Steven Olikara (founding CEO of Bridge Entertainment Labs, former U.S. Senate candidate in Wisconsin, and one of the stars of the documentary The Reunited States) pulls back the curtain on what he calls the "division industrial complex." This conversation shows how political operatives, traditional media, and social media algorithms purposefully manufacture outrage and blood sport for profit. Olikara shares surprising behind-the-scenes stories of rivals sharing photos of their kids in the "green room" before going on air to perform the very animosity they’re selling to the public. Rather than calling for a boring middle ground, he argues for an elevated WWE style of discourse where we embrace the joy of healthy, fiery debate without dehumanizing those across the aisle.

Tell us your argument stories!

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

Frances Lee (professor of political science at Princeton, author of Insecure Majorities, co-author of In Covid's Wake) challenges the common narrative that the United States Congress is a hopelessly dysfunctional institution. While popular opinion often benchmarks the current legislature against a "golden age" of the legislatively productive past, Lee presents a data-driven "two cheers" case for the Congress we actually have. The conversation explores how Congress successfully mirrors a divided electorate through proportional representation, maintains a surprisingly bipartisan lawmaking process, and serves as a vital public sphere for executive accountability. By shifting focus from what is broken to what is working, this episode invites a reconsideration of the essential role of the legislature in upholding the rule of law and building consensus in a polarized era.

Tell us your argument stories!

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

Kent Lenci, an educator, founder of Middle Ground School Solutions, and author of Learning to Depolarize, dissects a depolarization story in three acts. What starts as a heated confrontation over a seemingly neutral photo of Donald Trump evolves into a masterclass in de-escalation across multiple media, from the rapid-fire tension of video calls to the deliberate, cooling pace of email and the intimacy of a long-form phone conversation. Lenci reveals how discovering shared humanity, like the common struggle of a parent's schedule, can dismantle the "performativity" of public disagreement. It is a powerful exploration of the "Listen First" philosophy and why sometimes the most difficult people to talk to are exactly the ones who need to be heard.

Tell us your argument stories!

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

Is civic education a fundamental duty of higher education or a dangerous political risk? Alex Kappus of Carnegie Higher Education Consulting and the Democratic Knowledge Project to discuss the growing institutional fear of being labeled "partisan" for simply teaching the mechanics of democracy. Kappus shares a decade of firsthand accounts (blocked voter registration drives, administrative pushback, etc.) to reveal how the quest for "neutrality" often results in student disillusionment. Together, they explore why colleges must move beyond the "optics" of fear to cultivate an informed, active citizenry that can navigate a polarized world.

Tell us your argument stories!

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

Andrew Perrin, SNF-Agora professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University, reflects on leading a high-stakes effort to redesign general education at the University of North Carolina, revealing how institutional change sparks deep and often personal disagreements about what students really need to learn. What begins as a debate over course requirements becomes a broader argument about the purpose of higher education itself. Perrin describes shifting the focus from content coverage to core capacities like asking questions, evaluating evidence, and acting on informed judgment. The conversation highlights how academic turf wars, incentives, and identity shape conflict, even among experts. Ultimately, this conversation reframes argument as a fundamental skill at the heart of education, citizenship, and public life.

Tell us your argument stories!

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

Jennifer Borda, professor of communication at the University of New Hampshire and the co-director of the Civil Discourse Lab, reflects on a family crisis that sparked a lasting insight into the nature of conflict. A painful confrontation with her father during her mother’s final days reveals how fear, grief, and loss of control often drive arguments more than the surface issue. The conversation explores the limits of language in moments of emotional intensity and the unseen forces shaping what people say. Drawing on her work in civil discourse, Borda highlights how storytelling can open space for understanding and shift deeply held positions. The episode connects personal experience to a broader framework for navigating conflict with greater awareness and empathy.

Tell us your argument stories!

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

Sarah Igo, the Andrew Jackson chair in American history at Vanderbilt University and the faculty director of Dialogue Vanderbilt, explores why some people rarely experience heated conflict and what that reveals about how we argue. Drawing on her research into privacy and public life, she makes a bold case: over time, reasoned arguments can actually reshape culture, even if the process is slow and uneven. Igo contrasts the generative disagreements of academia with the more chaotic clashes of public life, asking what we lose when arguments abandon evidence and curiosity. The conversation digs into how institutions like universities can model better discourse and why that matters now more than ever. It’s a thoughtful, quietly optimistic take on disagreement as a force for intellectual and democratic progress.

Tell us your argument stories!

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

A firsthand witness to January 6 recounts a surreal argument at a casual gathering. Sherman Tylawsky, founder of the George Washington Institute and host of the Friends and Fellow Citizens podcast, reflects on the emotional weight of hearing the event dismissed as fictional, even as he recalls being locked down inside the Capitol. The conversation explores where disagreement breaks down: when people no longer share basic facts. Rather than escalate, Tylawsky models a strategy of grounding conflict in shared values: rejecting violence and reaffirming democratic norms. It’s a powerful look at how civic trust frays and how it might be rebuilt through principled, human-centered dialogue.

Tell us your argument stories!

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