Open to Debate

America is more divided than ever—but it doesn’t have to be. Open to Debate offers an antidote to the chaos. We bring multiple perspectives together for real, nonpartisan debates. Debates that are structured, respectful, clever, provocative, and driven by the facts. Open to Debate is on a mission to restore balance to the public square through expert moderation, good-faith arguments, and reasoned analysis. We examine the issues of the day with the world’s most influential thinkers spanning science, technology, politics, culture, and global affairs. It’s time to build a stronger, more united democracy with the civil exchange of ideas. Be open-minded. Be curious. Be ready to listen. Join us in being Open to Debate. ( Formerly Intelligence Squared U.S. )

Open to Debate is a society podcast hosted by Unknown Host, with 473 episodes on record and a Required Pod Score of 80. PitchCentric scores this show on Booking Probability, Listen Score, and live audience signals refreshed every 24 hours.

Unknown Host hosts Open to Debate, a society show with 473 episodes published.

Our AI reads these to draft pitches. Use them as grounding for a pitch that cites a real guest and a specific topic.

• 

  Open to Debate

  Is Death Final? (Encore)

  Aug 14, 202655 min

  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

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Open to Debate

  Are Primary Elections Ruining Democracy? (Encore)

  Aug 7, 202653 min

  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

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Open to Debate

  America 250: Is It Time To Stop Idolizing the Founders?

  Jul 31, 202653 min

  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

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Open to Debate

  Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?

  Jul 24, 202653 min

  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

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Open to Debate

  Generational Divides with Nick Gillespie: Are We Overcomplicating Love and Sex?

  Jul 17, 202653 min

  Forget "happily ever after." As marriage and birth rates fall, young adults have less sex, and assumptions about love and commitment are being challenged. In this episode of “Generational Divides,” Reason editor-at-large Nick Gillespie brings together a Gen X-er, a Millennial, and a Gen Z-er to debate these questions about intimacy and love in the 21st century: Should Gen Z have more sex? Is monogamy overrated? Should people have more babies?  For Gen X: James J. Sexton, Divorce Lawyer and Author of "How to Stay in Love"  For Millennials: Carolyn Gorman, Fellow at the Manhattan Institute  For Gen Z: Malavika Kannan, Author and Writer of the "Quarter Life Crisis" Substack  Nick Gillespie, Editor-at-Large at Reason, is the guest moderator.  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

  ListenShow Notes

Recent guests on Open to Debate. Study who booked and why before you pitch.

Based on semantic analysis of episode topics and host coverage, this show is a strong guest fit for executives in:

Industry fit is computed by PitchCentric using vector embeddings of the show's episode catalog.