Waow ! This was an outstanding exchange. Not sure it is about agreeing or disagreeing but embracing the fact that the human mind is unique and that we are creatures of nuance and contradictions that need to be handled so that we can move forward. In the US, we like black & white solutions and placing people and their issues into boxes. It comes as reassuring but real life and real people - whether psychotic or not - are always evolving shades of grey.

This show frustrates me because the premise - let’s bring on folks we disagree with and hear them out and have a reasonable debate - should make for a great podcast. But in practice, they simply do not bring on people they disagree with. Instead, they bring on people who they do agree with about 99% of the issue with the remaining point of contention almost always being, “I think we should listen to the other side and try to understand them”… A proposal that any reasonable person could get behind, but which the host presents as wildly radical. This latest episode is the perfect example of the pattern. To discuss the tradwife movement, would it not be the obvious move for a show supposedly about being open minded (the host ends the show reminding us to be open minded) to bring in the most articulate defender of that movement they could find? Instead, we bring in a fellow critic of the movement whose supposedly radical premise is, “Maybe these wrong headed women have a point or two.” These are intra ideological quibbles, not any serious attempt to bridge meaningful disagreements… And the fact that the host of a show supposedly about encouraging healthy debate almost always argues against taking the other side seriously is just… I mean, could anything be more ironic?

Impossible to take McWorter seriously after he said he couldn’t teach “4:33” because it was too noisy outside, exposing himself as both an intellectual charlatan and an advocate for the repression of free speech in one fell swoop. What an embarrassing moment for both Columbia and the New York Times, as they both choose to err on the side of genocide rather than live up to their own ideals.

When someone is stupid enough to argue that interracial marriages can still be racist if they don’t hew to radical leftist anti-racism ideology, I won’t waste my time on this show any longer.

I don’t even know where to begin, but Celeste Headlee is such an absurd arguer. Almost all of my positions are very liberal, and I come into every debate on Celeste’s side, but she argues them so poorly and with terrible tactics like cutting off the guests for an ad breaks but only after she gets the last word in, making blatantly false claims, and throwing in unrelated tangents that the guests don’t have a chance to defend. I almost always sympathize much more with the guests by the end of the show. I usually still don't agree with their opinions, but I feel like they at least made an honest effort. Celeste makes such poor and unfair arguments. I think most of the topics are still very important to debate, but not with her as the host. However, I think I get even angrier at the topics she has that should not even be in this feed. Are cruises cool? Christmas should be tacky? These are 100% debates of people’s preferences with no larger policy or society implications. Instead they just makes me hate her more. This is not a good approach to having real debates where people learn from each other. This is just another example of a self important liberal blowhard giving those of us with a sincere desire to understand different opinions a bad name.

I have a deep interest in languages and have been enjoying John McWorters’ podcast Lexicon Valley on Booksmart Studio so was happy to find his earlier linguistic musings here as well as the archive of equally linguistically interesting older (2012 to around 2017) episodes of Lexicon Valley by a couple of other linguists. My gripe is that Slate has thrown these non-political linguistic podcasts together with later commentaries about US partisan issues. Why not separate them into different feeds? People interested in linguistics may or, especially if non-Amrricans, may not be interested in American political issues. And people interested in contemporary American issues may not be particularly interested in linguistics and language issues. Moreover, the title with “debate” is incorrect. The two linguists are not debating each other. They are discussing certain questions— and usually seem to agree with each other. No debates.

I agree with other reviewers that this show is ideologically narrow. The debaters basically stipulate to a leftist worldview and then debate within its confines. To me as an agnostic, it’s like listening to Christian theologians debate in every episode topics that presuppose a god (divine grace, the holy trinity, miracles, etc.).

These aren’t true debates. The host clearly favors a certain side from the start. The host has an unfair advantage at steering the conversation compared to the guests. That said, a lot of the conversations show me new sides to these issues. Overall it has a r/changemymind feel to it, not a debate feel.

Not sure what this is..it isn’t what I subscribed to..so unsubbing.

Then this is the show for you. An absolutely google-free environment