Alys Campaigne, the Southern Environmental Law Center's climate initiative leader, reflects on three decades of climate advcocacy, where the same arguments keep resurfacing even as the impacts grow impossible to ignore. She explains how real progress happens when we drop polarizing labels, make the issue local and personal, and help people see how climate solutions connect to their daily lives, wallets, and communities. Campaigne exposes the role of coordinated disinformation while showing why hope, bottom-up action, and shared values still create unlikely alliances. It’s a candid look at what it means to stay in a daunting, existential fight and why it’s still worth pushing forward.

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• Follow us on Instagram

Derick Brown, the chief advancement and strategic partnerships officer of the YMCA of San Francisco, shares the life-changing argument that pushed him from telling teens to pursue college…to enrolling himself the very next morning. In this gripping story about credibility, leadership, and “walking the walk,” Derick traces how ten blunt words from his students transformed his career, purpose, and commitment to public service. From the Boys & Girls Club to UC Berkeley to leading civic-engagement work in San Francisco, he shows how disagreement can spark growth, community, and impact. It’s a powerful reminder that sometimes the people we’re trying to inspire end up inspiring us.

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• Follow us on Instagram

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 whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• 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 whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• 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 whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• 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 whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• 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 whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• 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 whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• Follow us on Instagram