Open to Debate

Economic inequality has become a linchpin of modern politics. As nations around the world face a reckoning on racial and social justice and work to combat the economic impacts of the pandemic, we ask: Is it time to redistribute the wealth? Should we address growing inequality by overhauling our tax system, expanding our social safety nets, and investing more in public initiatives like universal health care, education, and infrastructure? Or would a wealth transfer unduly punish the economic elite, destroy the promise of a meritocracy, and inevitably lead to excessive government intervention in our social and economic lives? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As more and more Americans become vaccinated, schools, employers, and health care facilities are facing a tough decision: Will they require students, employees, and care givers to get the jab? Those who say “yes” cite safety concerns – particularly when dealing with vulnerable populations – and call it a necessary step to return to normal. Those who say “no” argue these sorts of mandates violate individual rights, could expose recipients to potential dangers from the vaccines themselves, and set dangerous broader precedents when it comes to government overreach in public health. It is an especially timely question that pits health concerns up against ideals of personal liberty. And it has practical implications as societies emerge from lockdown. Having it out in the public square, Intelligence Squared host John Donvan presides over a spirited debate between Michael J. Anderson, a Wisconsin attorney who has represented employees resisting vaccine mandates, and Lawrence Gostin, a professor of law at Georgetown University, which is enforcing a vaccine mandate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Generally, it is good practice for any individual or organization to occasionally step back and evaluate a few big picture items. But when that review is sparked by a pandemic and real uncertainties about the state of western democracy, that little exercise often becomes existential. In that spirit, and in this special season review, Intelligence Squared casts a critical lens on itself; its mission to serve as a beacon for civil discourse, its examination of opposing perspectives; and the transformation the organization itself has experienced in light of such seismic events. In this especially candid discussion, John Donvan sits down with Intelligence Squared CEO Clea Conner, editor-at-large of Reason magazine, Nick Gillespie, and Robert Litan, an economist and attorney, whose recent book “Resolved: Debate Can Revolutionize Education and Help Save Our Democracy” bears particular relevance to this conversation. Collectively, this group asks the hard questions about the role of debate in society, but also of how IQ2 pivoted as the virtual world opened up. Finally, it is a look at the precious few places left for genuine discussion, and why, perhaps, it is needed now more than ever.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How do you know that you’re right? Modern business, politics, and even culture, tend to favor strident opinions and decisive action. To “flip flop” may then be construed as ineptitude, or even weakness. So it behooves us to “stick to our guns, “stay the course,” and adhere to other well-trodden idioms of the English language. Of course that approach may be limiting. And what if you are actually wrong? How will you know? What means testing can be involved in your thinking when to waver or even change your mind might undermine what you are ultimately trying to accomplish? Ray Dalio, an American investor, billionaire and the founder of the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, has spent a lot of time thinking about this quandary. Countering its pitfalls is something he actively encourages, not only in business, but also in his personal life. In this wide ranging interview, Dalio sat down for a conversation with Intelligence Squared host John Donvan to examine what it means to being open to changing your mind, precisely how to do it, and what’s at stake if you don’t. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Is Bitcoin here to stay? Cryptocurrencies hold the promise of revolutionizing global finance by placing control in the hands of users, not nations, and making financial exchanges more transparent, efficient, and democratic. But given the yet-another-round of boom and bust cycles seen recently, questions remain: Could cypto ever be considered a safe bet? Proponents say the hype is warranted, with naysayers increasingly jumping on the Bitcoin (block) train. Yet skeptics and critics – like Elon Musk – suggest this highly volatile digital currency offers a platform for illicit activity, including money laundering and trafficking of humans and drugs, free from government oversight and regulation. They argue Bitcoin has no intrinsic value – the price is based on market enthusiasm rather than actual utility. So… in light of renewed attention, Intelligence Squared U.S. sought to resurrect this highly relevant debate: Is Bitcoin More Than a Bubble and Here to Stay? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In light of the recent Israel-Hamas war, an old debate is gaining new relevance. The nature of the current conflict has again unleashed a wave of antisemitic threats and violence in the U.S., with synagogues and Jewish-owned business having been vandalized and attacked. But as society surveys the damage, it also asks whether the condemnation of Israeli actions can truly be divorced from antisemitic hostilities? In other words, is being an anti-zionist tantamount to being antisemitic? Or is arguing against a state of-and-for the Jewish people just a thinly veiled way of harboring prejudice? In this debate, which first aired in February 2020, and accordingly has a few dated references which we felt were necessary to keep, Intelligence Squared looks to four expert panelists to debate this question: Is Anti-Zionism the New Anti-Semitism?For the Motion:Bret Stephens - Op-Ed Columnist, New York TimesEinat Wilf - Former Member, Israeli ParliamentAgainst the Motion: Peter Beinart - Journalist & Author, "The Crisis of Zionism"Yousef Munayyer - Executive Director, US Campaign for Palestinian Rights 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

Will you need a digital passport to prove you’ve been vaccinated the next time you try to board a flight or get into a concert? The idea is already being tested in Israel and governments around the world – including the Biden administration – are exploring what vaccine credentials might look like. For some, these digital tools are a golden ticket back to “normal” life. But for others, these tools raise dire concerns about privacy, civil rights, and equitable access. In this episode of Agree to Disagree, John Donvan sits with Peter Baldwin, history professor from UCLA, and Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst at ACLU, to debate the future of vaccine passports. 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? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

India and South Africa have petitioned the World Trade Organization to suspend intellectual property protections for Covid-19 vaccines. These nations – along with a coalition of scholars, activists, and nonprofit organizations – argue that developing nations are at risk of waiting years to get full access to the vaccines unless these protections are lifted. But their opponents say suspending patent protections will do little to speed up the manufacturing process. Instead, undermining these protections will ensure that the next time the world needs an emergency vaccine, governments and pharmaceuticals will be unable to act as swiftly. It’s a debate emblematic of the uneven vaccine rollout, and strikes at the core of society’s ability to act quickly. In this episode of Agree to Disagree, John Donvan sits with Thomas Cueni, director-general of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations and Brook Baker, law professor at Northeastern University and senior policy analyst at Health GAP, to debate the future of vaccine patents. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices