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 To this day, questions are still mounting as to whether the United Nations itself is both ineffective and outdated, or whether an institution created for the world of 1945 is equipped for, and can effectively meet, today's challenges.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

The dangers of climate change are “no longer over the horizon.” Humanity may soon pass the “point of no return.” These are the phrases U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres used to describe what he called an “utterly inadequate” global response to rising temperatures. But if we were to decisively act and restructure our global economy with the climate in mind, who would shoulder the burden? Or should our collective focus orient more toward humans’ capacity for adaptation? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in July 2022. Arguing Yes: Bjorn Lomborg, Author of the Bestsellers "Cool It" and "The Skeptical Environmentalist"; Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center Matthew Kahn, Provost Professor of Economics and Spatial Sciences at the University of Southern California Arguing No: Michele Wucker, Economic Policy Expert & Founder of Gray Rhino & Company Kaveh Madani, Environmental Scientist; Former Vice President of the United Nations Environment Assembly Bureau; Former Deputy Head of Iran’s Department of Environment 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

Near-death experiences have long challenged our understanding of consciousness and mortality. Some who come close to death report leaving their bodies, encountering vivid visions, or feeling profound peace. Are these experiences evidence that consciousness can survive death — or can they be explained by what happens in a dying brain? This 2014 debate is one we're still thinking about today. We ask whether science can reveal what, if anything, awaits us after we die. Arguing Yes: Eben Alexander, Former Neurosurgeon; Author of "Proof of Heaven" Raymond Moody, Medical Doctor; Author of "Life After Life" Arguing No: Sean Carroll, Physicist & Writer Steven Novella, Academic Neurologist at the Yale School of Medicine 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 midterms are coming up this fall, and right now we are in the middle of a contentious primary season, with a lot of new faces challenging incumbents—and many winning. It’s in this context that we revisit our debate from 2022: Are Primary Elections Ruining Democracy? Arguing YES Elaine Kamarck, Founding Director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution Arguing NO Jed Ober, Former Director of Programs at Democracy International and Former Chief of Staff for Pennsylvania Congresswoman Susan Wild 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

As America celebrates 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, the legacy of the Founders is under renewed scrutiny. Were they visionary architects of liberty whose achievements and creations should be celebrated, or has reverence for them sanitized the past, how we think of democracy, and the compromises embedded in the nation's founding? As the U.S. marks its semiquincentennial, we debate: Is It Time to Stop Idolizing the Founders? Arguing Yes: Osita Nwanevu, Contributing Editor at The New Republic; Columnist at The Guardian Arguing No: Helena Rosenblatt, Distinguished Professor of History, French, and Political Science, and the MA Program in Liberal Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center 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

Fifty years after the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment, the death penalty remains one of America's most divisive issues. Supporters argue it delivers justice for the most heinous crimes, provides closure for victims’ families, and ensures the worst offenders can never kill again. Opponents point to wrongful convictions, racial disparities, and the moral consequences of allowing the state to take a life, arguing that life without parole is enough. Now we debate: Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in April 2015. Arguing YES: Diann Rust-Tierney, Executive Director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty Barry Scheck, Co-Director of the Innocence Project and Professor at Cardozo Law School Arguing NO: Robert Blecker, Professor at New York Law School Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation 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