Congress is getting older: 24 members are 80 or older. Yet with few exceptions, older incumbents have beaten back younger challengers in primary after primary. Critics warn that a gerontocracy is making Congress less functional and less representative of the people it serves. But a mandatory age cap smacks of ageism, and voters keep rewarding experience at the ballot box. As the midterms approach, we debate: age limits for Congress? Arguing Yes: Maya Kornberg, Senior Research Fellow and Manager of Elections & Government program at the Brennan Center for Justice Arguing No: S. Jay Olshansky, Professor Emeritus in the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates After you’ve listened to the debate, let us know where you stand on the motion! VOTE HERE: ⁠https://bit.ly/OTDVOTE Vote before Thursday, November 5th at 5 pm ET. Results will be announced in our Substack newsletter so make sure to subscribe. Enjoyed this episode? Follow Open to Debate on Apple Podcasts or Spotify to hear new episodes every week. Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more debates, highlights, and perspectives. Follow us on Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing live debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From packed city council meetings to protests outside city halls, a growing backlash against Flock Safety cameras capturing images of passing vehicles and license plates to help police investigate crimes is sweeping across America. Those wanting to keep them argue they’re valuable crime-fighting tools that only require stronger oversight, while critics raise concerns about privacy, government overreach, and the potential for mass surveillance. Now we debate: Should Cities Pull the Plug on Flock Cameras? Arguing Yes: Benn Jordan, YouTube Educator and Activist Arguing No: Ramin Fatehi, Norfolk Commonwealth's Attorney in Virginia Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates After you’ve listened to the debate, let us know where you stand on the motion! VOTE HERE: ⁠https://bit.ly/OTDVOTE Vote before Thursday, October 29 at 5 pm ET. Results will be announced in our Substack newsletter so make sure to subscribe. Enjoyed this episode? Follow Open to Debate on Apple Podcasts or Spotify to hear new episodes every week. Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more debates, highlights, and perspectives. Follow us on Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing live debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Once a sci-fi fantasy explored in films like “Jurassic Park,” some biological and technological breakthroughs indicate that reviving extinct creatures could become a reality. Proponents argue that the benefits include correcting mistakes of the past by bringing back extinct ecosystems and organisms. Others argue it's not ethical or even feasible. Now we debate: Should humans bring extinct creatures back to life? Arguing YES: Dr. Ross MacPhee, Curator of the Department of Mammalogy, Division of Vertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History Dr. Lynn J. Rothschild, Evolutionary Biologist & Astrobiologist Arguing NO: Stewart Brand, Co-Founder of Revive & Restore & Founder of Whole Earth Catalog Dr. George Church, Professor of Genetics at Harvard and MIT & Founder of the Personal Genome Project Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Attend a live debate in Baltimore on October 27th. We'll be debating the impacts of AI in higher ed at Johns Hopkins University as part of our Hopkins Forum series in partnership with the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Agora Institute. Reserve your seat now! ⁠https://bit.ly/ai-college-future⁠ Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Amid deep political division and ahead of the midterms, what does good citizenship require? In his new book, “Live Like a Citizen,” Citizen University’s Eric Liu argues that democracy depends on citizenship as an everyday practice — learning to listen, participate, disagree, change our minds, and remain committed to one another despite our differences. John Donvan sits down with Liu to explore what he has thought twice about regarding citizenship since he moved from Washington, D.C. to "the other Washington," the city of Seattle, specifically, sharing his eight habits for rebuilding civic life and why changing America may require changing ourselves. Our Guest: Eric Liu, CEO and Co-Founder of Citizen University; Author of "Live Like A Citizen" Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Attend a live debate in Baltimore on October 27th. We'll be debating the impacts of AI in higher ed at Johns Hopkins University as part of our Hopkins Forum series in partnership with the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Agora Institute. Reserve your seat now! https://bit.ly/ai-college-future Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Social Security has long been a cornerstone of American retirement, but as the trust fund grows closer to depletion by 2032, should the system be repaired or replaced with new standards? Those advocating for phasing it out argue its unsuitability for the modern economy and should only be available for those needing it most. Others argue it’s still a good anti-poverty tool and Congress should take action and make changes to its finances. Now we debate: Should We Phase Out Social Security? Arguing Yes: Romina Boccia, Director of Budget and Entitlement Policy at Cato Institute Arguing No: Teresa Ghilarducci, Professor of Economics and Policy Analysis and Director of the Wealth Equity Lab at The New School Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement that supporters say could strengthen ties, advance normalization, and give Washington greater influence over the kingdom’s nuclear ambitions. Critics warn that without stronger restrictions on uranium enrichment and inspections, assistance could create a pathway toward nuclear weapons and weaken nonproliferation norms. Would American involvement reduce the risks or enable them? Now we debate: Does the U.S.-Saudi Civil Nuclear Agreement Serve America's Interests? Arguing Yes: Daniel Poneman, Former Deputy Secretary of Energy; Distinguished Fellow of the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center and Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security Amos Hochstein, Former White House Senior Advisor to President Biden; Managing Partner at TWG Global Arguing No: Sharon Squassoni, Research Professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University; Former Director of Nonproliferation and Prevention at CSIS Joe Cirincione, Former Director for Non-Proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates This debate was produced in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations. Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As world attention descends on the United Nations General Assembly, Open to Debate is once again casting a critical lens on this over 80-year-old global organization. To this day, questions are still mounting as to whether the United Nations itself is both ineffective and outdated, or whether an institution created for the world of 1945 is equipped for, and can effectively meet, today's challenges. Now we debate: Is the United Nations Obsolete? ARGUING YES: Rajan Menon, Political Scientist & Spitzer Professor Emeritus of International Relations at the City College of New York Nile Gardiner, Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at The Heritage Foundation ARGUING NO: Angela Kane, German Diplomat and Senior Fellow at Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation; Former UN Under-Secretary-General Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, Scholar & Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mauritania Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What shapes us more: our DNA or the way we’re raised? The “nature” camp points to genetic research and studies of twins raised apart, arguing that traits from personality to abilities are strongly influenced by inherited biology, limiting how much parenting can shape who children become. The “nurture” camp argues upbringing, culture, and parental choices profoundly influence development and behavior. So which matters more? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in November 2019 ARGUING YES: Robert Plomin, Professor of Behavioral Genetics at King’s College London Nancy Segal, Professor of Psychology at California State University, Fullerton and Director at the Twin Studies Center ARGUING NO: Paige Harden, Psychology Professor at the University of Texas Ann Pleshette Murphy, Author & Parenting Expert Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Recent twin studies: ⁠Parenting in Childhood Predicts Personality in Early Adulthood: A Longitudinal Twin-Differences Study⁠ (APA, 2025) ⁠Genetics of monozygotic twins reveals the impact of environmental sensitivity on psychiatric and neurodevelopmental phenotypes⁠ (Nature Human Behavior, 2025) ⁠Longitudinal associations between cognitive ability and socioeconomic status are partially genetic in Nature⁠ (Scientific Reports, 2026) Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A century after Henry Ford helped popularize the five-day, 40-hour week, could working 32 hours be next? Supporters say shorter weeks can improve well-being without sacrificing productivity, especially as AI would make workers more efficient. Others warn it would strain industries that require continuous staffing and force Americans to rethink everything from school and healthcare schedules to expectations of around-the-clock availability. We debate: Is America Ready for a Four-Day Work Week? Arguing Yes: Juliet Schor, Economist and Sociologist at Boston College Arguing No: Joanne Lipman, Bestselling Author, Journalist, and Former Media Executive Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Capitalism has long been credited with driving innovation and prosperity, yet many Americans increasingly believe the system is no longer working for them. Is the problem capitalism itself or the policies surrounding it? In this debate, an entrepreneur and venture capitalist faces a prominent economist with a competing vision to examine inequality, economic opportunity, and the future of the American economy. Now we debate: Is Capitalism Broken? Arguing Yes: Nick Hanauer, Entrepreneur and Venture Capitalist Arguing No: Jason Furman, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates After you’ve listened to the debate, let us know where you stand on the motion! VOTE HERE: ⁠https://bit.ly/podcastcapitalismvote ⁠ We will reveal the results of the vote in our Substack newsletter on Saturday, September 5th, so make sure to ⁠subscribe⁠. Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff. Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices