Open to Debate

The government shutdown is a dramatic display of the growing strife not only between the Republican and Democratic parties, but also, among the GOP itself. For some, the shut down has even called into question the effectiveness of the American political system, which makes a debate we held back in 2011 all the more relevant today. The motion was "The Two-Party System is Making America Ungovernable". The team arguing for the motion included Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post, and NYTimes Op-Ed Columnist David Brooks. The team arguing against the motion, and in support of the two-party system, included political satirist PJ O’Rourke and author and columnist Zev Chafets. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Although President Obama signed it into law in March of 2010, the Affordable Care Act remains one of the nation’s most divisive issues. Over the past nearly four years, House Republicans have voted 40 times to repeal the law in part or in whole. Just this week, Senator Ted Cruz spent hours on the Senate floor speaking against the healthcare law, while President Obama took the stage at the Clinton Global Initiative to explain intricacies of the healthcare overhaul. So, how has it come to this point? Why does healthcare remain such a contested issue nearly 6 years into Barack Obama’s presidency? To shed light on the evolving public debate surrounding healthcare, Intelligence Squared US is recapping a debate it held in 2011, just 9 months after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law. The controversial motion up for debate was: "Repeal Obamacare." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Remotely piloted aircraft, or drones, have been the centerpiece of America’s counterterrorism toolkit since the start of the Obama presidency, and the benefits have been clear. Their use has significantly weakened al Qaeda and the Taliban while keeping American troops out of harm’s way. But critics of drone strikes argue that the short-term gains do not outweigh the long-term consequences—among them, radicalization of a public outraged over civilian deaths. Is our drone program hurting, or helping, in the fight against terrorism? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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