Is there a clear course of action the U.S. could take to help the Syrian people that would lead to a better outcome for the country? Or is greater U.S. involvement likely to do little good in the end? The question has taken on a new sense of urgency following a recent attack near the Syrian capital Damascus that left hundreds dead. The Syrian opposition says it was a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government, a charge the government denies. The Obama administration is now weighing possible responses. A group of experts took on the Syria question Aug. 9 in an Oxford-style debate for Intelligence Squared U.S., in partnership with the Aspen Strategy Group. They argued two against two on the motion: "The U.S. Has No Dog In The Fight In Syria." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Political gridlock in Washington triggered across-the-board spending cuts, known as the sequester, in March. As a result, the Pentagon was given six months to eliminate $41 billion from the current year’s budget, and unlike past cuts, this time everything is on the table. In 2011, America spent $711 billion dollars on its defense—more than the next 13 highest spending countries combined. But the burdens it shoulders, both at home and abroad, are unprecedented. Could the sequester be a rare opportunity to overhaul the armed forces, or will its impact damage military readiness and endanger national security? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Food and Drug Administration, the oldest comprehensive consumer protection agency in the U.S. federal government, is charged with protecting the public health. Under this mandate, it regulates drugs and medical devices for their safety and effectiveness. But is it a failing mandate? It’s long been argued that the FDA’s long and costly approval processes stifle innovation and keep life-changing treatments from the market. But the question remains: when it comes to public health, is it ever okay to sacrifice safety for speed? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

2012 was a disappointing year for Republicans. The failure to win key swing states in the presidential election and surprising losses in the House and Senate have prompted some reflection. Was their embrace of small government, low taxes, and a strong conservative stance on social issues at odds with shifting American demographics? Or did the GOP embrace the right platform, but the wrong candidates? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The first attempt at establishing a national minimum wage, a part of 1933’s sweeping National Industrial Recovery Act, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1935. But in 1938, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law a minimum hourly wage of 25 cents—$4.07 in today’s dollars. Three-quarters of a century later, we are still debating the merits of this cornerstone of the New Deal. Do we need government to ensure a decent paycheck, or would low-wage workers and the economy be better off without its intervention? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It’s often taken for granted that America needs a strong dollar. When the value of the U.S. dollar is strong relative to other currencies, it becomes attractive to investors and allows Americans to buy foreign goods and services cheaply. But in times of recession, are we better off with a weak dollar that stimulates U.S. manufacturing by making our goods cheaper and more competitive? Or will the loss of purchasing power and currency manipulation abroad, offset the potential gains? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Imagine a world free of genetic diseases, where parents control their offspring’s height, eye color and intelligence. The science may be closer than you think. Genes interact in ways that we don’t fully understand and there could be unintended consequences, new diseases that result from our tinkering. But even if the science could be perfected, is it morally wrong? Would it lead to eugenics and a stratified society where only the rich enjoy the benefits of genetic enhancement? Or would the real injustice be depriving our children of every scientifically possible opportunity? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Over the summer of 2012, despite increased international pressure and economic sanctions, Iran doubled the number of nuclear centrifuges installed in its underground Fordow site, stopping just short of the capacity to produce nuclear fuel.  President Obama has rejected Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s call to draw a “red line” that would trigger U.S. military action. But what would the costs and benefits of military action be? Can Israel live with a nuclear Iran, or could the time be near for a pre-emptive strike? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The podcast explores the debate on whether science refutes God, discussing beliefs of scientists throughout history. It introduces guests who share their personal journeys from religious to atheistic beliefs. The speakers debate whether science can determine morality and the role of faith in decision-making. They also discuss the irrationality of beliefs in God and present opposing viewpoints on the existence of divinity. The debate results show a higher agreement with the motion 'Science refutes God'.

The podcast explores the ongoing debate on drug legalization, discussing the costs of the war on drugs and recent marijuana legalization. It covers wrongful arrests, perspectives on recreational drug use, and arguments for and against drug legalization. The negative impacts of drug prohibition, the argument for legalizing all drugs, and the decline of cannabis cafes are also discussed. The chapter explores the role of the Obama administration, the political question of drug legalization, and concludes with a closing statement supporting the legalization of drugs.