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!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

Dan McCarthy, who edits Modern Age, thinks that what many believe to be “good” democratic citizenship is completely unrealistic. He challenges the idea that voters need expert-level knowledge and instead argues that elections are really judgments about whether life is getting better or worse. Along the way, he exposes the tension between intellectual elites and ordinary voters and why humility might be the missing ingredient in our politics. It’s a sharp, provocative conversation about expertise, democracy, and who we trust to know the truth.

When We Disagree is on holiday break until early January. 

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

During this holiday season, we are re-releasing some of our most popular episodes about conflict in relationships from the archive. A Thanksgiving blowup in 1989 shattered one family and shaped a lifetime of how sociologist Heath Hoffman understands conflict. In this raw and candid conversation, Hoffman traces how antagonism, avoidance, and inherited communication habits echo into adulthood. He opens up about wrestling with his own “uncivil” tendencies, the shame that follows, and why silence can feel just as painful as shouting. This episode is a gripping look at how family fights become family legacies and what it takes to break the cycle.

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

Nick Longo shares the origin story behind Providence College's “dialogue walls,” a creative public-art tool designed to spark conversations in polarized times. Longo, professor of Global Studies and co-director of the Dialogue, Inclusion, and Democracy Lab, recounts how speaker cancellations and national political controversies pushed him and his students to build proactive spaces where questions—not shouting matches—lead. Longo takes us inside the craft of asking genuinely invitational questions and the challenge of creating nuance in public spaces. Ultimately, he frames dialogue as the “narrow ridge” where curiosity, humility, and real problem-solving begin.

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

Joseph Uscinski pushes back hard on the widespread claim that conspiracy theories are exploding in America—and brings decades of data to prove it. Uscinski, a political scientist at the University of Miami, explains why journalists and the public confuse visibility with prevalence, why viral anecdotes mislead us, and how conspiratorial thinking has been a feature of American life long before the internet. Along the way, we discuss politicians’ use of conspiratorial rhetoric, nostalgia for a “rational past,” and why people’s beliefs—online or off—are far more complicated than we assume. The result is a myth-busting conversation that reframes challenges many ideas about misinformation, media, and our nostalgia for an era of uncontested "facts."

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

As we approach the holidays, When We Disagree is re-releasing episodes about tough conversations with friends and family. This week's episodes are both about arguing with friends about conspiracy theories. When communication professor Bill Keith found himself unable to reason with a close friend consumed by conspiracy theories, he faced a humbling question: what happens when dialogue fails? In this episode of When We Disagree, Keith examines the limits of civility, the psychology of self-sealing arguments, and the heartbreak of watching reason collapse into paranoia. Together they explore how systems, not secret cabals, shape our world—and why boundaries, not just empathy, are sometimes the most civil choice.

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

As we approach the holidays, When We Disagree is re-releasing episodes about tough conversations with friends and family. This week's episodes are both about arguing with friends about conspiracy theories. When college student Victor Dupont’s coworker claimed the moon was a government projection and gravity a hoax, he found himself face-to-face with a flat-Earth believer—and the limits of argument. In this episode, Victor explores what it’s like to reason with conspiracy-minded friends, why certainty can feel so seductive, and where open-mindedness meets gullibility. From TikTok-fueled misinformation to the comfort of “knowing” what others don’t, this conversation asks: how do we talk across worlds that no longer share the same facts?

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

When does government transparency actually build trust—and when does it backfire? Todd Glover is the executive director of the Municipal Association of South Carolina. A former city manager, Glover joins When We Disagree to share what a $25,000 logo fight taught him about communication, public outrage, and the art of making numbers meaningful. From packed gymnasiums to calm councils, Glover reflects on how misunderstanding fuels fear, why information must come early, and why faith in the reasoning abilities of everyday citizens keeps democracy alive at the local level.

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

When Lia Howard, the director of the Political Empathy Lab at Penn, took seven undergrads across 2,500 miles of Pennsylvania during the 2024 election season, she wasn’t looking for votes—she was looking for understanding. In this episode, Leah shares what happens when students practice democratic listening in politically divided towns, where truth itself can come from different sources. From tense conversations about George Soros to unexpected moments of warmth and connection, she explores the delicate balance between curiosity and complicity—and how to stay open without surrendering your values. It’s a masterclass in listening across America’s political fault lines.

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

What happens when a conversation changes you—but the other person never knows? University of Virginia professor Rachel Wahl shares her research on student dialogues that linger long after they end, including one that revealed both the promise and heartbreak of real engagement. This episode dives into what it takes to build understanding across deep divides—and why curiosity and respect might be democracy’s most radical tools.

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram