Open to Debate

The clock is ticking on TikTok. The popular video sharing app is facing a looming deadline of January 19th, when the law effectively banning it in the U.S. is set to go into effect. Unless, that is, the Supreme Court steps in to save it this week. While we wait, we revisit our 2023 debate that asked this prescient 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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Iran is getting closer to developing its first nuclear weapon. With tensions rising in the Middle East, should the U.S. and its allies take a stand? Those calling to stop Iran now argue this is a “now or never” moment for the region. Those calling for tolerance say while it’s not ideal, it is manageable, and maintaining diplomacy should be the focus. Now we debate: Can America and Its Allies Tolerate A Nuclear Iran, or Is It Time to Stop Them Now?  Arguing STOP NOW: Behnam Ben Taleblu, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies  Arguing TOLERATE: Barbara Slavin, Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Center    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Millions of people have credited Alcoholics Anonymous with helping them stay sober from alcohol, but is it the best path for everyone? Those who say “yes” argue it is easily accessible to all and that its structure through the 12-step program helps people succeed. Those who say “no” argue say the abstinence model doesn’t work for everyone and there may be better alternatives. Now we debate: Does AA Work?   Arguing Yes: Dan Griffin, Expert on Alcoholics Anonymous; Author of "A Man's Way Through the Twelve Steps" Arguing No: Adi Jaffe, Founder of IGNTD; Author of "The Abstinence Myth" Nayeema Raza, Journalist and Co-Host of the Semafor Podcast "Mixed Signals", is the guest moderator. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How long would you like to live, and could science and technology make it possible?  Longevity science aims to extend our healthy years through advancements in CRISPR, cellular reprogramming, and drug development. While private companies and philanthropists invest heavily in these innovations, should the government be responsible for funding these efforts? Those who say yes to government funding say that longevity research could revolutionize public health, keep aging populations productive in the workforce, and reduce the economic burden of age-related illnesses. Those opposed to public funding of longevity science say that true life extension beyond a decade might be unachievable, and it will take years before results are measurable. They argue that when and if these advances become available, they may only be for a smaller, affluent population. They also argue that long-known behavior choices like good nutrition and sleep should be adopted by all now, instead of chasing uncertain longevity advancements.     With this context, we debate the question: Could Longevity Science Extend Your Health Span By Decades? Should the Government Fund It?   Arguing Yes: Peter Diamandis, Founder and Chairman of the XPRIZE Foundation; Announced the XPRIZE Healthspan Competiton; Author of "Longevity Guidebook"    Arguing No: Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Bioethicist; Vice Provost for Global Initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices