Former criminal offenders in the United States face challenges reentering the job market after incarceration and so-called “Ban the Box” policies aim to fix this. This criminal justice initiative calls for removing questions about criminal history from job applications and delaying background checks. Those against "the box" argue former offenders shouldn’t continue to be punished and it prevents societal reintegration. Those in favor of early screening argue employers have a responsibility to ensure their business’s safety and make informed hiring decisions. Those who are against it argue former offenders shouldn’t continue to be punished and it prevents societal reintegration. Now we debate: Ban the Box: Should We Banish the Criminal History Check Box from Job Applications?    Arguing Yes: Beth Avery, Senior Staff Attorney at the National Employment Law Project  Arguing No: Jennifer Doleac, Executive Vice President of Criminal Justice at Arnold Ventures    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The U.S. has provided more than $75 billion in aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia. Some Congress members question whether we have done enough to help, and they say increased funding sustains strategic interests and demonstrates support of democratic values. Those who say we should stop funding the war, argue that Ukraine can’t win and additional U.S. dollars will prolong the loss of human lives and territory. Now we debate, in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations: Should Congress Stop Funding the War in Ukraine?   Arguing Yes: John Mearsheimer, Political Science Professor at the University of Chicago;    Daniel L. Davis, Retired Lieutenant Colonel, Senior Fellow and Military Expert at Defense Priorities  Arguing No: Heather Conley, President of German Marshall Fund of the United States;   Paula Dobriansky, Former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs; Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Vice Chair, Atlantic Council Scowcroft Center for Strategy & Security    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Religion has long shaped human civilization, and many have wondered whether it’s good for society. Those who argue “yes” say it offers a sense of identity and belonging and provides a moral compass to do good acts. Those who argue “no” say that religious beliefs are a source of historical and conflict and discrimination and can hinder social progress that clash with modern values. Now we debate: Is Religion a Force for Good?  Arguing Yes: Shadi Hamid, Columnist and Editorial Board Member of The Washington Post; Assistant Research Professor of Islamic Studies at Fuller Seminary  Arguing No: Annie Laurie Gaylor, Co-Founder and Co-President of the Freedom from Religion Foundation  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released new guidelines to address childhood obesity, affecting over 14 million children, including recommendations for weight loss medications and surgery. Those who consider the guidelines good medicine say that it is a step forward in recognizing obesity as a condition requiring a range of medical interventions. Those who think the guidelines are too extreme worry these approaches could impact mental health and body image, contributing to weight stigma and shame. Now we debate: Childhood Obesity Guidelines: Good Medicine or Too Extreme? Arguing "Good Medicine: Dr. Julia Nordgren, Pediatric Lipid Specialist at Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Attending Physician at the Stanford Weight Clinic  Arguing "Too Extreme": Dr. Janna Gewirtz O'Brien, Pediatrician and Assistant Professor at University of Minnesota Medical School  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With one billion active users across more than 150 countries, TikTok is by many measures one of the world’s most successful video apps — and half of Americans use it. The House of Representatives has passed a bill that could ban the social media company in the U.S. if its parent company, Bytedance, does not divest from it and requires TikTok to be bought by a country that is not a U.S. adversary. Those supporting such a move often point to a ban on another Chinese tech giant, Huawei, as an effective means of limiting China’s influence and bring up concerns the app could be used to leak Americans’ data to China for surveillance, making it a security risk. Those who argue against it say a ban would undermine what has become an important tool in the video marketplace, and that such efforts are not only politically motivated but are also easily bypassed.     In that context, we debate the question: Should the U.S. Ban TikTok?  Arguing Yes: Kori Schake, Senior Fellow and Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute  Arguing No: Milton Mueller, Professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy; Founder and Director of the Internet Governance Project   Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Taylor Swift achieved her billionaire status because of her talent, work ethic, and support from her fans. But some question whether any individual should be able to accumulate so much wealth. Those arguing they should point to philosopher Robert Nozick, who says if someone acquires wealth through just means, they are entitled to it. Those arguing “no” say that luck and systemic advantages often play a role, sometimes involving exploitation, and that billionaires have an outsized influence on policy. Now we debate: Does Taylor Swift Deserve Her Billion Dollar Fortune?  Arguing Yes: Jessica Flanigan, Political Philosopher and Chair in Ethics and Democratic Values at the University of Richmond  Arguing No: Ingrid Robeyns, Chair in Ethics of Institutions at Utrecht University's Ethics Institute; Author of "Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth"  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

American women are, on average, paid 84 cents for every dollar men make, according to the Department of Labor. This wage gap has persisted despite near-record rates of women’s participation in the labor market, with wage gaps even larger for women in minority populations, and it’s estimated that pay parity will not be achieved until 2052. Should policy interventions address these disparities, or is it more important to recognize and honor women's personal decisions and find another way to look at the gap Those in favor of fixing the gap see it as a point of fairness and equity that would bring economic benefits, such as enhanced family incomes and increased productivity, and say that new policies are needed urgently to dismantle systemic barriers stopping women from earning more. Those who aren’t in favor argue wage disparities reflect individual choices regarding career paths, work-life balance, and tenure, rather than systemic discrimination. They also point out that when adjusted for factors like job type, hours worked, and career breaks, the gap significantly narrows.      Against this backdrop, we debate the question: Should We Address the Gender Wage Gap?  Arguing Yes: Kadie Ward, Commissioner and Chief Administrative Officer of the Pay Equity Commission of Ontario  Arguing No:  Allison Schrager, Pension Economist, Bloomberg Opinion Contributor & Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute    Nayeema Raza, Journalist at New York Magazine and Vox, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In a high-stakes presidential election year, in partnership with the Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, Open to Debate is taking a look at more than a decade of the Citizens United Supreme Court case. The 2010 landmark decision that ruled the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofits, labor unions, and other associations, changed the landscape of political spending in the U.S. This gave rise to Super PACS and an increase in election campaign spending. Since then, there have been questions about whether the decision has harmed our democratic process. Those who support the decision argue it upholds free speech, allowing diverse voices in the political arena, and broadens the range of discourse by enabling groups to freely express their views and support candidates or policies. Those against it argue that it allows a disproportionate influence from corporations and special interest groups, and leaves the voices of ordinary citizens overshadowed by the financial resources of a few, eroding the principles of equality and fair representation.  With this context, we debate the question: Has Citizens United Undermined Democracy?     This debate is presented in partnership with the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law as part of the Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series. It will be recorded live in person on Wednesday, February 21, 2024, at the Thorne Auditorium at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. Arguing Yes: Francesca Procaccini, Assistant Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School; Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Professor of Law at Stetson University   Arguing No: Floyd Abrams, Senior Counsel at Cahill Gordon & Reindel; Eric Wang, Partner at The Gober Group, pro bono Senior Fellow at the Institute for Free Speech   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

During Black History Month, we reflect on a debate that confronts America’s complex history with racial and social inequality. How can we ensure fair treatment for all in the workplace, on campuses, and in our personal interactions? Is it possible to imagine a future beyond race? As we honor this month of remembrance and celebration, we revisit a conversation that confronts the challenges of our past and the promise of a future that aspires to secure equitable opportunities for all.     Arguing Yes: Jamelle Bouie, Columnist for the New York Times    Arguing No: 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

Iran’s regional role has changed post-October 7, but is Iran a bigger global threat than we think? In partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations, National Security Council and State Department veterans will debate in our Unresolved format Biden’s Iran diplomacy, Iran's use of proxies in the Middle East, its nuclear ambitions, and whether Iran now poses a threat to the global order.  Michael Doran, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at the Hudson Institute  Barbara Slavin, Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Center  Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Couples have arguments over many topics. However, it’s through resolving conflict that both people in the relationship feel heard and seen. Psychotherapist, relationship expert, and New York Times-bestselling author Esther Perel says conflict when navigated skillfully can lead to growth, resilience, and a stronger bond. In this conversation with John Donvan, Perel discusses her new online course, shares her experience working with different relationship types, strategies for transforming conflict into a constructive dialogue, and the importance of validating both sides’ perspectives. Our guest: Esther Perel, Psychotherapist and New York Times bestselling author   Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Whoever wins the 2024 election will soon face a critical decision about extending four trillion dollars in tax cuts expiring next year. Whether taxes will be raised, or cut is in question, against the backdrop of 34.1 trillion dollars in federal debt. For the past few decades, the Republican Party has embraced the belief that lower tax rates and less government spending boost the U.S. economy. However, there is disagreement among conservative thought leaders about the way forward on taxes for the Republican Party. Specifically, some argue that preferences for tax cuts ignore the looming deficit and that refusing to raise taxes further imbalances the federal budget. However, others continue to argue that our debt is caused by government overspending and will actually be helped by tax cuts and that these same cuts also help promote a flourishing economy.    With this background, we debate the question: Is the Republican Party’s Refusal to Raise Taxes Fiscally Irresponsible?  Arguing Yes: Oren Cass, Executive Director of American Compass    Arguing No: David McIntosh, President of the Club for Growth  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Right now, climate engineers are working on new technologies, called solar geoengineering, that would reflect the sun’s rays away from Earth as a way to cool the planet. Those in favor argue it would be inexpensive and effective, and could buy us time to get carbon emissions down before the worst impacts of climate change. But others argue it would distract from the underlying issues of climate change and express concern about who would control such a powerful technology. So we debate: Is Engineering Solar Radiation A Crazy Idea? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The American Dream – the idea that anyone can achieve success in the U.S. through hard work and determination – is under scrutiny, and some worry it’s no longer achievable for the broader population. Those who agree say increasing healthcare, education, and housing costs create difficulty in having financial stability. Those who disagree argue that the U.S. still offers more opportunities for personal and financial growth than elsewhere. Now we debate: Is the American Dream in Decline? Arguing Yes: David Leonhardt, Pulitzer Prize-winning Senior Writer for The New York Times and The Morning; Author of “Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream”   Arguing No: Michael Strain, Political Economy Scholar and Director of Economic Policy Studies at American Enterprise Institute; Author of “The American Dream Is Not Dead: (But Populism Could Kill It)”   Nayeema Raza, Journalist at New York Magazine and Vox, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Debate is a form of conflict that is played out through civility, and the capability to exchange ideas with people we disagree with. But what leads leaders and countries to fall into conflict? In this conversation with Retired U.S. Army General David H. Petraeus and historian Lord Andrew Roberts, guest moderator Xenia Wickett speaks with them about their new book, the nature of military conflict, and how civil debate and conflict are intertwined.    Our Guests:     General David H. Petraeus, U.S. Army Retired General; Chairman of the KKR Global Institute; Former CIA Director      Andrew Roberts, Biographer, Historian, and Member of the U.K. Parliament    Xenia Wickett, Geopolitical strategist and moderator at Wickett Advisory and Trustee of Transparency International UK, is the guest moderator.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After the 2020 election, former President Trump discredited the election results. The January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and Trump’s federal indictment on four charges are tied to his claims. The defense claims proof is needed he had planned to commit a crime and he conducted himself under legal advice. The prosecution argues his actions showed criminal intent to defraud the U.S. and was done knowingly. Now we debate: Is Trump Guilty in the January 6th Case?   Prosecutor: Lanny Davis, Attorney and Former Presidential Advisor    Defense Attorney: Sara Azari, Criminal Defense Lawyer; Legal Analyst for NewsNation   Judge's Chair: John Donvan, Moderator-In-Chief and Emmy award-winning journalist   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With polarization rising within our society and two wars encouraging division, people are feeling more afraid to engage with people who have differing perspectives. How can we solve that issue, build deeper connections, and get to know someone? New York Times columnist David Brooks says you help them feel seen and understood. John Donvan sits down with Brooks to discuss his book “How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen”, how to foster connections in daily life, and offers a solution to a society in need of appreciating each other’s differences. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today, humanity is thriving, but there are fears the good times will not last. Will tomorrow be better than today? Those arguing “yes” say people have better access to resources and technological advances are making us more prosperous. Those arguing “no” say there are widening socio-economic disparities, our globalized world is bound to collapse, and we’re not doing enough to fight climate change. Now we debate: Will the Future Be Abundant?  Arguing Yes: Peter Diamandis, Founder and Executive Chairman of the XPRIZE Foundation    Arguing No: Peter Zeihan, Geopolitical Strategist    Xenia Wickett, Geopolitical strategist and moderator at Wickett Advisory and Trustee of Transparency International UK, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In response to a surge in migrants and asylum seekers at America’s borders, the Secure the Border Act of 2023 aims to enforce stricter limitations on immigration, migrants, and more. Those arguing for passage say it is a necessary response to improve national security and modernize border security infrastructure. Those against it are concerned about the humanitarian impact and question its effectiveness. Now we debate: Should Congress Pass the Secure the Border Act?  Arguing Yes: Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies    Arguing No: Kristie De Peña, Senior Vice President for Policy and Director of Immigration Policy at Niskanen Center   Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From AI-generated paintings to writing scripts and novels, AI is challenging our endeavor to create, innovate, and connect. Will the human touch be obsolete? Those arguing yes say since AI-created art can’t experience human emotions, it will lack depth, and it will come at an economic cost for human artists. Those arguing no say it’s another tool in a toolkit and will help express talent like never before. Now we debate: Will AI Kill the Future of the Creative Arts?  Arguing Yes: Jonathan Taplin, Author; Director Emeritus of the Annenberg Innovation Lab at the University of Southern California  Arguing No: Rebecca Fiebrink, Professor at the University of the Arts, London's Creative Computing Institute    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices