How can you have meaningful conversations in increasingly divided times, whether it’s against the backdrop of American politics or the Israel-Gaza war? To author Mónica Guzmán, it’s by asking yourself, “What am I missing?” John Donvan sits down with Guzmán to talk about her work at Braver Angels, staying hopeful in times of conflict or during world events, and why using curiosity to navigate today’s polarized landscape is easier than you think.     Mónica Guzmán is the author of "How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times" and Senior Fellow for Public Practice at Braver Angels.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Are we the true authors of our actions – or are we guided by a preordained fate? From the days of Greek philosophers to the present, the notion of free will and the question of whether humans can make their own choices is as captivating as ever. Those who think that free will exists consider it foundational to a rules-based society since it holds individuals accountable for their actions. Those who don’t believe in it argue everything that happens to us, and our actions and choices, is determined by prior existing conditions. Though we may feel in control of our actions, they are influenced by factors outside of our control, like upbringing, societal pressures, and biological predispositions.  With this background, we now debate the question: Do We Have Free Will?  Arguing Yes: Roy Baumeister, Social Psychologist, Author of “Free Will and Consciousness: How Might They Work”  Arguing No: Robert Sapolsky, Neuroscientist; Professor at Stanford University  Nayeema Raza, Journalist at New York Magazine and Vox, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, or Eddie Murphy jokes would be deemed offensive by today’s standards? From comedy specials to TV shows and movies, what makes us laugh has come under scrutiny. Some old jokes and racy skits are considered off-limits in today's context, leading to public apologies, cancellations, and backlash. While society wants more inclusivity and awareness, comedy has now become a cultural battleground. Some argue that political correctness will stifle comedic creativity and worry it will affect comedy’s ability to tackle tough subjects, leading to self-censorship and lack of depth or free speech. Those who disagree say comedy, like all art forms, has always evolved with changing societal norms and it can still flourish without relying on harmful stereotypes or tropes. Instead, acting more sensitive or woke will refine and elevate comedy.  Against this background, we debate the question: Is Wokeness Killing Comedy?  This debate will take place in front of a live audience, on Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at The Comedy Cellar’s Village Underground in New York City.  Arguing Yes: Lou Perez, Comedian, Producer, Author of "That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore"  Arguing No: Michael Ian Black, Actor and Comedian   Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large of Reason, guest moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

More American colleges are adopting DEI as a core value, affecting professors' tenure, hiring, and promotion. Has what was intended as solidarity turned into a “loyalty oath”? Those who agree say evaluations based on DEI statements harm professors who may not embrace an agenda, affecting academic freedom. Those disagreeing say the statements aren’t intended to push a viewpoint but to reward a professor’s actions. Now we debate: “Are DEI Mandates for University Faculties a Bad Idea? Arguing Yes: Randall L. Kennedy, Professor at Harvard Law School    Arguing No: Brian Soucek, Law Professor and Chancellor's Fellow at University of California, Davis  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Zionism — the belief that the Jewish people have a right to statehood in Israel — has been debated for decades. But facing increased anti-Semitic violence around the world, some argue that criticizing it is anti-Semitic and Israel has a historical and political right to self-determination. Others say their concerns about Israel’s actions— particularly regarding Palestinian rights and sovereignty — are legitimate. Now we debate: Is Anti-Zionism the New Anti-Semitism? (Note: This debate was originally released in 2020 and does not reflect current events.) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Economic growth is a central goal of many economies, but there are questions about how sustainable relentless growth is. Those arguing “yes” say the right measurements aren’t being used for societal well-being and how much it costs the environment, and call for a new economic model for more equitable and sustainable futures. Those arguing “no” say growth drives today’s prosperity, brings public good, and fuels advancements. Now we debate: Does Economic Growth Cost Too Much?    Arguing Yes: Peter Victor, Environmental Studies Professor Emeritus and Senior Scholar at York University  Arguing No: Katherine Mangu-Ward, Editor-in-Chief at Reason    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Modern art, runway fashion, and music today are in the middle of a cultural reckoning, where artists must find a balance between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation. Those in support of borrowing say placing restrictions on what artists can be inspired by may stifle artistic expression. Those against it say doing so erases a tradition’s context while echoing past mistreatment. Now we debate: Should Artists Be Allowed to Borrow From Cultures Besides Their Own?  Arguing Yes: Yascha Mounk, political scientist, author, and associate professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies    Arguing No: C. Thi Nguyen, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Utah; Author of "Games: Agency as Art"  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, economic sanctions led to frozen Russian assets abroad inaccessible and could be relocated to Ukraine. Those arguing yes say it would serve as restitution for Russia’s aggression and compensate for damages and economic disruptions. Those arguing no say relocating the frozen assets could set a concerning precedent, leading to escalated tensions and retaliatory actions. Now we debate: Should Ukraine Get Russia’s Frozen Assets? Arguing Yes: Lawrence H. Summers, Former Secretary of the Treasury   Arguing No: Benn Steil, Senior Fellow and Director of International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations   Gillian Tett, Editorial Board Chair and Editor-at-Large US of the Financial Times and Incoming Provost at King’s College Cambridge, guest moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Under prime minister Narendra Modi, pro-Hindu nationalism and civil rights issues have led to India’s downgrade to an electoral autocracy (according to V-Dem Institute), and many question whether better times are ahead. Those who agree with Modi’s leadership highlight the new strong economic growth as well as his efforts to improve India’s global influence. Those who disagree point to increasingly divisive policies and their effects on the non-Hindu population. Now we debate: Is Modi’s India Heading in the Right Direction? Arguing Yes: Sameer Lalwani, Senior Expert in South Asia Programs at the United States Institute of Peace  Arguing No: Prerna Singh, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Brown University    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

While the two-party system has been the standard in the US government, third parties have often challenged this status quo and now advocates to be added to election ballots permanently. Those who agree say third parties offer non-partisan solutions and are more representative of ideologies, unlike the polarized partisanship present now. Those who disagree say the two-party system fosters stability and simplifies voting decisions. Now we debate: Does America Need A Third Party? Arguing Yes: Andrew Yang, Founder of the Forward Party, Former Presidential Candidate   Arguing No: Daniel DiSalvo, Senior Fellow at Manhattan Institute; Political Science Professor at City College of New York–CUNY    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

According to an October 2022 Pew survey, “88% of US adults say that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use.” While marijuana legalization is gaining more and more cultural acceptance, effectively regulating drugs has long flummoxed policy and lawmakers. Some are even starting to have second thoughts, especially when it comes to how to practically enforce legal sales. In fact, voters in Oklahoma – one of the nation’s leading weed markets –overwhelmingly rejected recreational legalization earlier this year, even though voters backed medical marijuana legalization by a double-digit margin in 2018. Those who argue “Yes” for marijuana legalization say legalization creates more problems for our legal system because it requires extra enforcement to crack down on already robust illegal markets to make way for new, regulated, and legal markets. Additionally, competition from illegal weed markets is undercutting legal sales, which means the expected revenue stream from a legalized industry is far lower than expected. Those who argue “No” say legalization can reduce the burden on law enforcement and criminal justice systems, allowing resources to be redirected to more pressing issues. They also highlight marijuana’s medical benefits, such as for pain management and treatment of certain health conditions, which have made a difference in people’s lives.    With this context, it’s time to debate — and reconsider — “Is Legalizing Marijuana A Mistake?”  Arguing Yes: Paul J. Larkin, Jr, Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation and Teresa Haley, senior policy advisor at the Foundation for Drug Policy Solution    Arguing No: Toi Hutchinson, CEO of the Marijuana Policy Project; former member of the Illinois Senate, and Cat Packer, Director of Drug Markets and Legal Regulation at Drug Policy Alliance   Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For decades, objectivity has been cited as journalism's gold standard, promising that journalists would stick “to the facts" and deliver both sides of the story, excluding their personal views. Those in support say it builds trust and gives newsreaders the information they need to form their own opinions. Those against say it suppresses certain valuable viewpoints and that some issues don’t merit the "both sides" treatment. Now, we debate: "Is Objectivity Essential in Journalism?” Arguing Yes: Bret Stephens, Opinion Columnist at The New York Times    Arguing No: Leonard Downie, Jr, Former Executive Editor of The Washington Post  Nayeema Raza, Journalist and executive producer and co-host of Vox Media’s "On with Kara Swisher" podcast, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Similar to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, neurotechnology techniques like decoded neurofeedback open the possibility of modifying or erasing memories that aren’t pleasant or beneficial to our well-being. Those in favor argue it could help offer a path to a mentally healthier and happier life. Those against it say that tampering with memories could be dangerous to our sense of self and undermine our experiences. Now we debate: Should We Erase Bad Memories? Arguing Yes: Nita Farahany, Author of "The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology", Professor at Duke University, and the Founding Director of the Duke Initiative for Science & Society Arguing No: Sigal Samuel, Senior Reporter for Vox Future Perfect and co-host of the Future Perfect podcast Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

The oldest members of the Millennial generation are reaching their forties and feel they’ve been left behind emotionally and financially. Those who agree say Millennials pay more for basic items, leading them unable to afford to buy a home or have children. Those who disagree say that not buying a house or having kids are their choices and they will soon be doing well financially. With this context, we debate: Will Millennials Be Left Behind?    Arguing Yes: Jill Filipovic, Journalist, lawyer, and author    Arguing No: Scott Winship, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center of Opportunity and Social Mobility at the American Enterprise Institute  Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large of Reason, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The age of eligibility for full Social Security benefits is currently 67, but the cash reserves behind it are expected to run out by 2034. Those arguing “yes” to raising the retirement age say people these days are living longer, and it will lead to more economic growth. Those arguing “no” say not everyone is able to work longer and it’ll make large benefit cuts. Now we debate: Should the Government Raise the Retirement Age?  Arguing Yes: Marc Goldwein, Senior Vice President and Senior Policy Director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget      Arguing No: Teresa Ghilarducci, Irene and Bernard L Schwartz Professor of Economics and Policy Analysis at The New School    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices