A genetic disease runs in your family. Your doctor tells you that, should you wish to have a child, that child is likely to also carry the disease. But a new gene-editing technology could change your fate. It could ensure that your baby is -- and remains -- healthy. What do you do? It’s is not without its perils. Critics say the technology will exacerbate inequality, pressure all parents (and nations) into editing their children to stay competitive, and meddle with the most basic aspect of our humanity. So, should we use gene editing to make better babies?  Arguing in favor of the motion is geneticist George Church and futurist Amy Webb. Arguing against the motion is policy advocate Marcy Darnovsky and philosopher Françoise Baylis. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

If you are an old-fashioned romantic, true love has a nice ring to it. Our films, novels, poems, and music are all steeped in the notion, with characteristics that include unwavering fondness and even selfless devotion. But does it actually exist, driven by our biological underpinnings? Or is it a myth that harms what could be a more realistic, and thus healthy, expectation of relationships? As American marriages teeter at historic lows, and attitudes shift, it is a growing question among both the single and the attached.    Arguing “No” is Helen Fisher, biological anthropologist and author of Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray. Arguing “Yes” is Renae Franiuk, professor of Psychology at Aurora University, whose research focuses on social psychology, including romantic relationships. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Following this Agree to Disagree conversation, John sits down with Daniel Jones, Editor of Modern Love at The New York Times. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It’s been a year of the Biden administration. And for many around the world, the question is simple: Can America still lead like it used to? President Biden, following his predecessor's “America First” policy, promised to “restore the soul of America.” Many took that to mean Washington was looking to reassert itself as the pre-eminent global leader. But some say that ship has sailed, and question whether the tables are decidedly turning. In light of this emerging divide, we debate this question: Is America retreating from global leadership?    Arguing in favor of the motion is Bill Kristol, Founder and Editor-at-Large of The Weekly Standard, and Mary Beth Long, Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs  Arguing against the motion is Kori Schake, Director of Foreign and Defense Policy of the American Enterprise Institute, and Vikram Singh, a Senior Advisor for the U.S. Institute of Peace and Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense.   Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

They say that colleges have become too censorious. That our most prestigious institutions have abandoned their mission of fostering critical minds and sparking thoughtful dissent. And that a generation of American students is missing out. So, this group of scholars and activists are founding something new: a university – they say – dedicated primarily to free speech. The University of Austin will get its start with a series of noncredit "Forbidden Courses." In this Intelligence Squared conversation, John Donovan sits down with the university's inaugural president Pano Kanelos and co-founder Niall Ferguson to discuss.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Two years ago in January, the Covid-19 virus made its way to American shores. And so … as we wrap up 2021, we thought we’d bring you an amalgam of our best Covid content. Our host John Donvan guide you through the depths of what to this day remain highly contentious policies and decisions that continue to affect virtually all of us. And so … from all of us at Intelligence Squared, we hope you enjoy it. Happy holidays. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Amazon has come a long way since online book sales. In fact, when it comes to revenue, Jeff Bezos’ creation is the world’s biggest internet-based company. But what makes the "everything store" so ubiquitous? In large part, it’s the small and medium-sized businesses that use the platform to sell their goods. This year, more than 1.9 million of these businesses participated in its marketplace, which accounted for some 60 percent of Amazon's retail sales. But was it ultimately good for them? In the midst of this historic transition in shopping, that's our debate: Is Amazon good for small business? Debating in favor of the motion is Mark Jamison, economist at the American Enterprise Institute, with Kunal Chopra, tech executive and former Amazon GM. Arguing against the motion is Rana Foroohar, global business columnist at the Financial Times and author of “Don’t Be Evil”, with co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Stacy Mitchell. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The hereditary lottery, in many democracies, has effectively been replaced by a system in which talent, grit, and ability are meant to determine success. Yet, amidst income inequality and legacy of racism, many wonder whether meritocracy works. Critics point to generational wealth and networks that lead to lucrative jobs and fancy educations. Those who defend meritocracy argue that talent ultimately wins out, and despite its flaws, meritocracy remains the most effective way of lifting disenfranchised groups.   Arguing “yes” is Daniel Markovits, professor at Yale Law School and author of "The Meritocracy Trap: How America's Foundational Myth Feeds Inequality, Dismantles the Middle Class, and Devours the Elite."  Arguing “no” is Adrian Wooldridge, political editor and "Bagehot" columnist for The Economist and author of "The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World." Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You know the drill. Someone does, or says, something offensive. A public backlash -- typically on Twitter -- ensues. Then come the calls to "cancel" that person, brand, or institution. That usually means the loss of cultural cache, political clout, and often a job or career. Some see "cancelling" as a modern-day means of holding people to account, while others express concerns about digital mobs policing speech. So, we ask: Is cancel culture toxic? Arguing in favor of the motion is Kmele Foster of FreeThink with chess grandmaster and political activist Garry Kasparov. Arguing against the motion is Erich Hatala Matthes of Wellesley College with Karen Attiah of the Washington Post. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The boosters are rolling out. In places likes the U.S., Britain, and Israel, authorities are providing additional Covid-19 vaccines with the goal of bolstering immune systems and shoring up their economies. Though vaccines such as Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have proven highly effective against the virus, efficacy wanes after six months, rendering older adults and those with weakened immune systems more vulnerable. Yet a debate about fairness, when much of the planet is unvaccinated, is growing.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With cyber threats and ransomware on the rise globally, the Biden administration has enlisted America’s tech titans to help blunt their effects. Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, are all in discussions with Washington over how to strengthen the nation’s critical infrastructure defenses against a growing array of both private and state-sponsored attacks. Skeptics question just how much can be achieved, given how connected U.S. society has become. But solutions are emerging, from lifting the veil of cryptocurrencies, a favored transaction among hackers, to making the paying of ransoms illegal. In this special edition of Intelligence Squared’s Agree-to-Disagree series, John Donvan sits down with David Sanger of The New York Times for a closer examination of these attacks before launching into a much more specific debate with two cyber security experts. The debate: Should paying hacker ransoms be made illegal? Cyber Threat Alliance president and chief executive Michael Daniel and Rapid7 vice-president Jen Ellis square off in light of recent high-profile hackings.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices