
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!

90,980 Listeners

43,594 Listeners

25,807 Listeners

3,981 Listeners

112,426 Listeners

56,545 Listeners

6,430 Listeners

57,852 Listeners

15,948 Listeners

41,568 Listeners

2,838 Listeners