Open to Debate

Debate on whether Modi's India is heading in the right direction. Arguments for progress: safety improvements, improved foreign relations, strong economy, social welfare, scientific achievements. Arguments for regression: erosion of democratic institutions, attacks on media, minority rights violations, rising inequality and unemployment, mismanagement of COVID, decline in democracy and social welfare. Observations on India's science and technology ecosystem, Modi's popularity and Hindu nationalism, India's role on the global stage, concerns about freedom and multiculturalism.

Debate on whether America needs a third party. Discussion on the drawbacks of the current two-party system. Exploring the potential benefits and challenges of a multi-party system. Debate on the impact of a third party in local elections. Exploring the emergence of a centrist political organization. Discussion on challenges of creating a successful third party. Role and function of political parties in American society.

The podcast debates the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana, discussing issues such as regulation, enforcement, and revenue. They delve into the impact of marijuana on public health and safety compared to alcohol. The failure of the war on drugs is explored, along with the potential benefits of legalization. The positive impacts of legalizing and decriminalizing marijuana are highlighted, with an emphasis on equity and supporting individuals reentering society. Parenting conversations about drugs, including the challenges and benefits of legalization, are also discussed.

Explore the ongoing debate around objectivity in journalism, discussing the erosion of trust in media and the need for unbiased reporting. Delve into the use of language in journalism and its impact on perception. Debate whether journalists should share their opinions and how it affects credibility. Examine the challenges of objectivity and fairness in journalism, emphasizing the importance of transparency and authenticity. Emphasize the need for accurate, fair, and non-partisan news coverage in a divided country.

Nita Farahany, a proponent of memory modification and erasure, debates with Sigal Samuel on whether bad memories should be erased. They discuss the benefits and dangers of memory alteration, explore the implications of erasing memories on identity and trust, and touch on topics like removing religious thoughts and addressing intergenerational trauma. The podcast highlights the importance of cognitive liberty and the need for regulations in memory manipulation technology.

When you think about the world’s most intractable problems, racial inequality is among the most challenging. Societies have grappled not just with how to treat community members equitably in public spaces, but how to judge individuals based on qualities that extend beyond race in personal interactions. For many decades, some have pointed to “color blindness,” or treating people without regard to race or ethnicity, as the best way to promote equal opportunity. But, there are many who believe the approach downplays racial bias and silently maintains discrimination.   Arguing YES is Jamelle Bouie, Columnist for the New York Times Arguing NO is Coleman Hughes, Host of the “Conversations with Coleman” podcast and Contributing Writer at The Free Press   Emmy Award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the wake of the Russian invasion, Ukraine has applied on a fast-track membership bid to join NATO. Those who argue “yes” say admitting Ukraine would keep the country protected, affirm its sovereignty, and solidify alignment with the West. Those who argue “no” say it will provoke Putin, escalate the conflict, and that it doesn’t yet meet NATO’s standards. Now we debate: Should NATO Admit Ukraine? Arguing Yes: Garry Kasparov, Founder of the Renew Democracy Initiative and former World Chess Champion   Arguing No: Charles Kupchan, Senior Fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations and Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University Gillian Tett, Editorial Board Chair and Editor-at-Large US of the Financial Times and Incoming Provost at King’s College Cambridge, moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Social media platforms have become an integral part of the modern digital landscape, shaping how young individuals connect, communicate, and perceive the world around them. However, concerns have been raised regarding the potential negative consequences on children's mental well-being. Even recently, the US Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy released an advisory stating there’s a risk of profound harm to children and adolescents' mental health and well-being. Those who agree claim that excessive social media usage can make children experience low self-esteem and negative body image. They also highlight cyberbullying and online harassment, which can contribute to increased stress, anxiety, and depression. Those who disagree say that when used responsibly and with proper guidance, social media can enhance social and creative skills, foster a sense of belonging, provide access to valuable educational resources, and help support communities. They also note that studies measuring social media’s impact on kids’ mental health don’t always take into account other prominent factors.   With this context, we debate the question: Is Social Media Bad for Kids’ Mental Health?   Arguing “YES” is Jim Steyer, founder and CEO of Common Sense Media. Arguing “NO” is Candice Odgers, Professor of Psychological Science and Informatics at University of California, Irvine, and Director of Research and Faculty Development at University of California, Irvine’s School of Social Ecology   Emmy Award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) needs to approve safe and effective drugs as quickly as possible to patients who need them, it must also maintain the diligence and rigor necessary to prevent harm. Two health experts look at the pace of FDA approvals and argue about whether the agency is getting it right on keeping the public safe or stifling health innovations. Now we debate: Is the FDA Too Cautious? Arguing Yes: Colin Hill, CEO & Co-Founder, Aitia   Arguing No: Peter Lurie, President and Executive Director of Center for Science in the Public Interest  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the US, misdemeanors count for 80% of cases filed annually, but district attorneys around the country are implementing policies stating they’ll no longer prosecute certain low-level, nonviolent crimes. Those who argue “yes” say it keeps communities safe and not strengthening sentencing will let violent criminals back in public and increase crime. Those who argue “no” say it doesn’t deter criminals and distracts from better solutions. Now, we debate: “Should Prosecutors Pursue Minor Crimes?” Arguing Yes:  John Milhiser, former US attorney for the Central District of Illinois  Arguing No: Paul Butler, former federal prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices