Reviews For Open to Debate

Some episodes are amazing. However, please don’t invite Katherine Mangu-Ward back

This was one of my favorite podcasts. But it has slipped significantly since abandoning the old format. I miss the live audience and the pre / post debate votes. That format was lively. The screen is yours just doesn't do it for me.

John Donovan is a saint.

The debate immediately deteriorated into a brawl with each person talking past the other. It should have been more focused. As an example, it could have have focused on two elements: 1/ Does this conflict require a proportional response?; and 2/ if a proportional response is warranted, what specific tactics should Israel employ, and how long should it wait for the return of the hostages before it adopts a more aggressive approach.

I have enjoyed what was Intelligence Squared for many many years. And I’m fine with the name change to Open Debate. But I miss the original format where there was either a live or online vote that determined which side won. It’s not so much about winning or losing but instead to hear the response, to know if people agree or disagree with my opinion on the topic.

I listen to a lot of podcasts on politics, technology, finance and science. The formats are almost always interviews with experts. I learn a lot but have always wished to hear experts with differing views debate so that I could understand how each defends and elaborates their position when challenged by another expert. This podcast does that! I appreciate the structured format and the role of the host in shaping which topics the guests are to address.

Love the strong debaters on both sides of the topic. I especially love that the weakest extremists are weeded out from being included. This format is perfect for understand the issues without the poor examples of Experts that media let’s represent an issue.

Pro-Islam debater Reza stated you couldn’t really judge Islam based on the texts alone which state many anti-Semitic things. Later he stated you couldn’t simply go by what the vast majority of practitioners believe: mostly anti-Semetic. Finally, late in the debate he suggested that you should ignore the preponderance of Islam scholars throughout history and now who believe wholeheartedly that Islam is anti-Semitic. Also, definitely don’t believe your eyes. In the end, we should believe… … … him! The debater himself is the authority I suppose. How handy!

I used to listen to Justice Talking and John when he hosted the IQ Squared debates. Debate is great, but so far this podcast is a joke. Always two leftist pseudo intellectuals. That why these are so BORING!!!!!

I used to really like this pod. It brought different perspectives together and had a contested debate. Now its turned into another echo chamber without real debate. Really disappointing imo.

This was at one time my favorite podcast. In the past two to three years the debates are more of the “everyone gets a trophy” talks. The topics are soft and a bit bubble gummy for lack of a better description. It would be wonderful to get back to the shows that were of substance.

The problem with this show is the selection of debaters. Instead of modeling civil discourse between two very different points of view (say right v. Left) they consistently choose debaters who are left vs. far left. A great example is the gender pay gap episode. Instead of having the hard debate about whether it exists (which many don’t think it does), they choose two who agree that it exists but disagree on policy. Get more intellectuals from the right on here and I’ll start listening again.

I do appreciate the purpose of this show. It models the seemingly lost art of disagreeing without demonizing or demeaning. I especially enjoyed listening to the debate about color blindness between Jamelle Bouie and Coleman Hughes. Thank you so much for this work.

I enjoyed both sides of the debate. 9/29/2023 Cultural Exchange is important. The 'but' analogy was horrific but funny at 27:32 minutes into the show, and I felt embarrassed for them. Funny. Dated 9/29/2023 And Esther Perel is fantastic

Loved Nayeema Raza's moderation on the debate on the American dream! She was excellent. Refreshing to hear some thought provoking debate instead of the echo chambers we've gotten used to.

Really enjoyed intelligence squared a few years ago and came back to start listening again - only to find a new title and format? Really confused how any of this is an improvement; miss the old show.

I am waiting for the discussants to agree to parameters and cease to argue apples vs oranges. The other problem with setting philosophers on the task is their universally poor understanding of history and especially historical context.

The pre-2020 episodes with 4 debaters and a live audience are stellar and absolutely worth listening to, but the show took a BIG downturn after COVID hit. The zoom-meeting episodes are hard on the ears, and even when they DO get back to a live audience setting, the debates are lacking in quality. For example, the latest episode (“Is America too obsessed with race?”) quickly turned into a messy verbal slap fight that lost track of the original premise. Update: many months later, this stands true. Interruptions and multiple people shouting over each other are now the norm on this podcast. It’s painful. What used to be a respectful debate show is now a sloppy shouting match.

There is hope for the world yet. A show that actually has two sides (!) and asks important, tough questions. Love John Donvan. He should moderate my family dinners and the presidential debates.

Is it really a debate when one of the parties at this “debate” comes to it with a written statement from which he reads? How much can he defend his position if he cannot do it impromptu? I’m talking about Len Downey Jr. trying to defend his position against Bret Stephens’.

Does color blindness perpetuate racism?? Dafuq???

I will continue listening, but the one on one format is not as good as two on two. I have generally found either side underserved by the single debater and feel like civility has suffered as well. John can’t penalize a debater for poor behavior by giving them less airtime without shutting down a side, and I suspect being alone is leaving people freer to get nasty. We think differently when we know a teammate will be relying on us.

I'm a high school debate team captain on the East Coast. I suggest that you do one of my recent topics; "Resolved: The Supreme Court of the United States of America ought to be stern Limited." Essentially, Supreme Court member should not have life appointments.

So balanced and sensible. Sam, FinancialSamurai.com

I tried to listen with an open mind but this was highly politically charged. My husband is a fierce moderate and even he thought it was basically debating extreme politics and putting it on two states. Mayor Bill sayin MAGA Extremism over and over turned my stomach.

I’ve greatly enjoyed this podcast; however, frequently ideas are debated with two individuals from the Left. Calling Trump followers idiots is unprofessional as they did in the Jan 6th debate. Please continue to endeavor to represent both sides and avoid shaming the right.

This show has become such a sham to the originan intelligence squared that it pains me to listen to.

That last debate was great, but please understand that by having intellectually dishonest people on your show, it dissuades me from watching. I have lived in FL for 25 years and listening to Rufo lie time and time again about what he thinks and when called out accuses the other debater of not knowing how government works infuriates me to know end. This man was part of a literal takeover of a liberal college led by DeSantis. He is an incredibly dangerous man to education. Take my 5 star review, but I just may need a break.

I used to really enjoy this podcast, and listening to it have me the idea that I could hear a good version of both sides of an argument. Recently, since the pandemic, I’ve noticed there is a tendency to have a left wing argument and a lefter wing argument. On some issues, like the state of the Democratic Party, that makes sense. On others like on Trump etc much less so. What’s more aggravating is that the show goes to lengths to say it’s interested in combating partisanship. From my viewpoint holding debates where half the political spectrum isn’t invited to participate or listened too is where a lot of our current problems came from. The first time I noticed this I thought it was just a bad episode, but now it seems like it’s the new normal.

This was my favorite podcast pre-Covid with the Oxford style format in front of a live audience, live questions from attendees, and the winners announced at the end. The new format is rarely worth listening to.

Saw her 2011 TED Talk, can’t hear a difference. If you’re going to tease a bold new strategy, don’t lie to me.

The question before the house: has marketing doomed us to generic, bland show names and a sea of same-samey logos? But this is a great podcast.

Too many podcasts are people with similar views pumping each other up, and putting the “others” down. Intelligence Squared is so refreshing, and exactly what we need.

nothing there when i rapidly typed in the url. probably made a mistake. phones and tablets require more user friendly options: just something to tap (the link). just say “tap the link in the show notes, the survey takes less than x minutes” and you’ll get folks to respond. love the show.

As a fan of Intelligence Squared, I moved the debate up in my listening list. Sounded like great concept. I was very disappointed! Both debaters were ardent Trump haters. This detracted. The woman on the pro side mostly talked in pseudo-intellectual word salads. The guy on the No side rambled on in his claim that it was a farce. Lots of debunked tropes were trotted by, by both, too numerous to mention. Moderator asked them to take the other’s position for argument sake. She totally ignored the instructions and continued with her argument. What could the No guy say at that point. The unscientific method of rating loudness of audience applause could not mask the fact that an overwhelming pro audience was converted to a balanced response that tilted towards the No position. JVD politely ignored the loss for the pro proposition by saying no major change. The debaters and format were far below Intelligence Squared standards!

Before giving criticism I am making it clear that this podcast is great an I listen weekly to make sense of the world so tune in/subscribe/donate. My complaint about this podcast is that the selection of guests/topic framing is done a continuum from center right/left to far left leaving out opinions/voices of anyone to the right of National Review. Two recent examples… Debating the supreme court’s upcoming ruling on affirmative action focused only on the Harvard case tilts debate towards a pro aa perspective. The Supreme Court is considering the Harvard/UNC cases together because their was obvious discrimination in the UNC case that is less glaring Harvards behavior. Next up… Inviting a democrat and a long time ago former republican to debate should trump be indicted for January 6 ends the debate from the start. Both sides are a yes and the debate switches to if is worth the trouble. How about the view that tump’s post election behavior was disgraceful but did raise to the level of a crime? Maybe offer a two sided discussion about freedom of speech or if this a politician being justly prosecuted or a political prosecution? I could go on but I guess the point is that this podcast is really good but could be great if it managed it’s blind spots better.

Kmele Foster’s comments on Public Radio Relevancy and how DEI initiatives are causing it to miss the mark are incredible.

A debate should include opposing sides. Having two radical Democrats debate this issue and spend most of t he time trashing President Trump was shameful for this podcast. The moderator didn't challenge them so this was not a "debate". Such a disappointment!

This is the first time I listened to this podcast and I must say I was impressed. There were two very different points of view each presented without any questions or interruptions. I will say though that only one of the debaters (Kmele Foster) stated his point in a persuasive manner, the others just used hyperbole and non-realistic examples or rare exceptions to the rule. I will listen to more of the podcasts because I like hearing both sides of an issue, but I tend to dismiss clearly biased views. My hope is to hear intelligent argument.

Been listening since 2016 and the “Agree to Disagree” series is good, on occasion. However, lately that is the only content provided. It feels disappointing to have an interesting topic without a formal debate, which is what I used to love about IQ2. The quality of discourse is night and day when comparing the live vs. virtual debates. Please bring back live debates!! Debates on the same topics as recent Agree to Disagree episodes would be good.

John does a great job of moderating debates and discussions like agree to disagree, but this episode disappointed me. John asked pertinent questions that the guests sometimes failed to answer, not new. But this conversation was interesting to me almost wholly due to the aspect I thought the resolution described. The possibility AI will do more harm than good at some future date seems very real, if not inevitable. Few expect it in the next 20 years, during which time many good things may be attributed to AI. The resolution, however, did not specify “in the next 20 years”, so why was the dialog limited to that time? When longer range comments about 100, 200 or 400 years hence, it was laughingly dismissed. Many believe AI will eventually usher in the demise of mankind, eventually. Let’s give that some serious thought. Global warming might cause the end of our species, but not in the next 100 years, yet we approach that topic seriously, not as a joke. WWIII could result in mutual destruction of superpowers via nuclear warfare or worse and we give considerable effort and thought to its prevention. It seems to many of us that AI is as great a threat over the next few centuries, if not more. I suggest another debate or discussion, maybe with Darrell and Daron back to opine: Will humanity be extinct by the year 2400? I suspect AI will receive its due as that one gets underway, not for humoring, though.

I really find this show interesting, and these sorts of genuine, smart, thoughtful debates almost never happen in our current media culture. Well done and keep it coming! BUT occasionally the questions are so poorly devised that people end up on the same side of the argument. Or the listener can’t in good conscience vote for the debate team that truly makes the better argument. For example, should we eat more processed foods…..of course not! Did the team arguing that there is a very important place for ultra processed foods in society? Yes! This is a regular problem, please make the questions as “intelligent” as the debates.

This has to be one of the least objective and most bias debate podcasts I’ve ever heard. The debate of whether or not Trump should be indicted featured three people who were definitively and unmistakably anti-Trump, the two debaters and the host. How is that a fair debate?? All they did was spew out emotive, slanderous and conspiratorial garbage the entire time. I definitely don’t think Trump is perfect but come on, this is not a debate, it’s an anti-trump echo chamber. Unsubscribed.

This is the pinnacle of podcasting. If we’re not using this medium to have healthy, fair discussions, then what are we doing here? Each debate is excellent. If everyone listened to these discussions, the world would simply be a better place.

This went from the best podcast to the worst at an alarming rate. Absolute trash now. Remarkably, it’s gotten even worse in the past few months. The latest motion is whether to indict Trump and for debaters they choose a political scientist and a never-Trump politician, both of whom strongly support the Jan 6 hearings. It’s sad because until around 2019 it was consistent excellence.

First time I’ve stopped listening to an episode. Unserious display of partisanship. I expect more from this typically engaging podcast, including the curation of guest debaters. Please don’t regress to three letter news network babble.

I greatly enjoy what it is Intelligence Square debates seeks to do which is have intelligent and civil debates. I’ve had my mind changed by debaters just as often as I’ve had facts confirmed. While some of its specialist aren’t always 100% correct, the goal of the podcast is great and it meets its missions.