Open to Debate

The age of “information disorder” is upon us. Deep fakes, false political narratives, and flawed COVID rumors are all rampant online, threatening America’s national security, as well as democracy itself. Though bad actors have always had the capacity to deceive, the ease, speed, and degree to which anyone can create misleading information has engendered a dangerous new world. And yet many solutions can also run directly against longstanding western principles, such as free speech and a lack of censorship. Prescriptions, some argue, can be as dangerous as the disorder itself. So, what can be done? In partnership with the Homeland Security Experts Group, Intelligence Squared U.S. debates how to combat this dangerous new phenomenon, termed “information disorder.” Our expert panel takes a look at what the private sector should do, what the public sector can do, and how political actors who spread false information should be handled.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The fate of Taiwan is uncertain. As a revanchist China builds up forces near the island, the Biden administration is warning Beijing against an invasion, bolstering its defense with the sale of military hardware. Beijing sees Taiwan as lost territory, which needs to be “reunified” with the mainland. The United States is now faced with a geopolitical quandary: Can the U.S. military defend Taiwan from Beijing, and should it? Or, is Taiwan indefensible? Arguing in favor of the motion is Lyle J. Goldstein of the Naval War College, with Charlie Glaser of George Washington University. Arguing against the motion is former deputy assistant secretary of defense Elbridge Colby, with Elizabeth Larus of the University of Mary Washington. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The U.S. Constitution has a lot to say about elections. But nowhere is there any mention of political primaries, the process by which candidates are winnowed down ahead of a general election. Though they may seem integral to the U.S. system, primaries in fact are a relatively new phenomenon, borne of the turn of the 20th century when reformers sought to wrangle power from political party bosses. Of course, quite a lot has changed since the days of Tammany Hall. Gerrymandering has greatly reduced competitive districts, while the urban-rural divide has grown exponentially. Divisions run deep, with social media capable of dramatically shifting the political landscape at unprecedented speed. Many see primary elections as a principal culprit of what they consider an undermined democracy, fueling extremism, hindering compromise, and lending too much power to partisans. Others argue that primaries are an important bulwark against political corruption and a hedge against elitism. In this context, we ask: Are Primary Elections Ruining Democracy?  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How does one balance two important, though at times competing, public interests? In this case, it’s the need to hold public officials accountable versus the need to shield those officials from harassment and legal liability. In 1967, the US Supreme Court lay the foundations of an answer during a case involving two police officers, sued over civil rights violations carried out at a segregated bus stop in Jackson, Mississippi. The court effectively ruled that if unconstitutional arrests were made in good faith and with probable cause, officers then enjoyed a degree of legal immunity.  That case then served as bedrock for a legal doctrine that later came to be known as “qualified immunity;” a concept that effectively provides government officials with immunity from civil suits in certain circumstances. In 1982, the court went further, codifying qualified immunity for officials and rendering subjective intent of the official immaterial. In other words, whether or not a defendant was acting in good faith was effectively considered irrelevant. Under the revised doctrine, cases could proceed to trial only when there was a clear violation of “established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Since then, critics have argued that this doctrine stands as a central barrier to substantive police reform, allowing officers to more easily to kill or injure with impunity. But advocates say it’s a necessary protection, shielding police officers – who are tasked with making split-second life-and-death decisions – from bankruptcy and vindictive personal lawsuits. In this context, we debate this question: Is It Time to End Qualified Immunity for Cops?  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Unions may be on the verge of a resurgence. After decades of decline, workers are organizing at well-known companies, like Starbucks, Amazon, and Google, at a pace not seen since the 1930s. Decades of stagnant wages, recent labor shortages, and the most vocally pro-union President in recent memory have all stoked key wins for American labor, including successful strikes at John Deere and Kellogg. In fact, recent polling shows public support for labor unions has climbed to 71%, its highest level since 1965. During the old industrial days, unions had broad influence over the American economy. But their power waned. In 1983, one in 5 employees belonged to a union. Last year, that number had dwindled to one in 10, with most of the declines occurring in the private sector. Some say good riddance. They argue that unions actually hurt workers and the economy under the guise of supporting both. Union dues sap salaries, they say, and can actually increase unemployment. They also make the economy more rigid to change, raise consumer prices, and ultimately render unionized companies less competitive. Advocates, however, argue that in light of yawning income inequality, organized labor is desperately needed. Unions increase workers’ pay and benefits, they say, and can also settle disputes more equitably, improve wages, and encourage a more robust middle class. Of course, not all unions are created equal. And the difference between private and public-sector unions needs to be explored. Yet as public support for organized labor has grown as more workers push to join unions, an overarching question looms large: Do Unions Work For The Economy?  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 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

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

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?    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

For nearly three-quarters of a century, Queen Elizabeth II sat on high as Britain’s monarch. With her death, however, new momentum is building that questions the future of the British Crown. Several former British colonies, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Jamaica, have debated severing ties, while Republican campaigners in Britain now see opportunity to reassess what it means to have a monarchy, without offending a popular queen. Against that backdrop, we debate the longevity of the British monarchy. Arguing "NO" is Graham Smith, who heads the British anti-monarchy pressure group Republic. Arguing "YES," is Phillip Blond, English political philosopher and director of the ResPublica think tank. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices