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

In this engaging discussion, Michael W. McConnell, a former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge and law professor at Stanford, debates the legality of Elon Musk's actions involving DOGE. He examines the intricate legal dynamics and potential conflicts of interest stemming from Musk’s government role. The conversation dives into constitutional concerns, the impacts of technology on legality, and accountability within the Trump administration. McConnell’s insights challenge assumptions about governance and ethics, making for a thought-provoking exchange.

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 Appelbaum, Member of the New York Times Editorial Board  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Note: We have employed the colloquial ‘Daylight Savings Time’ phrasing used by our debaters and moderator. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Stephen Moore, an economist and senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, argue for tariffs as essential tools for national security and supporting domestic production. On the opposing side, Jennifer Hillman from the Council on Foreign Relations highlights their potential economic harm and legal issues, while Rana Mitter from Harvard emphasizes the ineffectiveness of tariffs and advocates for alternative strategies. The discussion delves into the complex landscape of trade policies and their implications for U.S.-China relations.

In a thought-provoking conversation, Harold Koenig, Director at Duke University’s Center for Spirituality, explores how religion may provide social support to combat loneliness. Senator Chris Murphy highlights the global loneliness crisis, advocating for community solutions. In contrast, Ruth Whippman argues for secular approaches as more inclusive, while Dan Barker critiques the potential alienation caused by organized religion. Together, they tackle the complex interplay between faith, community, and mental health in today's society.

In this engaging discussion, Maria Avgitidis, a seasoned matchmaker and CEO of Agape Match, debates with Melissa Hobley, Global CMO of Tinder. They dive into the paradox of choice in dating apps and the quest for authentic connections. Avgitidis argues that these platforms lead to superficial interactions, while Hobley highlights their convenience and success stories. The conversation also touches on Gen Z's desire for genuine relationships and the shifting norms in modern dating. Tune in for a lively exploration of whether it's time to say goodbye to dating apps!

Join former Senator Jeff Flake, law professors Cristina Rodríguez and Jamal Greene, and ex-Attorney General Jeff Sessions as they tackle the future of the Supreme Court. They debate the contentious idea of term limits for justices, weighing potential benefits against risks of politicization. The conversation delves into judicial independence, external ethics codes, and the implications of expanding the court. The guests also address the striking trust gap between political parties and explore historical factors affecting the court’s legitimacy.

Harry Levant, Director of Gambling Policy at the Public Health Advocacy Institute and certified gambling therapist, dives into the heated debate on legalizing sports gambling. He shares insights on the rise of gambling addiction and its impact on public health. The dialogue contrasts the economic benefits of legalization with ethical concerns and the risks to vulnerable populations. Personal stories of loss highlight the addiction crisis, while discussions reveal the need for effective regulation and collaboration to ensure safer gambling practices.

David Allison, an obesity researcher and distinguished professor at Indiana University, argues for universal access to weight loss drugs like GLP-1 agonists. In contrast, Stuart W. Flint, Associate Professor at the University of Leeds, calls for further research before widespread use. They delve into ethical dilemmas, balancing personal choice with societal responsibility, and discuss the risks of side effects versus the necessity of these medications for effective weight management. The conversation invites reflection on health implications for diverse populations.

Jackson Katz, an educator and co-founder of the Young Men's Research Institute, teams up with Thomas Chatterton Williams, a staff writer at The Atlantic and visiting professor, to debate the role of identity politics in engaging male voters. They discuss the unique challenges facing men today, including health and education issues. Katz advocates for addressing men's narratives to reconnect with them, while Williams warns that focusing on identity could deepen divisions. The conversation dives deep into the need for inclusive narratives that resonate across diverse male experiences.