By now it is clear, the Red Wave election-denying candidates had hoped to ride left most still waiting on the beach. Those who questioned the outcome of the 2020 election lost key midterm races, which seemed to calm the nerves of many of those fearful as to where the Republic itself was headed. But as the parties begin to prepare for their respective presidential runs, a bigger question looms; one that has taken its cues from President Biden himself. Shortly after the January 6th attacks on the capitol — which were prompted by unfounded messaging about the election’s illegitimacy — Biden sought to convey the severity of what had just happened. “The insurrection was an existential crisis — a test of whether our democracy could survive,” he said. Now, on the heels of the midterms, many not only openly wonder whether that democracy crisis is over, but also question if the words Biden chose were overblown in the first place. It is in that context, and as the 2024 elections come into focus, that we debate this question: Was January 6 an existential threat to American democracy? On December 15th, Andrew Keen, Internet Entrepreneur, Author, and Host of the “How to Fix Democracy” podcast, squares off against Election Strategist, Managing Partner at CAE Strategies, and Vice President of the Fair Elections Center, Rebekah Caruthers, as part of the “No Laughing Matter” series at the Comedy Cellar at the Village Underground in New York.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What does it take to admit you’re wrong? And why is it so difficult? Cognitive psychology and neuroscience studies reveal that human decision-making relies on a host of factors that don’t always lead to objective evaluations. Opinions can form as a result of fear, anger, pleasure, and other emotions that not only contribute to bias, but can also harden over time. The resulting misconception often then rattles through every aspect of our lives, from our work to our politics to the very relationships we hold dear. But what if there were a way to break out of that process? Three luminaries in the field of business, psychology, and debate sit down for a fascinating discussion on how to argue well, and how to be open to changing your mind.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

2022 has finally ended. Some of it bad, some of it splendid.   There was Russia’s invasion.   And Ukraine’s self-defense.   The west lobbed isolation against Moscow’s offense.   This was also the year America closed the door  despite a generation of fighting   its 20-year-war We saw economic turmoil  And those who could not tweet  We debated inflation And whether small investors could beat the street  We debated food, SATs, and if the Classics were overrated  Aliens, and whether Britain’s Monarchy should be abated  Affirmative action, cancel culture, and if Trump should be indicted, Unions, public radio, and what information disorder has ignited.  Gene editing and digital dollars were fresh to the palette.  We debated adaptation, and whether your Tesla helps the planet, And of course there was Roe, and if AI does more harm than good, Kissinger, Covid, and just how we all withstood  midterms elections and if globalization backfired soft landings, and cities, and if democracy is mired  in existential threat.    OK...hold on, that’s not cheery.   We can’t end this year leaving you tired and weary.   So here’s to you listeners and watchers of debate Who at times may have wondered what is the fate  Of a discourse that is broken  Or at least a bit hobbled.  When listening to a nation that yells and a people who squabble.  Fear not, dear listeners, we say with some hope.  We do in fact have a way you can cope.  Real debate and discussion offers intellectual cheer.  And so with that we wish you safe holidays…. … and a happy new year.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With the wealth gap widening, some Americans are starting to consider socialism as a viable economic and political model. Supporters of capitalism claim that no other system has been as effective in creating value, increasing prosperity, and producing the wealth that has lifted billions of people out of poverty. The free market, they argue, encourages competition and human ingenuity, values individual choice, and organizes society in a fair and just way. Critics of capitalism, however, paint a different picture. They argue that capitalism is inherently exploitative and that business owners seek profits above all else, leading to the distortion of human worth as one distilled to an individual’s labor power. Further, they claim that a capitalist system is inherently rigged to benefit the wealthy and powerful, and the byproducts of which have created unsustainable waste and decimated the world’s wildlife and natural resources. In light of this emerging divide, we ask this question: Is capitalism a blessing?With John Mackey, Bhaskar Sunkara, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Richard D. Wolff.John Donvan is our moderater. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The digital currency craze started with at least one anonymous Bitcoin founder and a community of futuristic, tech-savvy investors willing to take a bet on a new form of money. But over the past decade, the world of digital currency has coined a host of new types of online cash. In fact, Central Banks in more than 80 countries have, or are in the process of gearing their monetary systems in that direction. They consider them a means of modernizing and serving as a check against the growth of crypto. In China, an estimated 140 million people have already begun using the new digital yuan, which accounts for nearly $10 billion worth of transactions. In that context, does the world's reserve currency -- the U.S. dollar -- need its own version? Those who are argue “yes” say it is a fundamental step to remain competitive; to ensure the dollar remains in its preferred global standing. A digital dollar, they argue, would also create a new ease of exchange, reduce delays in processing times, and help the underbanked Americans into the digital economy. Those who argue “no” point to the risks of failure, hackings, and privacy breaches, which includes widespread government tracking of transactions, and could allow for unprecedented federal access to personal banks accounts. Against this backdrop, we ask: Does America Need a Digital Dollar? Arguing "Yes" is Gillian Tett, Editor-at-large, Financial Times Arguing "No" is Dante Disparte, Head of Global Policy at Circle  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

An affirmative action battle is again playing out at the highest levels, only this time with Asian Americans at the center of the controversy. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether the Supreme Court should reconsider race in college admissions. The group, Students for Fair Admissions, has taken aim at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, alleging that Asian Americans are less likely to be admitted than comparably qualified white, Black, or Latino applicants. In two separate cases, the group claims that 1.) Harvard’s admissions policy is regressive and discriminates against Asian Americans, and 2.) UNC – which is a public institution and therefore covered by the 14th amendment’s equal protection guarantee – violates both Title VI and the Constitution with its use of race in admissions. But opponents say race-conscious decision making is a necessary tool to address longstanding racism and discrimination. As such, in this timely debate, we ask the question of whether affirmative action is indeed unfair to Asian Americans.  Arguing “yes” is Lee Cheng, co-founder of the Asian American Coalition for Education Arguing “no is John Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Processed food is bad for you, right? Well, there’s more to this story. As new technologies create foods that can’t be made in home kitchens, such as plant-based meats and dairy products made with plant proteins, the question of whether we should all be consuming more highly processed foods is up for debate. Advocates say a substantial increase in food processing is the best way to feed growing human populations while also reducing food waste. We should trust – and invest – in food technology that can make our global food supply healthier and more sustainable, including highly or ultra-processed foods. Opponents argue that these kinds of foods are often less nutritious, and are commonly linked to adverse health indices, particularly when it comes to ultra-processing. As this debate blooms, Intelligence Squared partners with the Institute of Food Technologists to debate this question: Should We Eat More Processed Foods?  Arguing in favor of the motion is Amy Webb and Michael Gibney. Arguing against the motion is Kevin Hall and Marion Nestle. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Many Americans grew up with a transistor radio somewhere in the home. Out of it emanated the commentaries, stories, news, and analysis. Public radio was a key means of getting information. But between podcasts, satellite radio and on-demand streaming, some argue that signal is fading. Nimble upstarts and emerging technologies have created wildly successful new platforms, enabling a broad diversity of creators to broadcast their views. What does this mean for the future of public radio? Intelligence Squared host and moderator John Donvan moderates a debate between two media luminaries, who zero in on this existential question: Is Public Radio Still Relevant? Arguing "No" is Kmele Foster, political commentator and Co-Founder of Freethink. Arguing "Yes" is podcast creator and Co-Founder of Magnificent Noise, Eric Nuzum.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The age of “information disorder” is upon us. Deep fakes, false political narratives, and flawed COVID rumors are all rampant online, threatening America’s national security, as well as democracy itself. Though bad actors have always had the capacity to deceive, the ease, speed, and degree to which anyone can create misleading information has engendered a dangerous new world. And yet many solutions can also run directly against longstanding western principles, such as free speech and a lack of censorship. Prescriptions, some argue, can be as dangerous as the disorder itself. So, what can be done? In partnership with the Homeland Security Experts Group, Intelligence Squared U.S. debates how to combat this dangerous new phenomenon, termed “information disorder.” Our expert panel takes a look at what the private sector should do, what the public sector can do, and how political actors who spread false information should be handled.  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