What happens when “iron sharpens iron” turns into something more damaging? Timothy Shaffer, the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Chair of Civil Discourse and director of the SNF Ithaca Initiative at the University of Delaware, recounts a tense, unexpectedly explosive thesis defense that left a student in tears and a faculty committee in conflict. The conversation explores where productive intellectual challenge crosses the line into accusation, ego, and harm. Shaffer argues that the real work of disagreement isn’t winning the argument, but cultivating the conditions where learning, dignity, and democracy can survive.

Tell us your argument stories!

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

Lori Britt, communication scholar and director of the Institute for Constructive Advocacy & Dialogue at James Madison University, shares how a deeply controversial community forum on marriage equality became a model for what productive disagreement can actually look like. From clashing colleagues and nervous speakers to media pressure and generational divides, she walks us through the hidden conflicts behind designing dialogue that doesn’t just talk at people, but invites them in. Lori argues that the real work of democracy is humanizing those across the table, not winning the argument. The result is a powerful case for curiosity, humility, and the possibility of connection in polarized times.

Tell us your argument stories!

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

Trained to resolve conflict and build bridges, Janett Cordoves, the senior program director at the Institute for Citizens and Scholars, walked into her first job believing every disagreement can be fixed. She was faced with a supervisor who was immune to every tool she learned. What started as micromanagement turned into credit-taking, control, and a painful realization that good faith alone could not save a toxic relationship. Forced to choose between endless engagement and self-respect, Janet learned the hardest lesson in civil discourse: sometimes the most ethical move is to leave. From the workplace to churches and classrooms, this episode wrestles with a radical idea: wisdom isn’t persuading everyone, but knowing when to stop trying.

Tell us your argument stories!

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

Elizabeth Matto, director of Rutgers’ Eagleton Institute of Politics, traces a peaceful family disagreement over voting rights into a deeper debate about whether voting is a right or a privilege. Drawing on research, teaching, and lived experience, she argues that even when voting is legally a right, structural barriers often turn it into a privilege for those with time, resources, and civic know-how. This conversation unpacks false narratives around voter access, education, patriotism, and turnout exploring how citizens with opposing politics often want informed voters but disagree on how to get there. Looking ahead, Matto offers a sobering yet hopeful take on Gen Z: disillusioned and anxious, but still hungry for democratic engagement if given tools, trust, and real opportunities to lead.

Tell us your argument stories!

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

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