With cyber threats and ransomware on the rise globally, the Biden administration has enlisted America’s tech titans to help blunt their effects. Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, are all in discussions with Washington over how to strengthen the nation’s critical infrastructure defenses against a growing array of both private and state-sponsored attacks. Skeptics question just how much can be achieved, given how connected U.S. society has become. But solutions are emerging, from lifting the veil of cryptocurrencies, a favored transaction among hackers, to making the paying of ransoms illegal. In this special edition of Intelligence Squared’s Agree-to-Disagree series, John Donvan sits down with David Sanger of The New York Times for a closer examination of these attacks before launching into a much more specific debate with two cyber security experts. The debate: Should paying hacker ransoms be made illegal? Cyber Threat Alliance president and chief executive Michael Daniel and Rapid7 vice-president Jen Ellis square off in light of recent high-profile hackings.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Agree to Disagree: Cyber War

Nine justices hold tremendous power. Advocates on the left see a Supreme Court out of touch with the electorate, obstructed by partisan interests, and rendered illegitimate by years of controversial appointments. But those opposed believe dramatically changing one of the three core pillars of American government would undermine the court’s legitimacy.  Intelligence Squared U.S. in partnership with The Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law asks: Should we expand the Supreme Court?   Arguing in favor of the motion is Dhalia Lithwick, legal commentator and Slate's Amicus podcast host with Tamara Brummer of advocacy group Demand Justice. Arguing against the motion is Carter Phillips, a Supreme Court and appellate litigator with Akhil Reed Amar, a constitutional law scholar and professor at Yale University. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We Should Expand the Supreme Court

As world attention descends on the United Nations General Assembly, Intelligence Squared U.S. casts a critical lens on this nearly 76-year-old global organization. In light of recent controversies in places like Haiti, and its recent absence in places such as Afghanistan -- where the Taliban has regained control -- questions are mounting as to whether the United Nations itself is both ineffective and outdated. In light of these emerging questions, we ask an especially timely question: Is the United Nations is Obsolete?   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The United Nations is Obsolete

The Biden administration wants to spend big. Its $4.5 trillion "Build Back Better" plan includes hefty investments in infrastructure, unprecedented spending on the labor force, and funding for a host of Democratic policy priorities. But just what would this mean for the American economy?  As Washington takes up this historic plan, we ask: Should Congress spend trillions to “Build Back Better”?      Arguing in favor of the motion is Mark Zandi . Arguing against the motion is Michael Strain. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Agree to Disagree: Should Congress spend trillions to Build Back Better?

As more and more Americans become vaccinated, schools, employers, and health care facilities are facing a tough decision: Will they require students, employees, and care givers to get the jab? Those who say “yes” cite safety concerns – particularly when dealing with vulnerable populations – and call it a necessary step to return to normal. Those who say “no” argue these sorts of mandates violate individual rights, could expose recipients to potential dangers from the vaccines themselves, and set dangerous broader precedents when it comes to government overreach in public health. It is an especially timely question that pits health concerns up against ideals of personal liberty. And it has practical implications as societies emerge from lockdown. Having it out in the public square, Intelligence Squared host John Donvan presides over a spirited debate between Michael J. Anderson, a Wisconsin attorney who has represented employees resisting vaccine mandates, and Lawrence Gostin, a professor of law at Georgetown University, which is enforcing a vaccine mandate. Originally released on July 2, 2021. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Can Employers and Schools Require Vaccines?

The Taliban have won. Twenty years after the 2001 invasion, the U.S.-backed government in Kabul has fallen. The Afghan president has fled. Taliban leadership, which ran the country in the late 1990s, is now firmly in place within the presidential palace. But after two decades of war, tens of billions spent, hundreds of thousands of lives lost – including more than 2,300 U.S. military personnel – bigger questions have emerged: Is the cost of leaving greater than the cost of staying? And was pulling out the right decision? Intelligence Squared and its host John Donvan examine these competing perspectives in this special timely edition of Agree-to-Disagree: Leaving Afghanistan.   First, a conversation with Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist and best-selling author, who is one of the world’s leading experts on the social and political situations in Pakistan and Afghanistan. His first book, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, explores the shadowy world of the Taliban and quickly became a #1 New York Times bestseller.  Rashid has been called “Pakistan’s best and bravest reporter” (Christopher Hitchens).  Then, a competition of ideas: Arguing in favor of leaving is Daniel Markey, Senior Research Professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. Arguing against leaving is Kori Schake is a senior fellow and the director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan is the moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Agree to Disagree: Leaving Afghanistan

Gun violence is surging. Despite lockdowns and social distancing, 2020 ended up as one of America’s most violent years in decades. 2021 is following a similar path. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden has laid out his strategy. In this special debate, we review three gun debates that still have relevance today.    1.) The Constitutional Right To Bear Arms Has Outlived Its Usefulness (Sanford Levinson of  University of Texas Law School and David Kopel of Cato Institute)  2. Guns Reduce Crime (John Lott, economist, and former Seattle Police Chief Gil  Kerlikowske)  3. Unresolved American Policing (Paul Butler, Jason Johnson, Rafael Mangual, Sue  Rahr, Vikrant Reddy)  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

America's Guns

What's happening at The New York Times? The paper of record is under fire. Critics argue it has sacrificed journalistic and intellectual balance in favor of correcting historic inequalities. In the process, they say, that effort has stifled dissent and promoted social justice above all else. Not so, say its defenders. The paper has indeed evolved, they argue. Yet that evolution has been proven a particular strength in such tumultuous times. Subscriptions are up, while both casting a critically important lens on historically disenfranchised groups and maintaining its core commitment to high editorial standards and a wide breadth of reporting. So here's the debate: "Has the New York Times Lost Its Way?"  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The New York Times Has Lost Its Way

Economic inequality has become a linchpin of modern politics. As nations around the world face a reckoning on racial and social justice and work to combat the economic impacts of the pandemic, we ask: Is it time to redistribute the wealth? Should we address growing inequality by overhauling our tax system, expanding our social safety nets, and investing more in public initiatives like universal health care, education, and infrastructure? Or would a wealth transfer unduly punish the economic elite, destroy the promise of a meritocracy, and inevitably lead to excessive government intervention in our social and economic lives? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's Time to Redistribute the Wealth

As more and more Americans become vaccinated, schools, employers, and health care facilities are facing a tough decision: Will they require students, employees, and care givers to get the jab? Those who say “yes” cite safety concerns – particularly when dealing with vulnerable populations – and call it a necessary step to return to normal. Those who say “no” argue these sorts of mandates violate individual rights, could expose recipients to potential dangers from the vaccines themselves, and set dangerous broader precedents when it comes to government overreach in public health. It is an especially timely question that pits health concerns up against ideals of personal liberty. And it has practical implications as societies emerge from lockdown. Having it out in the public square, Intelligence Squared host John Donvan presides over a spirited debate between Michael J. Anderson, a Wisconsin attorney who has represented employees resisting vaccine mandates, and Lawrence Gostin, a professor of law at Georgetown University, which is enforcing a vaccine mandate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Agree to Disagree COVID Series: Can Employers and Schools Require Vaccines?

Generally, it is good practice for any individual or organization to occasionally step back and evaluate a few big picture items. But when that review is sparked by a pandemic and real uncertainties about the state of western democracy, that little exercise often becomes existential. In that spirit, and in this special season review, Intelligence Squared casts a critical lens on itself; its mission to serve as a beacon for civil discourse, its examination of opposing perspectives; and the transformation the organization itself has experienced in light of such seismic events. In this especially candid discussion, John Donvan sits down with Intelligence Squared CEO Clea Conner, editor-at-large of Reason magazine, Nick Gillespie, and Robert Litan, an economist and attorney, whose recent book “Resolved: Debate Can Revolutionize Education and Help Save Our Democracy” bears particular relevance to this conversation. Collectively, this group asks the hard questions about the role of debate in society, but also of how IQ2 pivoted as the virtual world opened up. Finally, it is a look at the precious few places left for genuine discussion, and why, perhaps, it is needed now more than ever.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The State of Debate: An Intelligence Squared Roundtable

How do you know that you’re right? Modern business, politics, and even culture, tend to favor strident opinions and decisive action. To “flip flop” may then be construed as ineptitude, or even weakness. So it behooves us to “stick to our guns, “stay the course,” and adhere to other well-trodden idioms of the English language. Of course that approach may be limiting. And what if you are actually wrong? How will you know? What means testing can be involved in your thinking when to waver or even change your mind might undermine what you are ultimately trying to accomplish? Ray Dalio, an American investor, billionaire and the founder of the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, has spent a lot of time thinking about this quandary. Countering its pitfalls is something he actively encourages, not only in business, but also in his personal life. In this wide ranging interview, Dalio sat down for a conversation with Intelligence Squared host John Donvan to examine what it means to being open to changing your mind, precisely how to do it, and what’s at stake if you don’t. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Changing Your Mind

Is Bitcoin here to stay? Cryptocurrencies hold the promise of revolutionizing global finance by placing control in the hands of users, not nations, and making financial exchanges more transparent, efficient, and democratic. But given the yet-another-round of boom and bust cycles seen recently, questions remain: Could cypto ever be considered a safe bet? Proponents say the hype is warranted, with naysayers increasingly jumping on the Bitcoin (block) train. Yet skeptics and critics – like Elon Musk – suggest this highly volatile digital currency offers a platform for illicit activity, including money laundering and trafficking of humans and drugs, free from government oversight and regulation. They argue Bitcoin has no intrinsic value – the price is based on market enthusiasm rather than actual utility. So… in light of renewed attention, Intelligence Squared U.S. sought to resurrect this highly relevant debate: Is Bitcoin More Than a Bubble and Here to Stay? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bitcoin Is More Than a Bubble and Here to Stay

In light of the recent Israel-Hamas war, an old debate is gaining new relevance. The nature of the current conflict has again unleashed a wave of antisemitic threats and violence in the U.S., with synagogues and Jewish-owned business having been vandalized and attacked. But as society surveys the damage, it also asks whether the condemnation of Israeli actions can truly be divorced from antisemitic hostilities? In other words, is being an anti-zionist tantamount to being antisemitic? Or is arguing against a state of-and-for the Jewish people just a thinly veiled way of harboring prejudice? In this debate, which first aired in February 2020, and accordingly has a few dated references which we felt were necessary to keep, Intelligence Squared looks to four expert panelists to debate this question: Is Anti-Zionism the New Anti-Semitism? For the Motion: Bret Stephens - Op-Ed Columnist, New York Times Einat Wilf - Former Member, Israeli Parliament Against the Motion: Peter Beinart - Journalist & Author, "The Crisis of Zionism" Yousef Munayyer - Executive Director, US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is Anti-Zionism the New Anti-Semitism?

The fate of Taiwan is uncertain. As a revanchist China builds up forces near the island, the Biden administration is warning Beijing against an invasion, bolstering its defense with the sale of military hardware. Beijing sees Taiwan as lost territory, which needs to be “reunified” with the mainland. The United States is now faced with a geopolitical quandary: Can the U.S. military defend Taiwan from Beijing, and should it? Or, is Taiwan indefensible? Arguing in favor of the motion is Lyle J. Goldstein of the Naval War College, with Charlie Glaser of George Washington University. Arguing against the motion is former deputy assistant secretary of defense Elbridge Colby, with Elizabeth Larus of the University of Mary Washington. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Taiwan is Indefensible

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates bring Oxford-style debate to America – one motion, one moderator, two panelists for the motion and two against. From clean energy and the financial crisis, to the Middle East and the death of mainstream media, Intelligence Squared U.S. brings together the world’s leading authorities on the day’s most important issues. Join the debate online and cast your vote for each topic at www.iq2us.org.

hubhopper

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

hubhopper