Open to Debate

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

What's it take to debate like a champion? How can you engage so that people will listen? How can you listen actively, and respond in good faith?  A mission critical program for listeners of Intelligence Squared, we sit down with Bo to examine debate through the lens of education, politics, and the future of democracy. Considered one of the most recognized figures in the global debate community, he has won both the World Schools Debating Championship and the World Universities Debating Championship, and has since been writing for The New York Times and The Atlantic. In this wide ranging interviews, Bo discusses his new book, “Good Arguments,” in which he argues how good-faith debate can enrich our lives and fortify our society.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Psychedelics, in medical terms, is an inexact category of drugs that affect perceptions and cognition. Their proponents say 1960s-era associations have undermined exciting research in the field of neuroscience. Psychedelics should be made much more widely available, they contend, to treat a range of mental and emotional issues, as well as to ascertain a more profound sense of ourselves. People should also be empowered to make their own decisions in its use. Not so fast, say opponents. These are powerful substances. And society does not know enough about the broader consequences of greatly increasing access. Cautionary tales should be heeded. Either way, like cannabis, the movement for wider use is growing. So… here’s our debate: should society legalize psychedelics? This debate originally aired in April, 2021. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Tesla vehicle sales are, well … electric. The company posted $5.5 billion in 2021 profits, roughly six times its previous year earnings. Globally, the electric car industry is anything but static, soaring to 7 million units in 2021. EV advocates argue that while the technology and resources aren’t perfect, they are ultimately better for the environment long term as the tech improves. Opponents say the kinds of infrastructure EVs require still require huge investments that would be better suited for more ecologically-friendly mass transit systems. So, does your electric vehicle help the planet?  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In a modern-day battle of David and Goliath on Wall Street, thousands of amateur retail investors banded together to bid up stocks in a handful of failing companies, most notably the nostalgic video game hub known as GameStop. Within days, the renegade traders sent stocks soaring and dealt heavy blows to hedge funds and other traditional professional investors who had bet against the companies. The "meme stock" phenomenon was born. But where does "revolution" stand a year later? Did the amateurs—trading mostly on the Robinhood platform—change the world of finance? Should more "ordinary" investors get into the game? Or will that benefit Wall Street at the little guy's expense?   In this "Agree to Disagree," the Wall Street Journal's Spencer Jakab and Tastytrade co-founder Tom Sosnoff take on the meme stock debate head-to-head.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Supreme Court is poised to make a decision so controversial that even a leaked draft majority opinion can send shockwaves across the nation. In 98-pages, Justice Alito decried Roe v. Wade as “egregiously wrong from the start," declared no right to abortion can be found in the Constitution, and sent abortion laws back to the states — about half of which have "trigger laws" that will ban abortion almost immediately upon Roe's demise. Exactly how likely is this draft opinion to become the law of the land? What would overturning such a landmark ruling mean for the Court as an institution? And are the Justices ultimately correct in holding that Roe was simply wrong? Against the backdrop of divisive media coverage and partisan sensationalism one of the nation's most polarizing topics, we're doing what we do best: In this Intelligence Squared "pop-up" debate, we bring two of the nation's most esteemed legal scholars to the table for a civil, thoughtful debate on the merits of whether it’s right to end Roe.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The calls for nuclear are growing louder. The Biden administration recently announced that it was putting $6 billion toward saving distressed nuclear power plants from closure, considering them carbon-free alternative to fossil fuels. Elon Musk doubled down, not only calling for an expansion of nuclear energy, but even offering to eat food grown near reactors live on TV.  But its critics argue that expanding nuclear energy is dangerous, costly, and ill-advised.  So, we unearthed from the archives this highly-relevant debate: Should nuclear energy fuel our future?   Arguing in favor of the motion is Kirsty Gogan and Daniel Poneman. Arguing against the motion is Gregory B. Jaczko and Arjun Makhijani. The keynote address comes from Bill Nye. And Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The hallmark of a productive debate is not persuasion, but insight. So says Adam Grant in this wide-ranging conversation with John Donvan and Intelligence Squared CEO Clea Conner. A good argument is not only about convincing, Grant explains, but also to learn. In his new book, Think Again, Grant explores a set of cognitive skills that might matter more than pure aptitude: The ability to rethink and unlearn. That is the focus of this conversation; the capacity to change your mind, and why it matters more than ever. Guest: Adam Grant, host of the podcast WorkLife with Adam Grant from the TED Audio Collective  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices