified, respectable society that it cannot be redeemed. What now? Must you throw the art out with the artists? It's a question at the heart of both pop culture and high art critique. For some, a work of art is an entity in itself. It should be appreciated and revered without regard to the life of its creator. If we disregard all great art for the sins of the artists, we risk losing many of the world's greatest cultural touchstones and masterpieces. But for others, the act of supporting a work of art translates directly affirming its creator's evil acts. In this timeless debate, we ask: Should we separate the art from the artist? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in September 2022. ARGUING YES: Randy Cohen, Writer & Humorist ARGUING NO: Aruna D'Souza, Writer & Art Critic 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
  • Should We Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies?

    Should We Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies?
    2026/04/23
    Your doctor tells you that, should you wish to have a child, that child is likely also to carry the disease. But a new gene-editing technology could ensure that your baby is -- and remains -- healthy. Should you do it? Critics say the technology will exacerbate inequality and meddle in the most basic aspect of our humanity. Now, we debate: Should We Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in February 2022. Arguing Yes: Dr. George Church, Geneticist & Founder, Personal Genome Project; Professor, Genetics, Wyss Institute and Harvard Medical School Amy Webb, Chief Executive Officer, Future Today Strategy Group; Professor, NYU Stern School of Business Arguing No: Marcy Darnovsky, Executive Director, Emerita, Center for Genetics and Society Françoise Baylis, Distinguished Research Professor, Emerita, Dalhousie University; President, Royal Society of Canada 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
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_c
まだレビューはありません