Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive

What if you could live to see your great-great-grandchildren graduate? Or what if scientists discovered a way to keep your mind sharp and body youthful, no matter how many candles are on your birthday cake? Imagine a world where wrinkles fade, grey hair returns to its original color, and diseases associated with old age are a thing of the past. These aren’t just wild dreams—they’re questions at the forefront of cutting-edge scientific research. But should reversing aging be our top priority, above all other challenges facing humanity today?

Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is Scientific research should prioritize the pursuit of reversing aging above all else and comes from our Full Size Essentials Collection deck.

Reversing aging isn’t just science fiction anymore—it’s a field called biogerontology, which focuses on understanding and potentially slowing or reversing the aging process. Scientists have already extended the lifespans of worms, mice, and other organisms in labs using techniques like genetic editing, caloric restriction, and cellular rejuvenation. This research gained momentum in the 20th century when breakthroughs in biology revealed how cellular processes, like DNA damage and protein misfolding, contribute to aging. Today, projects like the Hallmarks of Aging framework identify nine biological processes that drive aging and aim to target these for treatment. Funding for anti-aging research has also skyrocketed in recent years, with private investments exceeding billions. Companies like Altos Labs, backed by billionaires, are exploring therapies to regenerate cells, while organizations like the SENS Research Foundation aim to repair aging damage at its root.

Why does this matter? Aging is the single largest risk factor for many diseases like cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's. If scientists could slow or reverse aging, it might dramatically reduce the burden on healthcare systems, extend healthy lifespans, and transform how we live. On the other hand, prioritizing aging research raises ethical questions about resource allocation, inequality, and the purpose of life itself.

Over 70% of deaths worldwide are linked to diseases associated with aging, like heart disease and cancer. By targeting aging itself, we could prevent multiple illnesses rather than treating them individually. Research shows that extending healthy lifespans by just a few years could save trillions in healthcare costs globally. A healthier, longer-living population could transform economies. Imagine older adults staying in the workforce longer, contributing to innovation, and reducing the strain on social security systems. Studies suggest that extending life expectancy by just one year could add $38 trillion to the U.S. economy. Humanity has conquered many past challenges—curing infectious diseases, landing on the moon, and mapping the human genome. Reversing aging is a bold yet achievable goal that could define the next century. Pioneering this research could also position countries as global leaders in science and innovation.

However, other global crises demand attention. With climate change, pandemics, and poverty threatening billions, focusing solely on aging could neglect urgent problems. In 2021, 9.2% of the global population faced food insecurity. Diverting resources from these crises to anti-aging research might worsen inequality and suffering. Extending life could deepen societal divides. Anti-aging therapies would likely be expensive, accessible only to the wealthy, and exacerbate inequalities. Additionally, longer lifespans could strain resources like housing and jobs, creating unforeseen problems. Philosophically, aging is part of life’s cycle, creating space for younger generations and driving societal evolution. Interfering with this process could have profound and unpredictable consequences, from overpopulation to stagnation in cultural and generational renewal.

While curing aging might reduce the burden of diseases, it doesn’t guarantee equitable access. If anti-aging therapies are monopolized by wealthy individuals or nations, healthcare gaps could widen rather than shrink. On the other hand, prioritizing aging research doesn’t mean ignoring other problems. Scientific innovation often has a ripple effect; breakthroughs in anti-aging might also uncover treatments for diseases or ways to improve healthcare systems worldwide.

In recent years, scientists have achieved remarkable progress. In 2022, researchers rejuvenated the skin cells of a 53-year-old woman to resemble those of a 23-year-old. Clinical trials for drugs targeting aging mechanisms, like senolytics, are underway. Meanwhile, countries like Japan, with aging populations, are heavily investing in this research to address demographic challenges.

Want to dig into this topic even more? When you’re playing Dinner Table Debates at home, Agree gets to set the stage and choose how to define the debate. Here are some ways Agree could redefine this debate topic: Governments should fund reversing aging instead of private companies. How would public funding change the accessibility of treatments? Could governments prioritize ethical and societal concerns better than private industries? Anti-aging research should focus only on extending healthy lifespans, not total years lived. How do we define a "healthy lifespan"? Would this approach address concerns about overpopulation or inequality? Reversing aging should focus on mental health rather than physical health. Would targeting cognitive decline create better outcomes than focusing on physical rejuvenation? How could mental health innovations change society’s view on aging and productivity?

If you enjoyed our deep dive, you can debate this topic and many others by getting your own Dinner Table Debates deck at DinnerTableDebates.com. It's a unique game because every round starts with randomly assigning agree or disagree, then you pick the topic, meaning that you might be debating for something you disagree with or vice versa. But that's the point! Stretch your brain, gain clarity, improve critical thinking and empathy, and have fun doing it! Save 10% on your order when you use the code PODCAST10. You can also join the debate on our Instagram and TikTok accounts at DinnerTableDebates. Get ready for some thought-provoking discussions that will challenge your assumptions and broaden your understanding of the world around you! Happy debating and remember everyone is always welcome at the table.

Have you ever wondered why some schools have state-of-the-art facilities while others are struggling just to provide basic supplies? How many teachers do you know who are spending their own money to stock their classrooms? Or why a child's zip code can often predict how much they’ve learned in school? These questions touch on a debate that's been raging in the U.S. for decades: Shouldn't all schools get the same amount of money per student, no matter what town they're in?

Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive where we explore real topics from our decks, and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "All childhood education in the U.S. should be equally funded, regardless of location" and comes from the Society category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's Dig In.

Historically, schools have been primarily funded through local property taxes, a system that dates back to the 19th century. This means that schools in wealthier areas typically have more resources than those in poorer neighborhoods. But people noticed. So the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was introduced to provide federal funding to help balance this inequity and currently provides 13.6% of funding for public K-12 education.

Today, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average per-pupil spending in the U.S. is about $17,280 per year, with federal, state, and local governments providing $878.2 billion. However, this varies widely by state and district. For example, New York spends an average of $24,040 per student, while Utah spends just $7,628.

Education is often seen as the great equalizer in society. The quality of a child's education can have lifelong impacts on their career prospects, earning potential, and overall quality of life. When educational opportunities are imbalanced, it can continue and even worsen the social and economic inequalities that already exist.

Now, let's debate!

Agree (All childhood education should be equally funded):

1. Equal funding would help level the playing field for all students. A 2018 study by EdBuild found predominantly white school districts receive $23 billion more per year than districts primarily serving students of color, despite the fact these districts educated a similar number of students.

2. Equalizing funding could improve overall educational outcomes. Research from the Learning Policy Institute shows states that have reformed their school finance systems to be more uniform across districts have seen significant increases in student achievement.

3. Equal funding aligns with the principles of equal opportunity that the U.S. was founded on. The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause was shown to apply to education, as in the well-known court case Brown v. Board of Education that ruled that racial segregation in public schools what not allowed.

Disagree (All childhood education should not be equally funded, regardless of location):

1. Different areas have different costs of living, operating expenses, and number of students. For example, it's generally more expensive to run a school in New York City than in rural Kansas, so equal funding might not translate to equal resources. For that reason, school funding in Kansas was $8.2 billion for about 500,000 students, while NYC public schools received $39.4 billion for 1.1 million students.

2. Local control of school funding allows communities to prioritize education if they choose. In the 2018 midterm elections, voters approved about 77% of local school tax measures, showing a willingness to invest in local education without a need for more federal funding.

3. Some students require more resources than others. For instance, students learning English as a second language often need additional support, which can prove to be more costly but can be prioritized locally as needed.

Now, let's explore some rebuttals.

For the first "Agree" point about leveling the playing field, a rebuttal might go: While equalizing funding might seem fair, it doesn't account for the different issues faced by different communities. A one-size-fits-all approach might actually disadvantage some students by not providing enough resources to overcome their existing challenges.

For the third "Disagree" point about differing student needs, you could argue: A truly equitable system would take these differences into account. Equal funding doesn't mean an identical monetary amount for every student, but rather a system where every school has the resources it needs to provide a quality education to all its students, regardless of their specific needs.

To sum up, the debate over equal funding for education touches on fundamental issues of fairness, opportunity, and the role of education in society. There are valid points on both sides, highlighting the need for careful consideration of how we fund our schools and what true educational equity looks like in this country.

Some steps are being taken to address funding disparities. For example, in 2019, California implemented a new formula that directs more money to districts with higher proportions of low-income students, English learners, and foster children. Meanwhile, lawsuits challenging school funding systems have been filed in numerous states, but are being met with varying outcomes.

Curious to explore this topic even further? When you're playing Dinner Table Debates at home, the Agree side gets to set the stage and frame the debate. This means they get to define the terms, context, and interpretation, leading to a fresh and engaging discussion every time. So, if you’re diving into the debate on “All childhood education in the U.S. should be equally funded regardless of location,” here are a few thought-provoking ways Agree could shape the conversation:

1. Childhood education should focus on equity not equality, providing more resources to underprivileged areas: Would funding schools to make up for their community or economic disadvantages help guarantee every student has access to the same resources and level of education?

By exploring these angles, you can uncover new dimensions of the topic and have fun doing it.

If you enjoyed our deep dive, you can debate this topic and many others by getting your own Dinner Table Debates deck at DinnerTableDebates.com. It's a unique game because every round starts with randomly assigning agree or disagree, then you pick the topic, meaning that you might be debating for something you disagree with or vice versa. But that’s the point! Stretch your brain, gain clarity, improve critical thinking and empathy, and have fun doing it! You can also join the debate on our Instagram and TikTok accounts. Get ready for some thought-provoking discussions that will challenge your assumptions and broaden your understanding of the world around you! Happy debating, and remember, everyone is always welcome at the table. 

Have you ever wondered what’s more important: the letter of the law, or the spirit behind it? Should judges stick strictly to the words written on the page, or consider the broader intention behind them?

Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "When in conflict, the exact wording of the law should take priority over the spirit of the law," and it comes from our U.S. Law category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's dig in!

The debate over the letter versus the spirit of the law is as old as “The Law” itself. It’s a tension between two fundamental ways of interpreting legal rules. The “letter of the law” refers to the strict, literal interpretation of the words used in legal texts. It’s all about what the law explicitly says. On the other hand, the “spirit of the law” is about the law’s intended purpose or the principle behind it, considering what the lawmakers intended to achieve at the time it was written.

Historically, legal systems have swung between these two approaches. Today, we see this debate play out in courtrooms around the world. For example, in the United States, courts around the country sometimes struggle with whether to interpret the Constitution and statutes based strictly on the text or to consider broader societal implications and evolving norms. A famous example is the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, where justices debated the exact wording of the Second Amendment versus the broader intention behind it. This conflict is often framed through two primary schools of thought: Originalism and Living Constitutionalism.

Originalists argue that the Constitution and laws should be interpreted based on the original meaning of the text at the time it was written. They believe that the exact words reflect the intent of the lawmakers, and that sticking to this intent preserves the rule of law and limits judicial activism. Originalists argue that by adhering strictly to the original wording, they respect the democratic process, as any changes or modern interpretations should be made through amendments, not judicial interpretation.

Prominent figures like the late Justice Antonin Scalia have championed Originalism, emphasizing that the role of a judge is not to inject personal beliefs into rulings but to apply the law as it is written. For Originalists, the stability and predictability provided by adhering to the text are vital to a functioning legal system.

On the other hand, Living Constitutionalists believe that the Constitution is a dynamic document that should be interpreted in the context of current societal values and realities. They argue that the framers of the Constitution could not have foreseen modern issues such as digital privacy, biotechnology, AI, or complex economic regulations, and therefore, the law must evolve to meet contemporary needs. Living Constitutionalists emphasize that interpreting the spirit or broader purpose of the law allows the legal system to adapt and remain relevant, ensuring that justice is aligned with present-day principles.

Justice Stephen Breyer holds this view, advocating for a more flexible interpretation that considers the consequences of legal decisions. He argues that focusing on the broader purpose, or spirit, behind the laws enables judges to apply these laws in ways that achieve just and reasonable outcomes.

This debate is essential because it impacts how justice is administered. How we interpret laws can mean the difference between justice and injustice, freedom and incarceration. It affects everyone—from individuals facing legal issues to businesses navigating regulations, and even lawmakers drafting new laws. Understanding this debate helps us think critically about the role of laws in society and how best to uphold justice.

Recently, this debate has gained attention in cases involving technology and privacy, where outdated laws are being challenged by modern realities. Courts are increasingly faced with interpreting laws written long before the rise of digital technology, forcing them to consider whether to stick to the exact wording or adapt based on the intended purpose behind those laws.

Curious to explore this topic even further? When you're playing Dinner Table Debates at home, the Agree side gets to set the stage and frame the debate. This means they get to define the terms, context, and interpretation, leading to a fresh and engaging discussion every time. So, if you’re diving into the debate on “When in conflict, the exact wording of the law should take priority over the spirit of the law,” here are a few thought-provoking ways Agree could shape the conversation:

The law’s exact wording is essential for consistency and fairness: Should we prioritize the literal wording of laws to ensure that everyone is held to the same standard? Does relying on the precise language of the law protect against subjective interpretations that could lead to unequal enforcement or biased rulings?

Strict interpretation of the law limits judicial overreach: Does prioritizing the exact wording of laws help prevent judges from imposing their own opinions or political views on legal decisions? Could it act as a safeguard against judges making rulings based on personal beliefs instead of what’s explicitly stated in the law?

Following the letter of the law ensures predictability in the legal system: Can emphasizing the exact wording of the law provide greater clarity for citizens, legal professionals, and lawmakers alike? Does it create a more predictable system where people know exactly what is expected and what consequences to anticipate?

Exploring these different ideas can help you see the topic in new ways, leading to fun and interesting conversations.

If you enjoyed our deep dive, you can debate this topic and many others by getting your own Dinner Table Debates deck at DinnerTableDebates.com. And if you use the code PODCAST10, you can take 10% off your order. It's a unique game because every round starts with randomly assigning agree or disagree, then you pick the topic, meaning that you might be debating for something you disagree with or vice versa. But that's the point! Stretch your brain, gain clarity, improve critical thinking and empathy, and have fun doing it! You can also join the debate on our Instagram and TikTok account. Get ready for some thought-provoking discussions that will challenge your assumptions and broaden your understanding of the world around you! Happy debating, and remember, everyone is always welcome at the table.

How old were you when you first felt truly aware of the world around you—the politics, the issues, the community decisions? In many cases by 16, you’re already involved in so many decisions about your future. You might be driving, working a part-time job, and navigating big questions about career paths and life goals. But should 16-year-olds also have the power to vote, helping shape the policies that will impact their futures?

Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today’s topic is “The voting age should be lowered to 16,” and it’s from our Full-Size Essentials Collection deck. Let’s dig in!

The debate over the voting age has been going on for decades. In the U.S., the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1971, largely due to the Vietnam War. The idea was that if 18-year-olds were old enough to be drafted, they should be old enough to vote on the policies that might send them to war. Now, the conversation has shifted to lowering the age further, with advocates arguing that 16-year-olds are more informed and capable than ever before.

In recent years, countries like Austria and Scotland have lowered the voting age to 16 for certain elections, allowing younger people to have a say in decisions impacting them. And here in the U.S., some cities, like Takoma Park, Maryland, have extended voting rights to 16-year-olds in local elections.

This topic is essential today because young people have become more politically engaged than ever before. They’re often at the center of conversations about climate change, gun control, and education reform—issues that will profoundly shape their future. The question of whether they should have a direct say in these matters by voting is relevant not only to teenagers but to society as a whole, as it could redefine the role of youth in our democracy.

Now, let’s debate.

Agree – The voting age should be lowered to 16

16-year-olds are informed and mature enough. At 16, teens often make decisions that carry significant responsibility—like getting a driver’s license, holding part-time jobs, and sometimes even paying taxes. They’re also exposed to more information through technology, making them more aware of social and political issues. Studies show that many teenagers keep up with current events and actively participate in community activities, which shows they can be responsible voters.

Encouraging lifelong civic engagement. When people start voting early, they’re more likely to continue voting throughout their lives. By allowing 16-year-olds to vote, we’re creating good habits of civic engagement early, potentially leading to a more active and engaged electorate. Research from the U.K. shows that voters who start at a young age are more likely to stay politically engaged.

Youth voices on critical issues. Young people are disproportionately affected by policy decisions on education, climate change, and the economy. Given that these decisions impact their lives significantly, it makes sense to include their perspectives. In recent years, youth-led movements like the March for Our Lives and the Global Climate Strike have demonstrated that young people can advocate effectively on serious issues.

Disagree – The voting age should not be lowered to 16

16-year-olds lack the life experience and maturity. 16-year-olds, while informed, haven’t lived long enough to fully understand the impact of complex policies. Voting requires not just knowledge but a level of maturity that comes with life experience. In the U.S., 16-year-olds can’t yet buy alcohol, vote in federal elections, or be drafted, suggesting that society already considers them too young for certain responsibilities.

Potential for influence from parents or schools. Younger voters may be more easily influenced by their parents, teachers, or peer groups, which could mean their votes don’t reflect their own independent choices. Political scientists warn that these influences might result in voting patterns that don’t genuinely represent the interests of younger voters themselves, reducing the authenticity of their participation.

Youth turnout and interest could be low. Despite the efforts to increase youth engagement, studies have shown that even 18-year-olds tend to have lower voter turnout than other age groups. This raises the question of whether lowering the voting age would truly increase engagement or just add more low-turnout voters to the rolls.

Agree Rebuttal

Disagree Rebuttal

Emphasizing Complexity

Today, we explored the debate over whether the voting age should be lowered to 16. Proponents argue that today’s teenagers are informed, engaged, and ready to contribute to society, while critics believe that 16 is too young for the responsibility of voting. Each side brings valid concerns about maturity, influence, and the importance of youth voices in shaping the future.

In recent news, several U.S. states are considering legislation to lower the voting age for local elections, reflecting growing support for youth involvement in politics. At the same time, studies on youth engagement in voting from countries like Austria and Scotland, where the voting age is already 16 for certain elections, continue to shed light on both the benefits and challenges of this policy shift.

Want to dig into this topic even more? When you’re playing Dinner Table Debates at home, the Agree side sets the stage and chooses how to define the debate. This means they can outline the terms, context, and interpretation, creating a unique conversation every time. Here are some ways that Agree could redefine this debate topic:

“The voting age should be lowered for state elections but not federal elections.”

“The voting age should be lowered to 16 only on issues directly impacting youth, such as education and climate.”

“The voting age should be 16 only if accompanied by civics education requirements.”

If you enjoyed our deep dive, you can debate this topic and many others by getting your own Dinner Table Debates deck at DinnerTableDebates.com. It's a unique game because every round starts with randomly assigning agree or disagree, then you pick the topic, meaning you might be debating for something you disagree with—or vice versa! Stretch your brain, gain clarity, improve critical thinking and empathy, and have fun doing it. Save 10% on your order when you use the code PODCAST10. You can also join the debate on our Instagram and TikTok accounts at DinnerTableDebates. Get ready for some thought-provoking discussions that will challenge your assumptions and broaden your understanding of the world around you! Happy debating, and remember, everyone is always welcome at the table.

In 2019, Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro faced global criticism for allowing increased deforestation in the Amazon rainforest to boost economic development. Meanwhile, China's rapid industrialization over the past few decades has lifted millions out of poverty but at a severe environmental cost. These real-world scenarios highlight a crucial dilemma facing many developing nations: Should their right to economic growth take precedence over environmental protection?

Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "A lesser developed nation's right to develop ought to take priority over its obligation to protect the environment" and comes from the Global category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's Dig In.

This debate has roots in the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, where the concept of "common but differentiated responsibilities" was introduced. This principle acknowledges that all nations have a responsibility to address global environmental issues, but developed countries should bear a greater burden due to their historical contributions to problems like climate change.

Today, according to the World Bank, about 84% of the world's population lives in developing countries. These nations often face the dual challenge of improving living standards for their citizens while also addressing environmental concerns. The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, adopted in 2015, aim to balance economic, social, and environmental sustainability.

It's crucial to discuss this because the decisions made by developing nations about their growth strategies have global implications. The International Energy Agency reports that developing countries are expected to account for the majority of growth in energy demand and carbon emissions in the coming decades.

Now, let's debate!

Agree (Development should take priority):

1. Economic development is crucial for improving quality of life. China's rapid industrialization, despite its environmental costs, has lifted over 800 million people out of poverty since 1978, according to the World Bank.

2. Developed nations industrialized without environmental restrictions, so it's unfair to impose them on developing countries now. The United States, for example, was the world's largest carbon emitter for much of the 20th century as it industrialized.

3. Once a certain level of development is reached, countries can better afford to invest in environmental protection. The "Environmental Kuznets Curve" theory suggests that as per capita income increases, emission levels first rise but then fall as societies can afford cleaner technologies.

Disagree (Environmental protection should take priority):

1. Environmental damage can have severe long-term consequences that outweigh short-term economic gains. The Aral Sea in Central Asia, once the world's fourth-largest lake, has nearly disappeared due to Soviet-era irrigation projects, devastating local economies and ecosystems.

2. Climate change disproportionately affects developing nations. The World Bank estimates that climate change could push an additional 100 million people into poverty by 2030, primarily in developing countries.

3. Sustainable development is possible and often more beneficial in the long run. Costa Rica, for example, has achieved growth in its citizen’s development while preserving 25% of its land as protected areas and generating 99% of its electricity from renewable sources in 2021.

Now, let's explore some rebuttals.

For the first "Agree" point about economic development improving quality of life, a rebuttal might go: While economic growth can improve living standards, it doesn't necessarily lead to better quality of life if it comes at the cost of severe environmental degradation. In China, for instance, air pollution contributed to 1.24 million premature deaths in 2017, according to a study in The Lancet Planetary Health.

For the third "Disagree" point about sustainable development, you could argue: While Costa Rica's model is admirable, it may not be repeatable for larger, more populous nations with different resources. India, for example, faces immense challenges in balancing the energy needs of its 1.4 billion people with environmental concerns.

To sum up, the debate over prioritizing development or environmental protection in lesser developed nations touches on issues of global equity, long-term sustainability, and the complex relationship between economic growth and environmental health. There are valid points on both sides, highlighting the need for nuanced, context-specific approaches to development.

Some steps are being taken to address this dilemma. The Paris Agreement on climate change, includes provisions for financial assistance from developed to developing countries for both mitigation and adaptation efforts. initiatives like the Green Climate Fund aim to support low-emission and climate-resilient development in developing countries.

Further Learning <-

Curious to dig in deeper into this topic? When you're playing Dinner Table Debates at home, the Agree side gets to set the stage and define the debate. This means they have the opportunity to outline the terms, context, and interpretation, making every discussion unique and engaging. here are a few thought-provoking ways Agree could shape the conversation:

A lesser developed nation’s right to build a strong military should take priority over environmental protection: How does prioritizing military development over environmental protection impact national security and stability in lesser developed nations? What are the benefits of focusing on building military strength to ensure a nation’s sovereignty and defense?

A lesser developed nation’s right to develop should be balanced with sustainable practices: Can development and environmental protection coexist? How can lesser developed nations pursue economic growth while implementing sustainable practices to protect their environment?

A lesser developed nation’s right to develop in the short-term should outweigh its environmental obligations: How do short-term developmental needs, such as immediate infrastructure improvements and economic growth, justify prioritizing development over environmental protection? What are the trade-offs between addressing urgent developmental needs and long-term environmental sustainability?

Exploring these perspectives can provide a nuanced understanding of the trade-offs between development and environmental stewardship.

If you enjoyed our deep dive, you can debate this topic and many others by getting your own Dinner Table Debates deck at DinnerTableDebates.com. It's a unique game because every round starts with randomly assigning agree or disagree, then you pick the topic, meaning that you might be debating for something you disagree with or vice versa. But that's the point! Stretch your brain, gain clarity, improve critical thinking and empathy, and have fun doing it! You can also join the debate on our Instagram and TikTok account. Get ready for some thought-provoking discussions that will challenge your assumptions and broaden your understanding of the world around you! Happy debating and remember everyone is always welcome at the table.