Open to Debate

The oldest members of the Millennial generation are reaching their forties and feel they’ve been left behind emotionally and financially. Those who agree say Millennials pay more for basic items, leading them unable to afford to buy a home or have children. Those who disagree say that not buying a house or having kids are their choices and they will soon be doing well financially. With this context, we debate: Will Millennials Be Left Behind?  Arguing Yes: Jill Filipovic, Journalist, lawyer, and author   Arguing No: Scott Winship, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center of Opportunity and Social Mobility at the American Enterprise Institute Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large of Reason, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The age of eligibility for full Social Security benefits is currently 67, but the cash reserves behind it are expected to run out by 2034. Those arguing “yes” to raising the retirement age say people these days are living longer, and it will lead to more economic growth. Those arguing “no” say not everyone is able to work longer and it’ll make large benefit cuts. Now we debate: Should the Government Raise the Retirement Age? Arguing Yes: Marc Goldwein, Senior Vice President and Senior Policy Director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget    Arguing No: Teresa Ghilarducci, Irene and Bernard L Schwartz Professor of Economics and Policy Analysis at The New School  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Originalism is a way of interpreting the Constitution that could help it be understood through either framer’s intent or what the public would’ve intended at the Constitution’s ratification. Supporters say the Constitution needs modern interpretation, even if some pre-existing circumstances are nonexistent. Others argue it doesn’t make sense to keep our laws limited to what society back then would’ve valued. In this context, we debate: Should the Supreme Court Focus on the Original Meaning of the Constitution? Arguing Yes: Randy Barnett  Arguing No: Prof. Thomas Colby Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The US has more than $31 trillion in national debt. If it is breached, the government may go into default, leading to national and global consequences. Supporters in favor of abolishing the debt ceiling say it is counterproductive, leads to political drama, and an economic threat. Those arguing “no” say it’s an effective tool of governance that allows discussion about national spending and keeps lawmakers accountable. Now we debate: Should Congress Abolish the Debt Ceiling?  Arguing Yes: Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics Arguing No: Parker Sheppard, director for Center of Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation   Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Since his 2022 re-election, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has introduced plans for a new judiciary reform, leading to large-scale public protests. Supporters say these changes will better balance the power between lawmakers and judges and bring Israel’s judiciary system closer to other countries. Others argue these reforms will undermine the judiciary branch’s independence and affect the country’s relationship with the U.S. and Palestinians. So we debate: Is Netanyahu’s Government Heading in the Wrong Direction? Arguing Yes: Jeremy Ben-Ami, President of J Street and Executive Director of JStreetPac Arguing No: Caroline Glick, Former Senior Contributing and Chief Columnist for the Jerusalem Post and Senior Columnist for Maariv Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Are certain books beyond reproach? It’s a fundamental question making its way across America’s school boards. Those who argue “yes” say schools should not expose children to topics they deem inappropriate like gender, sexuality, and race. Others say that reading controversial books fosters critical thinking, encourages empathy, and that professional educators should be involved in guiding students through such literature. In this context, we debate: Should Certain Books Be Banned in School?  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How can we argue in good faith? How can we communicate with confidence? How can we uncover new ideas through the art of debate? Journalist, broadcaster, and best-selling author Mehdi Hasan has made a career out of doing just that. Named one of the 100 'most influential' Britons on Twitter, and included in the annual global list of 'The 500 Most Influential Muslims' in the world, Hasan has become a bit an expert on deconstructing arguments and nudged disagreements toward mutual understanding. His book, "Win Every Argument," seeks to sharpen those skills among its readers, and relay the intrinsic value—and pleasure–of debate. John Donvan sits down with Hasan to go over the tricks of the trade, and examining methods of rooting out truths through argument.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When it comes to carbon dioxide, last year was a record year. The world emitted more of the climate-warming gas in 2022 than in any year since scientists began recording levels in 1900. The culprit, says the International Energy Agency, is society’s voracious appetite for fossil fuels, and the need to burn them. So … what can be done to prevent dangerous levels of warming? One potential method is called carbon capture and storage, a technology in which CO2 is extracted and stored in underground facilities. In fact, as recently as February, Exxon Mobil announced that it will use Honeywell technology in Texas to capture some seven million tons of carbon dioxide per year. Other companies, meanwhile, have followed suit. But it is not without controversy. Critics say the technology is not cost effective, is unreliable in large scales, and that the level of carbon removal needed to help the planet is well beyond current capacity. As such, they say, it is a dangerous distraction in the broader fight against climate change, potentially diluting the urgency in reducing emissions. Others say these systems are ever more adept at capturing gases from the air, and that they have the potential to become a critical tool in the battle against rising emissions. It is in this context that we debate the following question: Is Carbon Capture Essential to Fighting Climate Change? Arguing “YES” is Katherine Romanak, Research Scientist, Bureau of Economic Geology   Arguing is “NO”: Mark Zachary Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, Director of its Atmosphere/Energy Program & Co-founder of The Solutions Project  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Last year was a banner year for those trading the New York chill for the Florida sun. Thirty-nine percent of Empire Staters packed up and moved to the Sunshine State, more than any year in history. In fact, recent census data revealed 1.6 million former New Yorkers (or 8% of Florida’s total population) now call Florida home — and it’s not just retirees. Favorable tax policies are fueling Florida’s popularity, attracting top businesses, budding entrepreneurs, and so-called one-percenters, such as Donald Trump and Carl Icahn. Does that mean Florida is a better bet? Those who argue “yes” say New Yorkers are heading south where their money can last longer, their health can benefit from warmer climates, and their sense of safety can markedly improve. Others say that ‘blue state’ policies are a better choice in the long run and that as the effects of the pandemic recede, New York will once again rise in popularity. They also say the state’s inclusive practices and cultural diversity will pull people back to New York. It is in this context that we debate this question: Is Florida Eating New York’s Lunch? Arguing Yes: Reihan Salam -- Conservative Political Commentator, Columnist and Author, president of the Manhattan Institute  Arguing No: Bill de Blasio – Mayor of New York City from 2014 to 2021  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When the Great Recession struck, it was the start of the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. A slumping housing market revealed vulnerabilities of huge numbers of mortgage-backed securities and derivatives. In the aftermath, unemployment soared to 10%. GDP dropped by more than 4%, and federal authorities unleashed a series of unprecedented fiscal and monetary policies aimed at stemming the bleeding. When the dust finally settled, legislators and regulators pushed through a series of reforms meant to prevent the repeat of such a calamity. Fast forward to 2023 and the global banking system may be facing its most significant crisis since 2008. Within a short span, a run on deposits at Silicon Valley Bank quickly led to the third-largest bank failure in U.S. history, with Switzerland's Credit Suisse later seeking government lifelines. A second US regional bank — Signature Bank — failed, and a third — First Republic Bank — was propped up. To some, these are signs of the kinds of broader risks the global economy stared down in 2008. A combination of factors, including an eroding of regulations, sharp interest rate rises, mismanagement at banks, coupled with the overarching uncertainty of volatile crypto landscape, have raised new questions about the scale of turmoil that could confront markets. This cocktail of risks, some argue, has added such dangers to banking systems that it is no longer safer than it was in 2008. Others disagree. As bad this recent crisis appears to be, they say, regulatory reforms and liquidity requirements have made significant strides since the days of 2008. The system also effectively contained the contagion, something that required far greater government intervention in 2008. In that context, we debate the following question: Is the Banking System Safer Than It Was in 2008? Arguing YES: Jason Furman, Former Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers   Arguing NO: Gillian Tett , Editor-at-Large, Financial Times (U.S.) Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices