Intelligence Squared

We launch our first podcast of the year today – our 2011 talk by the world renowned American cognitive scientist Steven Pinker. In it he argues that, contrary to popular belief, we are living in the least violent period of history. And that even the horrific carnage of the last century, compared to primitive societies, is part of this trend. Pinker claims that, thanks to the spread of government, literacy and trade, we are actually becoming better people.

Does mass immigration boost our economy and cultural richness or undermine them Hear Times columnist David Aaronovitch, former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone and the economist Susie Symes go head to head with UKIP's Nigel Farage, Demos director David Goodhart and journalist and author Harriet Sergeant, over our motion 'Let them come: we have nothing to fear from high levels of immigration'. The debate took place at London's Royal Geographical Society on 10th October, 2013.

Radical philosopher, polymath, film star, cult icon, and author of over 30 books, Slavoj Žižek is one of the most controversial and leading contemporary public intellectuals, simultaneously acclaimed as the ‘Elvis of cultural theory’ and denounced as ‘the most dangerous philosopher in the West’.In this special lecture for Intelligence Squared from July 2011, Žižek argues that global capitalism is fast approaching its terminal crisis and that our collective responses to economic Armageddon correspond to the five stages of grief – ideological denial, explosions of anger, attempts at bargaining, followed by depression and finally acceptance of change. Referencing everything from Kafka, the 'Hollywood Marxism' of Avatar, the Arab Spring and WikiLeaks, he presents a roadmap for finding a way beyond the madness.

It's 2014 and what does Britain have to look forward to Osborne’s welfare cuts. An umpteenth series of Celebrity Big Brother. Adult children still living at home and cadging off the Bank of Mum and Dad (repayment not guaranteed).That’s the gripe of the Debbie Downers, but give a thought to how life used to be even within living memory. Buttoned up emotions. Casual racism. Meagre defences against disease and infection. And no internet. Surely life is better now than it’s ever been beforeOn 22nd January we brought together a star panel to slug out the arguments in our debate 'We’ve never had it so good'. Two of Britain’s most brilliant and sardonic writers, Will Self and Rod Liddle, opposed the motion. And the journalist and satirical novelist Rachel Johnson and Jesse Norman, the brilliant Tory MP who has been hailed as a man to watch even in the pages of the Guardian, proposed it.

Psychologist Daniel Goleman shot to fame with his groundbreaking bestseller 'Emotional Intelligence'. The premise of the book, now widely accepted, is that raw intelligence alone is not a sure predictor of success in life. A greater role is played by ‘softer’ skills such as self-control, self-motivation, empathy and good interpersonal relationships.In this exclusive talk for Intelligence Squared, Goleman discusses the themes of his latest book, 'Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence'. Attention, he argues is an underrated asset for high achievers in any field. Incorporating findings from neuroscience, Goleman shows why we need three kinds of focus: inner, for self-awareness; other, for the empathy that builds effective relationships; and outer, for understanding the larger systems in which organisations operate. Those who excel rely on Smart Practices such as mindfulness meditation, focused preparation and positive emotions that help improve habits, add new skills, and sustain excellence.

Some leaders are so objectionable – Bashar al-Assad, Robert Mugabe – that it may seem only right to strain every sinew to get rid of them. But ghastly as their regimes may be, is there any reason to think that foreign intervention makes the situation better Quite apart from the loss of life and limb to those intervening, what are the costs to those being 'liberated' In the end, forced to choose between these two evils, wouldn't most of us prefer tyranny to anarchyIn this one on one debate from March 2011, David Aaronovitch and Rory Stewart debate the perils of foreign intervention.

Niall Ferguson is the most brilliant British historian of his generation. In this talk from February 2011, based on his book 'Civilisation: The West and the Rest', he asks how Western civilization came to dominate the rest of the world. His answer is that the West developed six 'killer applications' that the Rest lacked: competition, science, democracy, medicine, consumerism and the Protestant work ethic. The key question today is whether or not the West has lost its monopoly on these six things. If it has and the Rest of the world can successfully download these apps, we may be living through the end of Western ascendancy.

Who was the Queen of English literature. Was it Jane Austen with her sensitive ear for the hypocrisy lurking beneath the genteel conversation in the drawing rooms of Georgian England Or Emily Brontë with the complex tale of violent attraction, thwarted love, death and the supernatural that she recounts in her masterpiece 'Wuthering Heights'In this, the first of our new series of literary combat events, we gather together an illustrious cast of speakers. Professor John Mullan, distinguished English literature specialist and author of 'What Matters in Jane Austen Twenty Crucial Puzzles Solved' argues for Austen. And Kate Mosse, No. 1 bestselling novelist of historical and Gothic fiction battles for Brontë.To illustrate the arguments and bring the novels to life some of Britain’s finest actors join our advocates on stage, reading from the books and adding their own thoughts to the debate: Dominic West, international star who played the role of McNulty in The Wire; Sam West, acclaimed actor and director; and two young leading lights of stage and screen, Mariah Gale and Eleanor Tomlinson.The event took place on 26th February 2014 in London.

Speaking and writing correct English are the hallmark of an intelligent person. No one who cares about language wants to be caught splitting an infinitive or muddling up ‘infer’ and ‘imply’. Which is why the bestseller lists are regularly topped by books on 'good' English by the likes of Daily Mail polemicist Simon Heffer and Today programme presenter John Humphrys - both of whom defend the motion in this debate from 5th March 2014.Taking them on are Mary Beard, Professor of Classics at Cambridge, and Oliver Kamm, top commentator at The Times. No one would dare describe either as lacking in grey matter or being insensitive to good English. So why the disagreement with Heffer and Humphrys Because people on their side of the argument believe that our language can take care of itself, and that it certainly doesn’t need a bunch of self-appointed rule-book sticklers to make others feel insecure about how they speak and write. Good style matters, they argue, and can be taught but the pedants should stop confusing their pet peeves with ‘correct’ English.

Where do our ideas about morality and meaning come from Most people - from religious extremists to secular scientists - would agree on one point: that science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Indeed, science's failure to explain meaning and morality has become the primary justification for religious faith and the reason why even many non-believers feel obliged to accord respect to the beliefs of the devout. In this podcast, recorded at our event in April 2011, Sam Harris, the American philosopher and neuroscientist, argues that these views are mistaken - that amidst all the competing arguments about how we should lead our lives, science can show us that there are right and wrong answers. This means that moral relativism is mistaken and that there can be neither a Christian nor a Muslim morality - and that ultimately science can and should determine how best to live our lives. After an opening speech, Revd Dr Giles Fraser, former-canon chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, joins Harris in conversation.

Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. So said Winston Churchill and who would disagree One man, one vote, the rule of law, equality and a free press. These are the principles which tens of thousands have been imprisoned or lost their lives for in despotic regimes from South America to Burma. In recent months a violent struggle for democratic rights has been taking place on the EU’s doorstep in Ukraine. Scores of people have been killed in demonstrations against Viktor Yanukovych, now ousted as President. Elections are set for May but tensions are mounting between western governments and President Putin over the Crimea and the eastern parts of the country.But is the assumption that democracy always leads to a freer and more tolerant society correct Many would argue that it can lead to quite illiberal outcomes especially where there is profound ethnic division. What if democracy were installed in Syria It’s not hard to imagine what would happen to the minority groups who have enjoyed the protection of Assad’s regime. There have been successful transitions to democracy in post- war Germany and Japan, but free elections in countries such as Iraq and Egypt have not brought peace and prosperity.In this debate, which took place on 11 March 2014, Professor of Middle East Studies at City University Rosemary Hollis and academic and acclaimed author of 'When China Rules the World' Martin Jacques propose the motion. American political scientist Ian Bremmer and eminent Ukrainian MP Andriy Shevchenko oppose the motion.

Is it surprising that the Israelis and Palestinians are still unable to come to some sort of agreement After all if the adjudicator in a mediation is firmly on your side why bother to concede anything to the enemy Conversely, why accept anything proposed by the adjudicator if you know his affections are biased towards the other side We know America’s neutrality is hopelessly compromised on this issue and it doesn’t pretend otherwise. Say something against Israel in the run-up to the US presidential elections and you won’t become president. And since that’s not going to change, the best thing one can hope is for America to simply withdraw from the peace process.Or is it Some have faith that Washington can be persuaded to adopt a more flexible and even-handed stance – that it can free itself from the influence of the hard-liners and be responsive to more liberal voices. For if America were not involved – if the most important global playmaker were excluded or pulled out of the negotiating process – then negotiations would become a charade; the power to force through compromises and enforce them will have gone. Uncle Sam may be a troublesome relative, but you’ll get nowhere without him.In our debate from February 2012, Mustafa Barghouti the Palestinian democracy activist and William Sieghart, Founder and Chairman of Forward Thinking, propose the motion. Roger Cohen the The New York Times columnist and Jeremy Ben-Ami, Founder and President of J Street, oppose the motion.

Is it a myth that women can have it all, all of the time Or do the rising numbers of female executives in Hong Kong and around the world suggest otherwise Does the glass ceiling exist as a barrier to the boardroom, or is the only limitation to a woman’s professional success her personal ambitionTo celebrate International Women’s Day this year, Intelligence Squared Asia brought together four experts to ask whether a good mother has time to be a good CEO.In this debate, which took place in Hong Kong on 3 March 2014, award-winning journalist and author Allison Pearson and author of 'Wonder Women: Sex, Power, and the Quest for Perfection' Debora Spar proposed the motion.CEO of Newton Investment Helena Morrissey and CEO of SOHO Property Zhang Xin opposed the motion.

As we approach the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War, books, television documentaries and articles on the subject abound. So do different opinions, especially as to whether Britain’s engagement was worth it.Was it a vitally important crusade to prevent an oppressive German-dominated Europe Or a catastrophic mistake that brought Communism to power in Russia, ripped up the map of Europe and left a festering sense of resentment that would fuel the rise of NazismIn this debate from April 2014 four of Britain’s leading historians battle it over whether or not Britain should have fought in the First World War. Professor John Charmley and Domnic Sandbrook speak for the motion. Max Hastings and Professor Margaret MacMillan speak against.

Why are there so many Chinese maths and music prodigies Because Chinese mothers believe schoolwork and music practice come first, that an A-minus is a bad grade, that sleepovers, TV and computer games should never be allowed and that the only activity their children should be permitted to do are ones in which they can eventually win a medal - and that medal must be gold. These methods certainly seem to get results but do they make for the rounded individuals Western parents are striving to bring up Isn't it better that our children should be happy rather than burnt-out brain boxes Who's right and who's wrong In this debate from June 2011, Amy Chua, author of the best-selling ‘Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother’, and Theodore Dalrymple, the writer and psychologist, speak for the motion. Justine Roberts, co-founder of Mumsnet, and Frank Furedi, emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent and parenting expert, speak against the motion.

So now we know: our spooks and their spooks are hoovering up and exchanging massive amounts of data on our private lives: not just whom we phone and email but the actual content of our communications; not just which websites we visit but what we choose to buy online. No wonder there’s been such a furore. William Hague has already admitted that the spooks are allowed to pry pretty much where they want and now it’s been revealed that the US National Security Agency allows analysts to search our emails and online chats with no prior authorisation. And the big internet companies – Google, Facebook and so on – have been colluding on how best to keep track of us. Our entire political history has been one of reining in the power of the state and here we are saying to it: come on in and look round. Calm down You must be joking!That’s the line taken by the blowhards in this debate, screaming about the threat to civil liberties, but are they making a big fuss about nothing After all we’ve known for years now that technology has made it ridiculously easy to monitor what we get up to. And in the perpetual debate between liberty and security it’s easy to forget that the government’s first duty is to protect its citizens. In the post 9/11 world there simply has to be some kind of trade-off between preserving our privacy and keeping ourselves safe from those who would do us harm.So is loss of privacy a sacrifice we have to pay for our security, or does it herald a world where fundamental democratic freedoms will no longer exist

No one doubts the bravery of the thousands of men who flew and died in Bomber Command. The death rate was an appalling 44 percent. And yet until the opening of a monument in Green Park this year they have received no official recognition, with many historians claiming that the offensive was immoral and unjustified. How can it be right, they argue, for the Allies to have deliberately targeted German cities causing the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians Even on a strategic level the offensive failed to bring about the collapse of civilian morale that was its intention.Others, however, maintain that the attacks made a decisive contribution to the Allied victory. Vast numbers of German soldiers and planes were diverted from the eastern and western fronts, while Allied bombing attacks virtually destroyed the German air force, clearing the way for the invasion of the continent.In this debate from October 2012, philosopher and author A C Grayling and Professor of History at Exeter University Rochard Overy speak for the motion.Award-winning historian Antony Beevor and military historian Patrick Bishop speak against the motion.

Conventional wisdom tells us that a new star will rise in the East, and all eyes have been looking towards China or India as the 21st century’s new superpower. But remarkable as their recent economic growth may have been, the institutional frailty of both nations raises questions about long-term sustainability. Meanwhile the economies of South America have also been transforming themselves quietly and less flashily, unburdened by the dead weight of caste politics or communism. And it’s not just Brazil that catches the eye: at 9.8 percent Peru's growth rate last year was one of the world’s fastest. So perhaps we should all do an about-turn.In this debate from March 2011, Senior Lecturer in Law at Birkbeck College Oscar Guardiola-Rivera, Brazilian Ambassador to the UK HE Roberto Jaguaribe, and Director of the Global Governance Initiative Parag Khanna spoke in favour of the motion.Speaking against the motion were former Economist editor Bill Emmott, Professor of the History and Politics of Modern China at Oxford University Rana Mitter, and the FT's chief foreign affairs commentator Gideon Rachman.

The books Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics have been worldwide sensations, selling tens of millions of copies. They have come to stand for challenging conventional wisdom using data rather than emotion. Questions they examine are typically: Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool How much do parents really matter Why is chemotherapy prescribed so often if it’s so ineffectiveNow the books’ two authors, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, have turned what they’ve learned into a readable and practical toolkit for thinking smarter, harder, and different – thinking, that is, like a Freak.On 28th May they came to Intelligence Squared to discuss their new Frequel, Think Like a Freak. By analysing the plans we form and the morals we choose, they showed how their insights can be applied to help us make smarter decisions in our daily lives.

You don’t have to like Vladimir Putin, or doubt that he’s a nasty piece of work, to recognise that the Russian president’s reaction to the crisis in Ukraine is largely justified. The promise that Russia managed to extract from the West, as it watched its old empire crumble, was that NATO would not expand eastward and that the Baltic states and Poland would not be absorbed into the EU. Not only have Nato and the EU broken that promise, they have even sought to bring Ukraine – for centuries seen as umbilically tied to Russia – into the western fold. The West has tried to influence elections in Ukraine. It has backed the overthrow of a democratically elected president. Putin isn’t being expansionist: he just wants Ukraine to remain a non-aligned buffer zone between Russia and the West. He couldn’t survive the national humiliation of it becoming yet another western outpost. So cut him some slack: we need more diplomacy and fewer threats of reprisals.That’s the voice of the non-interventionists but haven’t they been duped Is a man who sends undercover troops into Crimea and then swears that they are locals defending their homeland really to be trusted Ask the people of Georgia, whose country has been carved up by Putin, whether they think he has no interest in expansion. Ask most Ukrainian citizens, yearning for western democratic freedoms, whether Putin has a right to deprive them of those freedoms in the name of some bogus historical affinity. Of course autocrats have their reasons, but are they reasons we have to accept as justifiable There is no moral equivalence between the ambitions of a repressive state and those of a repressed people. Putin needs to know that there is a line he cannot cross. Otherwise you can be absolutely sure he will cross it.In this debate from May 2014, former Ambassador to Russia Tony Brenton and Russian economic and foreign affairs specialist Sergey Karaganov spoke in favour of the motion.Senior Editor at The New Republic

Nobel laureate and giant of Western letters, Trinidad-born V. S. Naipaul has excelled in both fiction and non-fiction. His latest book The Masque of Africa: Glimpses of African Belief is a travelogue in which Naipaul sets out to discover how far the old Africa's belief in magic has been subverted by the outside world. 'I had expected that over the great size of Africa the practices of magic would significantly vary. But they didn’t. The diviners everywhere wanted to ‘throw the bones’ to read the future and the idea of ‘energy’ remained a constant, to be tapped into by the ritual sacrifice of body parts...To witness this, to be given some idea of its power, was to be taken far back to the beginning of things. To reach that beginning was the purpose of my book.'In this event from May 2011, V.S. Naipaul talked to Evening Standard editor Geordie Greig.

Are they out there Intelligent beings from another world. Will we ever make contact with them Is it even sensible to make guesses about whether life exists in other galaxies billions of light years from our own How much do we know about outer space What are black holes, dark matter and strange attractors Is our universe just one amongst an infinity of multiverses Can we dispense with the idea of a creator GodOn 16th March 2011 some of the greatest names in space exploration and the mysteries of the cosmos guided us to outer realms and argued about some of the most fascinating questions we’ve ever asked ourselves.

Nearly four centuries after his death, no writer has come close to matching Shakespeare’s understanding of the world – or his gift for dramatic poetry. It’s not just kings and queens that he captured so uniquely in his transcendent verse. Shakespeare analysed the human condition, not just for Elizabethan England, but throughout the world and for eternity. Britain may not have matched the Continent for music or art but when it comes to literature, Shakespeare sees off all international rivals, whether it’s in the spheres of comedy, tragedy or the sonnet. Even today you and I quote Shakespeare without knowing it: if you act more in sorrow than in anger, if you vanish into thin air or have ever been tongue-tied, hoodwinked or slept not one wink, you’re speaking the Bard’s English.Milton, say his fans, works on an altogether different, higher plane. In Paradise Lost – the best poem ever written in English – Milton moved beyond the literary to address political, philosophical and religious questions in a way that still resounds strongly today. In his complex, intellectual poetry he drilled down deep into the eternal truths and sought to embody new scientific discovery in his work.His engagement with the issues of the day – with the nature of knowledge, slavery, free will, love and creation – was unparalleled. Despite complete blindness in middle age, he was the English republic’s best known, most fervent apologist, and a key civil servant for Oliver Cromwell. In his other works, notably in Areopagitica, his attack on censorship, he showed himself as much a master of prose as poetry. He defines not only his age, but our own.To help you decide who should be crowned king of English letters we brought together advocates to make the case for each writer, and they called on a cast of leading actors to illustrate their arguments with readings from the works.

Remember the rich man and the eye of the needle Blessed are the meek The last shall be first Jesus didn’t hold much truck for wealth or power, nor was he exactly a supporter of family values. He didn’t even encourage hard work ('Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin'). So you might easily conclude that like every other liberal Jesus would have voted Democrat.Yet most God-fearing, church-going Americans vote Republican, the party associated with the rich and powerful. Is that because the Right fundamentally has the public good at heart Tough love, after all, is still love, even if it means harsh treatment of the work-shy and feckless (or, as Romney knows them, the ’47 percent’).In this debate from October 2012 Conor Gearty, James Boys, Tim Montgomerie, and Giles Fraser debated if Jesus would have been a Democrat, a Republican, or somewhere in between.

What makes a good artist Can creativity can be taught What kind of education ups the ante for success in today’s global cultureThese are some of the questions that were explored in this Intelligence Squared Asia debate in Singapore in January 2013. Singapore artist and curator Heman Chong and White Cube Asia Director Graham Steele proposed the motion. It was opposed by British artist Michael Craig-Martin and American art critic Blake Gopnik. The debate was chaired by Georgina Adam, editor-at-large of the Art Newspaper and FT art market columnist.

Would you like the details of your sex life, private conversations, and hidden passions splashed across the pages of a British tabloid or published online Could you do anything to stop it In Britain, unlike in the USA or France, there is no right to privacy, only a much weaker 'right to confidence'. And though Britain has notoriously tight libel laws – making it the favoured destination for libel tourists – they only work retrospectively, after publication, by which time your reputation has been shattered. That at any rate is the view of former FIA president Max Mosley – whose proclivities were exposed by the News of the World. In 2010 he applied to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for a change in the law that would make it compulsory to inform people before publishing private information about them. Did he have a good case Or was he making an outrageous assault on press freedom Hear him and Rachel Atkins take on Tom Bower and Ken MacDonald QC in our debate from 2010.

Bug splats. That’s what the American operators of drones, sitting in safety thousands of miles away, call the casualties of a drone attack in Pakistan or Yemen. Why bug splats Because that’s what a human body zapped by a drone looks like on those Americans’ video screens. Thousands of those splats were in fact innocent bystanders unfortunate enough to be nearby the 'target'. We call this warfare but it isn’t: it’s assassination. Drones allow political and military leaders, unhampered by public or legal scrutiny, to eliminate anyone they want killed. But moral and legal arguments aside, what do drones actually achieve A drone strike is a sure way to inflame a community against the West and throw it into the arms of the local militants. In sum, drones are not just illegal and immoral. They are counterproductive.That’s the cry we hear as we learn more about America’s drone programme. But do the gentle souls who condemn drones have a better strategy for dealing with the militants operating within the borders of states that want rid of them In this kind of situation where you’re not fighting a regular army, targeting enemy ringleaders is an imperative. And drones, it turns out, are more effective than troops in hunting down the bad guys and cause far fewer civilian deaths than conventional warfare. In many cases they are actually welcomed by the local population who are only too happy to see the militants come under attack. Thanks to drones, jihadis now know there is nowhere to hide. No one is saying they are pretty: violence and death are always abominable. But in an imperfect and often violent world, the use of drones is moral and effective.In this debate from February 2013, author and broadcaster David Aaronovitch and writer and columnist Douglas Murray proposed the motion.It was opposed by Noel Sharkey, Professor of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics at the University of Sheffield, and Civil Rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith.The debate was chaired

What is the role of contemporary art museums today Are biennales and art fairs platforms for experiment and exchange, or little more than social attractions for the elite Have collectors become the new curators Are private and corporate interests in culture at odds with the public good And ultimately, who is art forIn this debate recorded in Hong Kong in 2012, award-winning documentary film-maker, author and art critic, Ben Lewis, and Hong Kong-born artist, Paul Chan, spoke for the motion. Director of Sydney’s Museum of Contemporary Art, Elizabeth Ann Macgregor, and conceptual art pioneer, Joseph Kosuth, spoke against the motion.

To liberalise or prohibit, that is the question. Prohibitionists argue that legalising anything increases its consumption. The world has enough of a problem with legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, so why add to the problem by legalising cannabis, cocaine and heroinThe liberalisers say prohibition doesn’t work. By declaring certain drugs illegal we haven’t reduced consumption or solved any problem. Instead we’ve created an epidemic of crime, illness, failed states and money laundering.Who's right and who's wrongRussell Brand, Richard Branson, Julian Assange, Bernard Kouchner, Louise Arbour, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, former President of Brazil Fernando Cardoso, former President of Mexico and Member of the Club de Madrid Vicente Fox were among the speakers that took part in this debate in London in March 2012, with some speakers on stage and others beamed in from all over the World via Google+ Hangouts.

For many Western teenagers university has long been considered a passport to the good life: a rite of passage consisting of mind-expanding reading and writing or the acquisition of a professional qualification, and meeting like-minded people often over a drink or three – all ending up in a well paid, interesting job and a network of useful contacts.But in these straitened times is the traditional university education really worth the time and money – and the hangovers More and more young people are attending university in Britain and the US, and ever fewer graduates are finding jobs. Costs are soaring too: fees at American universities have increased by over 1000 percent in the last 30 years and British institutions have nearly tripled their annual fees to £9000 in the last year. The result A new type of high-school leaver is emerging who combines formal learning with on-the-job experience. Businesses are increasingly interested in employing young people with a sense of determination, grit and a strong work ethic, qualities which graduates don’t necessarily have.So should the wise young high school-leaver skip university and get on with acquiring the business, tech and life skills he or she needs for a successful career (Look what dropping out did for the likes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.) Or is a university education still a desirable end in itself – a way of rounding out a young person’s mind and character that will be an enhancement for lifeThese are some of the issues covered in this debate at the Cambridge Union in October 2013. Some speakers were on stage and others were beamed in from all over the World via Google+ Hangouts.panel. The panel included writer and teach Francis Gilbert, Professor in Greek Literature and Culture Simon Goldhill, education editor of Spiked-Online Joanna Williams, and Grover 'Russ' Whitehurst, Director of the Brown Center on Education at the Brookings Institution.

Leading voices from the fields of science, philosophy came to the Intelligence Squared Asia stage for this thought-provoking debate about the pursuit of wealth and its relationship to happiness. Among other topics, this debate raised questions about the link between being rich and being happy, what constitutes happiness, whether economic prosperity is key to personal satisfaction - or to political stability, and if so, what the policy implications should be.Speaking for the motion in this debate in Hong Kong in September 2011 were philosopher and author A C Grayling and best-selling author of 'The Science of Happiness' Dr Stefan Klein.Opposing it were prominent Taiwan diplomat, novelist and commentator Ping Lu and former President of the Oxford Student Union Lewis Iwu.The debate was chaired by Douglas Young, Founder of the leading Hong Kong lifestyle brand Goods of Desire (G.O.D.).

This event was on the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech. On 28 August 1963, civil rights campaigners marched on Washington to secure equality before the law. Today, America’s first black president sits in the White House, yet more African-Americans are on probation, parole or in prison than there were slaves in 1850. In the UK, 45 percent of young black people are unemployed as opposed to 20 percent of young whites. Meanwhile support for European far right organisations like Golden Dawn is growing.On the anniversary of his seminal speech, Versus brought together five global voices to discuss Dr. King’s legacy. To what extent has his dream been realised Are Muslims now the new targets of racism post-9/11 And will racism still be blighting us in 50 years’ time

Do the British have a death wish You’d be forgiven for thinking so the way so many of them seem to want to cripple the most dynamic part of their own economy. What is the world’s largest market for dollars London. Where does the Chinese State Administration of Foreign Exchange go when it wants to buy or sell billions of US Treasury bonds London. Which sector of the economy delivers £12 out of every £100 in tax to the Chancellor of the Exchequer London’s financial centre.Its accumulated skills, its light touch regulation, its openness to competition – these have made London the envy of the world, the magnet for all the smartest financiers: they have turned London into the most exciting city to live in on the planet. Of course there have been scandals – what do you expect in the world’s most competitive market place Yet instead of lauding London’s banks for their achievement in outclassing all their rivals, we seem interested only in penalising them and letting New York or Frankfurt steal the show. Stop it. Learn to love London’s bankers.That’s the line being sold by those who love the City. But when you start allocating blame for the financial crisis, when you think that it was deals done in London that led to the downfall of Lehman Brothers, AIG and Bear Stearns; when you consider the bonus culture, the Libor scandal, the money-laundering of Mexican drug money – can you really buy itIn this debate from October 2012, the motion was proposed by Chairman of Espirito Santo Investment Bank in London Anthony Fry, former MD of Goldman Sachs and former adviser to PM Gordon Brown Jennifer Moses, and writer and columnist on banking and financial markets William Wright.Opposing the motion were economics leader writer for the Guardian Aditya Chakrabortty, former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone and associate editor at OpenDemocracy Tony Curzon Price.The debate was chaired by the The Economist's international section editor, Edward Lucas.

This event was recorded at the Chalke Valley History Festival in July 2014.The future of the Union will be voted for in a referendum soon, and this debate explored the historical relationship between Scotland and England, and the direct bearing that has on the vote facing the Scots in a few days' time. The United Kingdom faces one of the biggest constitutional issues in its history, and our panel debated this most important of decisions.Proposing the motion were journalist and historian Simon Jenkins and Lecturer at the Department of History, Texas State University Bryan Glass.Opposing it were Liberal Democrat politician Sir Menzies Campbell and Secretatry of State for Education the Rt Hon Michael Gove.The debate was chaired by Editor of Prospect Magazine Bronwen Maddox.

Marina Abramović is the most celebrated performance artist in the world. Over a career spanning four decades she has pioneered performance as an art form and accumulated a devoted following that includes Jay-Z and Lady Gaga.Using her body as both subject and object, Abramović explores notions of nothingness and time, and draws in the audience as part of her performance. At her 2010 exhibition, ‘The Artist is Present’, at New York’s MOMA visitors were invited to sit silently opposite her and gaze into her eyes for an unspecified amount of time. Every day people broke down in tears.Her recently finished exhibition ‘512 Hours’ featured featured only herself, the empty gallery, a few props, and the audience who both literally and metaphorically left their baggage at the gate: bags, phones, iPads etc were left in lockers before entry. Warned only to expect the unexpected, visitors were invited to give testimony to their experiences on video, and many have spoken of their overwhelming sense of presentness and gratitude. After the exhibition closed, Abramović came to our stage to discuss her recent experience in London and why, rejecting the materiality and glitz of so much contemporary art, she believes that in the 21st century art will be made not out of objects but out of energy.

Professor Francis Fukuyama came to the Intelligence Squared stage in September, to square up with one of Britain’s most brilliant political thinkers, David Runciman, to assess how democracy is faring in 2014. We certainly haven’t attained the rosy future that some thought Fukuyama was predicting in his book 'The End of History and The Last Man' in 1992: authoritarianism is entrenched in Russia and China, in the last decade the developed democracies have experienced severe financial crises and rising inequality, and Islamic State militants are wreaking havoc in Iraq and Syria.Is religion becoming the new politics How will the technological revolution continue to impact our politics And in the West are we in danger of becoming complacent about the challenges to democracy that we face

Steven Pinker is one of the world’s leading authorities on language, mind and human nature. A professor of psychology at Harvard, he is the bestselling author of eight books and regularly appears in lists of the world’s top 100 thinkers.On September 25th he returned to the Intelligence Squared stage to discuss his latest publication 'The Sense of Style', a short and entertaining writing guide for the 21st century. Pinker argued that bad writing can’t be blamed on the internet, or on 'the kids today'. Good writing has always been hard: a performance requiring pretence, empathy, and a drive for coherence. He answered questions such as: how can we overcome the 'curse of knowledge', the difficulty in imagining what it’s like not to know something we do And how can we distinguish the myths and superstitions about language from helpful rules that enhance clarity and grace Pinker showed how everyone can improve their mastery of writing and their appreciation of the art.Professor Pinker was joined by Ian McEwan, one of Britain’s most acclaimed novelists, who has frequently explored the common ground between art and science.

How should we remember Napoleon, the man of obscure Corsican birth who rose to become emperor of the French and briefly master of EuropeAs the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo approaches in 2015, Intelligence Squared brought together two of Britain’s finest historians to debate how we should assess Napoleon’s life and legacy. Was he a military genius and father of the French state, or a blundering nonentity who created his own enduring myth Was his goal of uniting the European continent under a common political system the forerunner of the modern ‘European dream’ Or was he an incompetent despot, a warning from history of the dangers of overarching grand plansChampioning Napoleon was historian Andrew Roberts, author of, among other books, 'Napoleon the Great', 'Napoleon and Wellington', and 'Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Gamble'. Opposing him was fellow historian Adam Zamoyski, author of, among other books, '1812. Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow' and 'Rites of Peace. The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna'.

Karen Armstrong has written over 16 books on faith and the major religions, studying what Islam, Judaism and Christianity have in common, and how our faiths have shaped world history and drive current events.She came to the Intelligence Squared stage to talk about her forthcoming book 'Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence'. Journeying from prehistoric times to the present, she contrasted medieval crusaders and modern-day jihadists with the pacifism of the Buddha and Jesus’ vision of a just and peaceful society. And she demonstrated that the underlying reasons – social, economic, political – for war and violence in our history have often had very little to do with religion. Instead, Armstrong celebrates the religious ideas and movements that have opposed war and aggression and promoted peace and reconciliation.

It used to be so easy. You left university, came to London and got yourself a flatshare in one of the cheaper areas: Notting Hill, Maida Vale or Highgate. Living was cheap and if it took you a while to find out what you really wanted to do with your life you could drift about a bit and get by. But now thanks to vast City bonuses and the influx of foreign billionaires, London house prices have soared beyond the reach of all but the seriously rich. Parts of Notting Hill and Kensington have become ‘buy to leave’ ghost towns, the houses boarded up and showing no signs of life. Shoreditch and Hackney, not long ago the hip new outposts for musicians and artists, are now home to well-paid professionals. And London is the worse for it. That’s the argument of those who worry that London is becoming too rich to be interesting. But is there any evidence that the city is growing bland Quite the reverse. On any evening almost wherever you go London’s streets are abuzz with life. People here crave a communal experience and the city provides it with its 600 parks, thousands of pubs and dynamic cultural scene. There’s a dynamic between wealth and creativity that keeps London exciting. If you prefer greater egalitarianism and more cycle lanes, there’s always Stockholm.Joining us to discuss the question 'Is London too rich to be interesting' were rapper and poet Akala, journalist Tanya Gold, artist Gavin Turk, and author and journalist Simon Jenkins. The event was chaired by Kieran Long, senior curator of contemporary architecture, design and digital at the V&A.

Are Christians victims of a hateful animus, or are they demanding special treatment in a secular state which in fact applies the law equally to all Peter Hitchens fears that without Christianity, we might end up undermining the whole foundation of law in this country. But agony aunt Claire Rayner thinks that we shouldn’t need God in order to be good. Journalist Matthew Parris wonders how intelligent people can still believe in God.They were joined by former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, leading human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC and Benedictine monk and former school headmaster Dom Antony Sutch to debate the motion 'Stop Bashing Christians! Britain has become an anti-Christian country' at the Royal Geographical Society on 3rd November 2010.The debate was chaired by Executive editor and columnist at the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland.

On 5th October 2010, Intelligence Squared paired author William Gibson with popular blogger and science fiction writer Cory Doctorow in a wide-ranging conversation that gives a fascinating insight into the mind of the man heralded as the 'architect of cool'.Thanks to Audible for supporting the Intelligence Squared podcast. Get a free audiobook of your choice at audiblepodcast.com/debate.

Drug pushers. We tend to associate them with the bleak underworld of criminality. But some would argue that there’s another class of drug pushers, just as unscrupulous, who work in the highly respectable fields of psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry. And they deserve the same moral scrutiny that we apply to the drug pedlar on the street corner. Within the medical profession labels are increasingly being attached to everyday conditions previously thought to be beyond the remit of medical help. So sadness is rebranded as depression, shyness as social phobia, childhood naughtiness as hyperactivity or ADHD. And Big Pharma is only too happy to come up with profitable new drugs to treat these ‘disorders’, drugs which the psychiatrists and GPs then willingly prescribe, richly rewarded by the pharma companies for doing so.That’s the view of those who object to the widespread use of the ‘chemical cosh’ to treat people with mental difficulties. But many psychiatrists, while acknowledging that overprescribing is a problem, would argue that the blame lies not with themselves. For example, parents and teachers often ramp up the pressure to have a medical label attached to a child’s problematic behaviour because that way there’s less stigma attached and allowances are made. And psychiatrists and the pharma companies also take issue with those who argue that the ‘chemical imbalance’ theory of mental disorder is a myth. ADHD is a real condition, they say, for which drugs work. Research shows that antidepressants really are more effective than just a placebo, especially in cases of severe depression.Defending the motion in this Intelligence Squared debate at London's Emmanuel Centre on November 12th 2014 were author and journalist Will Self and psychoanalyst and author Darian Leader. Opposing the motion were former Head of Worldwide Development at Pfizer Inc. Dr Declan Doogan and President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists Professor Sir Simon Wessely.

One of Israel’s most acclaimed writers, David Grossman is the author of numerous pieces of fiction, nonfiction and children's literature. His work has dealt with Jewish history, the occupation of the West Bank, the cost of war and the dramas of family life, and has been translated into 25 languages around the world. He has been a vocal critic of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and has been one of the most prominent cultural advocates of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He came to the Intelligence Squared stage on October 4th 2011 to discuss his life and work with novelist and journalist Linda Grant.Thanks to Audible for supporting the Intelligence Squared podcast. Get a free audiobook of your choice at audiblepodcast.com/debate.

In the 1640s England was devastated by a civil war that divided the nation into two tribes – Roundheads and Cavaliers. Counties, towns, even families and friends were rent apart as the nation pledged its allegiance either to King Charles I (supported by the Cavaliers) or to Parliament (backed by the Roundheads). Some 200,000 lives were lost in the desperate conflict which eventually led to the victory of the Roundheads under Oliver Cromwell and the execution of the king in 1649.The ideas that circulated in that febrile climate 350 years ago have shaped our democracy and also created a cultural divide that still resonates today. The Cavaliers represent pleasure, exuberance and individuality. Countering them are the Roundheads who stand for modesty, discipline and equality.To debate both the historical and present-day significance of this divide, Intelligence Squared brought together two acclaimed historians: Charles Spencer to defend the Roundhead cause (in spite of the fact that his forebear the Ist Baron Spencer fought for the Royalists), and Anna Whitelock to make the case for the Cavaliers.Which side are you on – Roundhead or Cavalier

P.J. O'Rourke is America's premier political satirist and has more citations in The Penguin Dictionary of Humorous Quotations than any other living writer. In this live appearance for Intelligence Squared in 2010, he discussed his new book, 'Don't Vote - It Just Encourages the Bastards', a brilliant, hilarious and ultimately sobering look at why politics and politicians are a necessary evil — but only just barely necessary. Moving from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman to a late-night girls' boarding school game called Kill-F*@k-Marry, O'Rourke explored the nature of the social contract. For him the essential elements are power, freedom and responsibility: the people like the freedom part, politicians like the power part, and hardly anyone wants to hear the responsibility part. This leads him to postulate the 'Death, Sex and Boredom Theory of Politics.'Thanks to Audible for supporting the Intelligence Squared podcast. Get a free audiobook of your choice at audiblepodcast.com/debate.

Who are we Why are we here Are we alone in the universe How did we become the creatures that we are How might we further evolveThese are some of the big questions that Brian Cox and Alice Roberts tackled when they came to the Intelligence Squared stage on 2nd December 2014. Brian Cox is the rockstar who became a scientist, and is now a rockstar scientist. He is known to millions as the presenter of the BBC Wonders series in which he unravels the complexities of the universe with calm clarity and an infectious sense of wonder. Alice Roberts is a no less talented science story-teller. A doctor, anatomist, osteoarchaeologist and writer, she has enthralled television audiences with BBC series such as The Incredible Human Journey.

The persistence of conspiracies. Grasping the infinity of lists. Writing fiction about the real. The future of books.These are some of the topics Umberto Eco discussed with Paul Holdengräber, Director of LIVE at the New York Public Library, when he came to the Intelligence Squared stage in November 2011. Their wide-ranging conversation focused in part on Eco's book 'The Prague Cemetery', an historical pseudo-reconstruction set in a 19th-century Europe teeming with secret service forgeries, Jesuit plots, murders and conspiracies, and covering everything from the unification of Italy, the Paris Commune, the Dreyfus Affair to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It has been criticised by both the Vatican-backed newspaper the Osservatore Romano and the Chief Rabbi of Rome.

We all know that the Chinese are the neo-colonialists of Africa. They've plundered the continent of its natural resources, tossing aside any concern for human rights and doing deals with some of the world's most unsavoury regimes. The relentless pursuit of growth is China's only spur.But is this picture really fair In Angola, for example, China's low-interest loans have been tied to a scheme that has ensured that roads, schools and other infrastructure has been built. China has an impressive track record of lifting its own millions out of poverty and can do the same for Africa. And is the West's record in Africa as glowing as we like to think After decades of pouring aid into Africa, how much have we actually achieved in terms of reducing poverty, corruption and war So which way should Africa look for salvation - to the West, to China, or perhaps to its own peopleDefending the motion in our debate from 28th November 2011 were Ghanaian economist and author George Ayittey and Portuguese MEP Ana Maria Gomes.Opposing the motion were Professor of International Development at the American University in Washington DC Deborah Brautigam, and Professor of International Relations at the School of Oriental and Asian Studies, London University Stephen Chan.The debate was chaired by Channel 4 News’ International Editor Lindsey Hilsum.