This podcast claimed to conduct its debates with civility. Not so. In the review of the US election Rudyard called Donald Trump corrupt, misogynistic, and racist. So much for civility.

I had been looking for a podcast like this for a long time. They go into complex, relevant topics with great speakers that provide nuance and allow listeners to make their minds. Too much of the media these days (big and small, left and right) is heavily editorialized and tries to avoid people thinking too much and just defaults to the party line on different topics. It’s refreshing to find a podcast like this; highly recommend.

March 18, 2024 was a terrible podcast. Of all the amazing people you could presumably find, you have a boring and inept person describing why Trump voters support Trump. His opponent was a clear partisan, who had most of the airtime and shared her personal view at every turn. Whereas the person defending Trump as a candidate, could care less and communicated what he thought Trump voters would think, rather than what he himself believes. And it was obvious. And he got it all wrong. what a lousy excuse for a debate that characterizes both sides. Super one-sided and disappointment. The host is obviously a leftist and piled on with his questioning.

This podcast helps you acquire a more rational and balanced perspective on all issues it covers

The moderator essentially took the side of the opposition in the latest podcast about a Gaza ceasefire towards the end. The fact is that Israel has been found to target civilians by several reputable organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the UN. Munk should apologize immediately. Also count how many Palestinian guests they have had since October 7th.

I just listened to the debate on whether DEI trainings do more harm than good and I was disappointed that the opposing debater never addressed any of the proponent’s statements. Instead, she talked about other issues and continued to do so throughout the debate, never addressing the crux of the debate. I wish the host would have insisted that she address the statements put forth. I’ve come away from other Munk debates with the same feeling.

Excited by the idea of this show but got half way through the “traditional marriage roles” episode and it devolved into a shouting match about “the data say this” vs “no it doesn’t, there’s no data that says that”. If I wanted that, I’d go watch Fox News. Take the time to describe what the experiments are, what the data say, and you can then debate what it means. Treat your audience like thinking adults

What is the point? The Gen Z debaters agreed on nearly everything! The debater supporting the resolution did not actually support it. Total waste of time

I appreciate this podcast and the presentation of issues. Always sheds new light on concepts, thought provoking.

Historically, Munk has done a good job of having balanced debates about controversial issues. But lately, they’re veering to one side of the political spectrum by putting out “conversations” that are not balanced or compelling. They’re just two typical Canadian mid-wits with varying degrees of the same set of everyday opinions, chatting about politics. Please get back to actual debates.

Just discovered the Munk Debates. I subscribed to listen to the debate on mainstream media and then listened to another long form debate. It’s rare that anyone on the public stage engages in traditional debates these days. Munk is an opportunity to listen to some of the greatest minds in politics, journalism, science and culture debate the issues of the day in a civil, moderated setting with all the usual rules in place. It’s exciting and informative. I may be up all night now.

The conversation titled Antisemitism I believe...was frustrating to hear you mock the “GREAT RESET” that is clearly trying to happen calling it conspiracy theory ....shame on you. It’s a thing and you’re part of the problem it seems. They (WEF) say what they’re doing and brag about their people in position of control (Trudeau). They’re attacking farmers (all over the world btw, don’t act like you’re unaware) and US middle class businesses to crush the middle class and food providers for control. It’s a coordinated effort globally . Shame on you.

Scott was over all great. But as a professor of marketing he sometimes spins his own reality. In this episode on Munk he largely does a great service to our nation. But, as a partisan he reports with confidence that social media helped a roiter/protestor (whatever your flavor) buy zip ties, and that a capital police office was bludgeon to death with a fire extinguisher. Both accounts of those events have been disproven repeatably.

Most "debate" podcasts either 1) have too many guests, so no one really gets their say or 2) have guests that are so biased that that speak past each other. I've been pleasantly surprised by the Munk Debates as they typically ave just two guests and those guests, while representing different views, often agree with each other on a subset of points. To me, that's how real intellectual progress happens.

amazing guest list, refreshing to hear actual civilized debate

Used to enjoy the debates. Now they are switching to discussions. Should stick with debates or make another podcast if you want to change to different format.

Just found Munk debates and thoroughly enjoyed hearing Maggie Haberman’s insightful views. I like this dialog format and will bind listen or possible view at Munkdebates.com

I really used to like the Munk Debates, mostly because of its even handed approach to each topic. Unfortunately, the last couple of seasons have brought a new format, turning the discussion much further one sided and left leaning.

So far I’ve listened to most of what is posted. Generally speaking they are good about bribing experts if opposing opinions of the subject matter and let them hash it out with the moderator directing subtopics. The problem comes when they bring none-experts or expert adjacent. When they do, you get misinformed opinions, disingenuous misrepresentation of facts, or outright lies (intentional or not). While that in an of itself is a problem that reflects on the debater, the fact that the moderator does not call out the mistakes, lies, or factual misrepresentation, and fact checks the speakers, is a poor reflection on the program and that is where it falls short. The only reason why this isn’t a 3 star is because the frequency that this problem rises is minimal (only 2 or 3 episodes suffer from that problem so far as I have heard).

Munk is afflicted with the common virus of insisting on faux "balance", instead of seeking truth. Often will host the most odiously dishonest ideological warriors for an issue, squared off against acutal subject matter experts or scientists.

Best podcast I’ve found in the genre. Whether in debate or interview format the moderator is prepared but not promoting his personal agenda. Rather he gets great insights from amazing public intellectuals. Civility sans outrage is so welcome and so needed.

The format is terrific. I like the moderator and the high level guests make this such an informative podcast. I wish our politicians would debate like this. This podcast provides exactly what I was looking for.

Hack nonsense.

It’s so nice to hear long form debate on serious issues from folks with different perspectives. I wish the Munk Debate Podcast was a little bit longer, so they could really get into the nuts and bolts of different arguments, but the quality of the debate is still good in 40 minute or so increments. Please keep this up. The world definitely needs more of it.

This is one of the best debate organizations out there. Civil debates like these are a strong antidote to filter bubbles.

So excited for this! I have been watching on YouTube for years 😉

In