Open to Debate

Birthright citizenship guarantees citizenship to anyone born within the United States’ territory, regardless of a parent’s nationality. But should this legal principle be removed from the Constitution? Those arguing it shouldn’t say that it prevents children from being punished for their parents’ status, while encouraging long-term economic and civic contributions. But those calling to end the practice argue it fuels illegal immigration and strains the overburdened immigration system. Now, we debate: Should America End Birthright Citizenship? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in October 2025. Arguing Yes:   Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies  Horace Cooper, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research; Chairman of the Project 21 National Advisory Board  Arguing No:   Kris Mayes, Arizona Attorney General  Chris Newman, Legal Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON)  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

These days, it can feel like raising kids has become a minefield. Somewhere along the way, older generations started looking at younger generations and asking, “Are the parents alright?” In this episode of “Generational Divides", Reason editor-at-large Nick Gillespie and parents from three generations tackle some of the thorniest questions in modern parenting around social media, gentle parenting, and whether kids should be free to roam.  Our Guests:  For Baby Boomers: Lenore Skenazy, Co-founder of the Free-Range Kids movement  For Gen X: Reshma Saujani, Founder of Girls Who Code; CEO of Moms First  For Millennials: Kristin Gallant, Co-founder of Big Little Feelings  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

Global powers are increasingly shaping markets and taking equity positions in strategic industries. But recently, Washington’s role in the economy has expanded, with stakes in companies like Intel, different from its traditionally hands-off approach. Could strategic government investment be a source of strength and competitiveness—or should it remain a true last resort, preserving a system that allows markets to determine winners and losers? We debate: Government as Shareholder: Proactive Competitive Strategy or Last Resort?  This debate was created in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations and was recorded on May 18, 2026, at 6 PM.  Arguing "Proactive Competitive Strategy":  Laura Taylor-Kale, Senior Fellow for Geoeconomics and Defense at the Council of Foreign Relations and Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy  Richard Falkenrath, Senior Fellow for National Security at the Council on Foreign Relations; MJ Chung Distinguished Chair at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University  Arguing "Last Resort":  Bob Pozen, Distinguished Senior Lecturer at MIT Sloan School of Management; Former President of Fidelity Investments  Yasheng Huang, Epoch Foundation Professor of Global Economics and Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management; Author of "The Rise and the Fall of the EAST”  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

Modern science has given us the ability to edit our genes, life-saving vaccines, and glimpse the origins of the universe. But is the same system holding itself back? Critics argue that the pressure to publish and fierce competition for funding rewards safe, incremental work over bold thinking. Others see a system still capable of paradigm-shifting discoveries — one where global collaborations and long-term thinking motivate scientists to pursue grand, ambitious ideas. Now we debate: Is the Scientific Enterprise Too Risk-Averse?  This debate was produced in partnership with the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University, as part of The Hopkins Forum series. Arguing Yes:  Tyler Cowen, Author of "The Great Stagnation"; Economics Professor at George Mason University; Founder of Emergent Ventures; Host of "Conversations with Tyler" podcast   Brandon Ogbunu, Computational Biologist; Associate Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Yale University; Professor at the Santa Fe Institute  Arguing No:   Kate Biberdorf (“Kate the Chemist”), Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at the University of Notre Dame; Science Entertainer  The Honorable Sethuraman Panchanathan, 15th Director of the National Science Foundation; University Professor of Technology and Innovation and Foundation Chair at Arizona State University  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

For centuries, museums in Europe and the U.S. built their collections during eras of empire and unequal power. Now, institutions face growing calls to return artifacts taken through colonial rule or war, from the Benin Bronzes to Indigenous objects. Supporters say repatriation corrects historical injustice and restores sacred objects to their communities. Critics argue that museums serve a global public and that these works represent shared human heritage. Now we debate: Should Museums Repatriate Cultural Artifacts? Arguing Yes:   Chika Okeke-Agulu, Artist, Curator, and Professor of Art and Archaeology and African American Studies at Princeton University  Leila Amineddoleh, Art and Cultural Heritage Lawyer; Chair of the Firm’s Art Law Group at Tarter Krinsky & Drogin  Arguing No:   Dominic Selwood, Historian, Author, Journalist, and Barrister  Mario Trabucco della Torretta, Classical Archaeologist  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