Open to Debate

Amid deep political division and ahead of the midterms, what does good citizenship require? In his new book, “Live Like a Citizen,” Citizen University’s Eric Liu argues that democracy depends on citizenship as an everyday practice — learning to listen, participate, disagree, change our minds, and remain committed to one another despite our differences. John Donvan sits down with Liu to explore what he has thought twice about regarding citizenship since he moved from Washington, D.C. to "the other Washington," the city of Seattle, specifically, sharing his eight habits for rebuilding civic life and why changing America may require changing ourselves.

Our Guest: Eric Liu, CEO and Co-Founder of Citizen University; Author of "Live Like A Citizen"

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates

Attend a live debate in Baltimore on October 27th. We'll be debating the impacts of AI in higher ed at Johns Hopkins University as part of our Hopkins Forum series in partnership with the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Agora Institute. Reserve your seat now!

https://bit.ly/ai-college-future

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

Social Security has long been a cornerstone of American retirement, but as the trust fund grows closer to depletion by 2032, should the system be repaired or replaced with new standards? Those advocating for phasing it out argue its unsuitability for the modern economy and should only be available for those needing it most. Others argue it’s still a good anti-poverty tool and Congress should take action and make changes to its finances. Now we debate: Should We Phase Out Social Security?

Arguing Yes: Romina Boccia, Director of Budget and Entitlement Policy at Cato Institute

Arguing No: Teresa Ghilarducci, Professor of Economics and Policy Analysis and Director of the Wealth Equity Lab at The New School

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 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