Sixty years ago, in the sweltering August heat of Washington D.C., the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his most iconic speech, and a defining moment of the civil rights movement. "I have a dream,” he said before a crowd of some 250,000 people, pressed up to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, “that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." It is a sentence that has been repeated countless times in classrooms and lecture halls. And yet recently, King's words are more actively being parsed and debated about the appropriate place of race in America. With disparities in wealth, education, employment, housing, mobility, health, and rates of incarceration, some argue that King – who spoke during a period of more open bigotry – would not have wanted a “color-blind” society within these lingering racial inequalities. A raised consciousness plays an important role, they say, in recognizing and correcting such imbalances. Others argue that America has become overly concerned with race, to a level of obsession, pointing to things like critical race theory and diversity, equity, inclusion programs, which they fear could ultimately prove detrimental to the nation’s more egalitarian aspirations. Further, they argue, notions of race are often too broad to be useful, while the fixation on it divides those who might otherwise find common ground. In this context, we debate the following question: Is America Too Obsessed With Race?   Arguing “YES” is Kmele Foster, co-host of The Fifth Column podcast and the co-founder and executive producer of the media company Freethink. Foster was one of the signatories of the Harper's Letter on justice and open debate, alongside more than 150 people, including Salman Rushdie, J.K. Rowling, and Noam Chomsky. He is an outspoken libertarian critic of cancel culture, the Black Lives Matter movement, and political orthodoxy.   Arguing “NO” is Nsé Ufot, activist, community organizer, and former chief executive officer of the New Georgia Project, a voter support and legal action nonprofit organization founded by Stacey Abrams in 2013. In 2021, Ufot was named one of Time's 100 Next, a ranking of emerging leaders thought to define the next generation of leadership.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This year, the Federal Trade Commission decided shake up the labor market, proposing to ban non-compete clauses for the tens of millions of workers they affect. The clauses are essentially contracts between employers and employees that prohibit the former from competing with the business after the employment has ended. As many as 30% of all U.S. private sector workers have signed such agreements, which actually find their roots all the way back in 15th century England. Those who defend such clauses say employers need these contracts to protect their investments in training workers, not to mention safeguarding their trade secrets. The contracts, they say, represent not only a fair exchange, but also serve as an important fortification for businesses within the broader economy. The FTC, they say, is overextending. But opponents argue that such contracts prevent workers from starting their own businesses, locking them into undercompensated positions, and depress labor mobility and wage growth, while contributing to race and gender gaps. It is in this context that we debate the following question: Should the FTC Ban Non-compete Clauses? Arguing Yes: Arguing “YES”: Heidi Shierholz, Economic Policy Institute President and former Chief Economist to the U.S. Secretary of Labor. Arguing No: Neil Bradley, Executive Vice President, Chief Policy Officer, and Head of Strategic Advocacy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What’s it take to change a mind? It turns out there is a science to it. That’s at least according to David McRaney, a journalist, author, and host of the You Are Not So Smart podcast. The first step, he says, is don’t overtly try to win. In any argument, an attempt to defeat the opposing party is not nearly as effective as leading the person along in stages, which eventually align with your own thinking. In fact, mere exposure to different ideas, according a recent Pew study, does not generally change most Americans’ perspectives on a given issue. Understanding techniques to communicate successfully and proactively active listen, is ultimately thought to be a more effective approach. Intelligence Squared US, since 2026, has made fostering intellectual openness in dialogue a core part of its mission. In that context, and to get a sense of what other methods are out there, John Donvan sat down with David McRaney on the science of changing minds.     Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With one billion active users across more than 150 countries, TikTok is by many measures the world’s most successful video app. Nearly one in three Americans have an account. It is the most downloaded app since 2021. And like virtually all of social media, user privacy concerns abound. But TikTok adds an extra layer. Owned by Chinese company ByteDance, there are worries that U.S. data could be transmitted to China’s government, despite assurances from the company that it is not. Those concerns prompted President Joe Biden to ban Tiktok from government phones. More than half of U.S. states have similar controls in place. But with increased tensions between Beijing and Washington, and mounting questions of Chinese surveillance, some are calling for the U.S. to go further and ban the technology outright. Those supporting such a move often to point to a ban on another Chinese tech giant, Huawei, as an effective means of limiting China’s influence and potentially extractive technological efforts. Those who argue against it say a ban would essentially undermine what has become an important tool in the video marketplace, and that such efforts are not only political motivated, but are also easily bypassed. In that context, we debate the following: Should the U.S. Ban TikTok?  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It’s poised to “change our world.” That’s according to Bill Gates, referencing an advanced AI chatbot called ChatGPT, which seems to be all the rage. The tool, which was developed by OpenAI and backed by a company Gates founded, Microsoft, effectively takes questions from users and produces human-like responses. The "GPT" stands "Generative Pre-trained Transformer," which denotes the design and nature of the artificial intelligence training. And yet despite the chatbot’s swelling popularity, it’s also not without controversy. Everything from privacy and ethical questions to growing concerns about the data it utilizes, has some concerned about the effects it will ultimately have on society. Its detractors fear job loss, a rise in disinformation, and even the compromising long-term effects it could have on humans’ capacity for reason and writing. Its advocates tout the advantages ChatGPT will inevitably lend organizations, its versatility and iterative ability, and the depth and diversity of the data from which it pulls. Against this backdrop, we debate the following question: Will ChatGPT do more harm than good? Arguing "Yes" is Gary Marcus (Author of "Rebooting AI: Building Artificial Intelligence We Can Trust" and Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Neural Science at New York University)Arguing "No" is Keith Teare (Entrepreneur, Author, and CEO & Founder at SignalRank Corporation)Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Take our podcast listener survey here: tinyurl.com/IQ2podcastsurvey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This was supposed to be the “Chinese century.” In just a few decades, China transitioned from a developing economy to the world’s second largest. Measured in purchasing power parity, it actually surpassed the U.S. economy in 2014, and has since expanded its military, monetary, infrastructure, and soft power capacities in ways that all seemed to point to long-term advantages as a rising power. At the Communist Party’s five-yearly congress in October 2022, Xi Jinping cemented his place as the country’s “helmsman” and its most powerful person since Mao Zedong, with an unprecedented third term as party chief. And yet the failure of China’s zero-COVID policy, a slumping economy, apparent supply chain vulnerabilities within its technology sector, and a problematic demographic profile have all raised questions about the scope of China’s future power. Those who say it has peaked say the Chinese system is facing significant economic headwinds, uneven innovation, a heavy debt burden, as well as mounting frustrations among its younger populations with regard to upward mobility and censorship. Those who say it hasn’t peaked argue that while the nation’s economic growth has indeed slowed, massive Chinese spending in infrastructure, defense, and technology will nonetheless allow it to enlarge its global power projections well into the future. Against this backdrop, we debate this question: Has China’s Power Peaked?     Arguing “Yes” is Michael Beckley, formerly of the Harvard Kennedy School, the US Department of Defense, the RAND Corporation, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is the author of “Unrivaled: Why America Will Remain the World’s Sole Superpower,” has a PhD in political science from Columbia University, and is currently associate professor of political science at Tufts University.  Arguing “No” is Ian Bremmer, president and founder of Eurasia Group, a leading global political risk research and consulting firm. He is also a founder of the digital media firm GZERO Media. Bremmer is the foreign affairs columnist and editor-at-large at Time magazine, where he writes about China, U.S. foreign policy, and geopolitics. He has published ten books, including “Superpower,” “The Power of Crisis,” and the national bestsellers “The End of the Free Market” and “Every Nation for Itself.”   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Sexual violence is arguably the most devastating kind. But the sex offender registry has come under increasing scrutiny. Some suggest that it actually encourages further criminal offenses by making it virtually impossible for offenders to reintegrate into society. Others say that reducing such a proactive approach and tool will endanger communities. In this context, we debate the following question: Does the Sex Offender Registry Do More Harm Than Good?     Arguing "YES" is Emily Horowitz, a sociologist who researches sex offense law and policy, and the author of "Protecting Our Kids? How Sex Offender Laws Are Failing Us" and "From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear." Arguing "No" is Cary Federman, author of "Democracy and Deliberation: The Law and Politics of Sex Offender Legislation" and associate professor at Montclair State University who focuses law and jurisprudence, free speech, democratic theory, prisons and prisoners’ rights.  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What shapes us more: our DNA, or the way we’re raised? This debate, commonly recognized as “nature versus nurture,” has drawn disagreement for thousands of years. So which one matters more? Emerging genetic research indicates that the scale may be tipping toward biology – but not all trust the research. Proponents of the “nature” camp argue it is DNA that determines who we are, as evidenced by identical twins and triplets who are separated at birth and, once reunited, show remarkable similarities despite different upbringings. Rather than trying to identify the perfect parenting style, they argue, caregivers should look to their children’s DNA to identify natural strengths and challenges to promote overall health and well-being. But others strongly disagree, saying that parenting is very important, and the individuals who rear us influence our development, growth, and, ultimately, our lives. The “nurture” camp also points to studies that show how beliefs and behaviors are not innate, as evidenced by stark differences in the expression of adolescence and other life stages across different cultures. Are they right? Or is parenting overrated? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

These days, the bird’s the word. Since shelling out $44 billion for Twitter, critics say Elon Musk is knocking the social media giant off its perch. Under his guidance, a slew of firings, a resurgence of unsavory Tweeters, and a bevy of on-again, off-again bans, have all raised questions about the platform’s long-term viability. Some investors have labeled Musk an albatross around Twitter’s neck, calling for him to stay focused on Tesla and SpaceX. Others say Musk is actually freeing the bird from anti-conservative censorship, which will engender more open discourse. His moves, they say, are all a part of a broader business acumen that has proven successful in the past. In that context, we ask the timely question of whether Elon Musk is killing Twitter. Kara Swisher, Host of “On with Kara Swisher,” Co-host of “Pivot” Podcast, and Editor-at-large of New York Magazine Anthony Scaramucci, Founder and Managing Partner of SkyBridge, Former White House Communications Director, Host of the new podcast "Open Book" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For a period of time, going global just seemed to make sense. But with China’s rise, Covid-19, and the war in Ukraine, words like “localnomics,” “friends-shoring,” and “decoupling” have helped codify a growing movement that calls for less interdependence between economies. Those in favor of a more “deglobalized” system of trade argue that it is not only more environmentally friendly and responsive to regional needs, but also less of a driver of income inequality. Indeed, globalization’s three-decade trend of trade growing at twice the speed of the world economy has not lifted all boats, they argue. For many, including middle income populations in the industrialized west, it has backfired. Deglobalization is a welcome a shift. Others disagree. Globalization’s virtues are unmistakable, they say, resulting in less poverty and higher incomes across the world. People once cut off from markets benefit from new connections in commerce, culture, and communications. For them, it has not backfired. In fact, in the face of political challenges and volatile markets, more regionally-focused trade constitutes a dangerous circling of the wagons. In this context, we ask the question: Has Globalization Backfired?   John Donvan, Host and Moderator, Intelligence Squared U.S.  Arguing “YES” – Rana Foroohar, Global Business Columnist, Financial Times; Author, “Homecoming: The Path To Prosperity In A Post-Global World”    Arguing “NO” – Parag Khanna, Founder & CEO of Climate Alpha and Founder & Managing Partner of FutureMap Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices