Open to Debate

Is it true that artificial intelligence will do more harm than good? Proponents say it will help us solve problems like climate change and world hunger, while eliminating dangerous and mundane jobs. But critics warn that A.I.’s current trajectory is a dangerous one, which will likely concentrate power, reduce jobs, surveil consumers and voters alike, and threaten democracy. What’s more, some people say these conditions are not based on science fiction, but are already in the process of afflicting us, given the number of algorithms we engage with on a daily basis. So, could artificial intelligence be used to help solve some of the world’s most pressing challenges and level the playing field, or will it present perils that far outweigh any good it might do?      Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Last year, only 1.5 million high school students took the SAT, down from 2.2 million in the class of 2020. Covid-19 played a big role in the decision among many schools not to move forward with at-home testing. But the move sparked even wider discussion about the test itself. Currently, at least 75% of colleges actually don’t require the SAT or ACT. That’s an all-time high, with many schools pledging not to return to it. But is that the right move? Proponents call into question the efficacy and inequity of standardized tests, pointing to high-profile college admission scandals, as well as those leveraging access to resources to net higher scores. They argue a more expansive approach to admissions is better suited in selecting students. Those who defend the SAT, however, say the test presents opportunities for smart under resourced students to get into top schools. Removing such tests could actually make present inequities worse. Additionally, the focus should be on addressing the achievement gap, rather than merely changing the way students are evaluated. Personal essays, GPA, extra curricula, they say, are just as easy to game with financial privilege. So in this context, we ask: Should the SAT be erased?   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. While the term "cancelling" has roots in a misogynistic joke, it has come to be one of the most prominent tools of progressive activists. Many see "cancelling" as a modern-day means of holding people to account, calling out injustice, and breaking down ingrained systems of prejudice and exploitation, particularly for the historically marginalized. But others see it differently. They are sounding alarms about the emergence of a new cancel culture where digital mobs police our speech, invade our rights, and even put our physical safety at risk. They argue that cancel culture has created a society ruled by online censorship and eroded our public discourse. Against this backdrop, we ask: Is cancel culture toxic? Featuring Kmele Foster, Garry Kasparov, Erich Hatala Matthes and Karen Attiah. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After a series of prime-time hearings from the January 6th Committee and hundreds of charges against individuals who a participated in the events of that day, the Department of Justice faces a complex political and legal question: Should it charge Donald Trump with federal crimes?Arguing "yes" is Barbara Comstock. Arguing "no" Tom Ginsburg. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Processed food is bad for you, right? Well, there’s more to this story. As new technologies create foods that can’t be made in home kitchens, such as plant-based meats and dairy products made with plant proteins, the question of whether we should all be consuming more highly processed foods is up for debate. Advocates say a substantial increase in food processing is the best way to feed growing human populations while also reducing food waste. We should trust – and invest – in food technology that can make our global food supply healthier and more sustainable, including highly or ultra-processed foods. Opponents argue that these kinds of foods are often less nutritious, and are commonly linked to adverse health indices, particularly when it comes to ultra-processing. As this debate blooms, Intelligence Squared partners with the Institute of Food Technologists to debate this question: Should We Eat More Processed Foods?  Arguing in favor of the motion is Amy Webb and Michael Gibney. Arguing against the motion is Kevin Hall and Marion Nestle. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Facing growing discontent over the rising cost of higher education, many prominent Democrats – and some Republicans – are calling on Washington to cancel the approximately $1.6 trillion Americans currently owe in student loan debt. Supporters see debt forgiveness as a necessary step to safeguarding the nation’s financial future and combating inequality in the education system. But others argue that this blanket policy would balloon the federal deficit, reward irresponsible borrowers, and waste taxpayer money on those who are not actually in need. Is it time for a student loan bailout?  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As punishment for the war, most of Russia’s energy imports to Europe will be banned by the end of the year. But is that smart policy? Those who argue “yes” say Russia must be punished for its actions. Those who argue “no” say isolating the Kremlin  to this extent is a dangerous gamble, which could undermine Europe’s economies, push Russia further toward China, and lay the groundwork for an escalation. In this context, we debate this question, "Should we isolate Russia?  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Fed recently announced aggressive interest rate hikes and is signaling more to come. Its goal? To stabilize the economy amid surging inflation (reaching rates not seen in some 40 years) and lingering supply chain disruptions and shortages. But can the Fed actually manage a so-called "soft landing"?   Arguing "yes" is Dean Baker. Arguing "no" is Yeva Nersisyan. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Nine justices hold tremendous power. Advocates on the left see a Supreme Court out of touch with the electorate, obstructed by partisan interests, and rendered illegitimate by years of controversial appointments. But those opposed believe dramatically changing one of the three core pillars of American government would undermine the court’s legitimacy. Intelligence Squared U.S. in partnership with The Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law asks: Should we expand the Supreme Court?  This debate was initially released on September 30th, 2021. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The dangers of climate change are “no longer over the horizon.” Humanity may soon pass the “point of no return.” These are the phrases U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres used to describe what he called an “utterly inadequate” global response to rising temperatures. But if we were to decisively act, and restructure our global economy with the climate in mind, who would shoulder the burden? Or should our collective focus orient more toward humans’ capacity for adaptation?   Podcast: Arguing in favor of the motion are Bjorn Lomberg and Michael Shellenberger. Arguing against the motion is Kaveh Madani and Michele Wucker. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices