
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Leila Brammer, the curriculum director for the Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression at the University of Chicago, used to defend competitive two-sided debate as an educational tool. She now argues that such debates can limit deep, long-term critical thinking. She argues that debate’s binary structure encourages polarization rather than understanding complicated issues with many points of view. Brammer highlights alternative models that require students to gather multiple perspectives, work through nuance, and develop richer, more scalable civic and intellectual skills. She makes the case that curiosity, humility, and genuine engagement, rather than winning arguments, are what truly strengthen democratic discourse.
When We Disagree is on holiday break until early January.
Tell us your argument stories!
By Michael Lee5
1818 ratings
Leila Brammer, the curriculum director for the Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression at the University of Chicago, used to defend competitive two-sided debate as an educational tool. She now argues that such debates can limit deep, long-term critical thinking. She argues that debate’s binary structure encourages polarization rather than understanding complicated issues with many points of view. Brammer highlights alternative models that require students to gather multiple perspectives, work through nuance, and develop richer, more scalable civic and intellectual skills. She makes the case that curiosity, humility, and genuine engagement, rather than winning arguments, are what truly strengthen democratic discourse.
When We Disagree is on holiday break until early January.
Tell us your argument stories!

91,297 Listeners

43,687 Listeners

26,012 Listeners

4,022 Listeners

113,121 Listeners

56,944 Listeners

6,457 Listeners

58,365 Listeners

16,525 Listeners

41,512 Listeners

2,854 Listeners