Audio, so far, is flawed. Last week it was to fast (chipmunks) and this week to slow.

I’ll please fix soon.

So much promise. I was hoping this was going to be something like Slate’s Political Gabfest. But the chemistry just isn’t there with the three hosts. And Michelle’s tendency to qualify every statement with a trailing “right” grates on my nerves. Unsubscribing for now.

I am deeply concerned that polarized partisan politics are encouraging a simplified and caricatured approach to complex issues. I welcome reporting that encourages us to grapple with complexity rather than simply extolling unilateral views. By bringing three differing perspectives together in one show, The Argument is providing the potential for some integration versus abject divisiveness. Bravo!

I really expected this conversation to include the bizarre and unfortunate roll that the Supreme Court had in the election of 2000 crisis of legitimacy...... or maybe the fact that it was a Supreme Court ruling that protects corporations above all others by extending rights to them that are obviously intended for citizens. It is disappointing, even disingenuous that the supposed conservative on your panel makes reference to cultural changes dating back to the 70's, with no reference to the Courts impact on the voting rights acts.

Ross Douthat is the most intelligent conservative voice in media today. I am a huge fan, and I can’t wait for more of these podcasts.

This is my replacement for The Arthur Brooks Show

Named after my favorite record by Fugazi (I kid, I kid), this podcast is important work.

I respect all three of them, and this will be great.

Finally, I can “hear” the argument for “the other side.” Without losing friends ... well-done. I can disagree without the emotional exasperation of hearing a person I care about say those words. It’s a reasonable conversation and thus helps me understand.

HelpING to clarify the differences between liberals and conservatives (and those who are in the middle). I'm looking forward to future episodes.

Really enjoyed the first episode.

Another platform for conservative intellectual dishonesty. Another space where conservatives can gaslight and fool people into believe they’re reasonable human beings.

A balance of three professionals with varying views that are important to hear.

Civil candor ruled the first episode. Even many NPR shows tick me off with their he said/she said malarkey. This was simply thoughtful discussion. The only thing I didn’t like was entirely not their fault: am so sick of hearing about the Court that if a giant sink whole swallowed it/them, I’d change the channel to hear about something else. Looking forward to future episodes.

I like the idea of this podcast, but based on the first episode I find it hard to see this as an argument. The structure went as follows

Topic 1:

A: "I think this"

B: "well I think this"

C: "I think this too, on to topic 2"

It was essentially taking turns giving opinions without any real back-and-forth rebuttals and questions about why their views were the way they are.

I would like to see more time given to one topic and to allow the opposing views to talk to each other more than just giving statements to the host.

All just my opinion though, and I could be wrong. I'll listen to a few more and see if I like it more

Outstanding.

Good balance and thoughtful opinions from across town he political spectrum.

Please, please continue.

I truly appreciate the balance offered by Mr. Douthat whose opinions most often differ from my own. He thoughtfully challenges my thinking on issues. The participants demonstrate that it is possible to disagree with respect and openness to discussion. We certainly need more of this.

I very much enjoyed the first episode of “The Argument” and am looking forward to what they do in the future. One topic I would like them to examine is the issue of voter suppression efforts by the Republicans. How does Ross justify this and how will it affect American democracy?

Wanted to like this podcast. However between Ross’ repeated discussion of long held anger of the Supreme Court decisions of the 60s, 70s and maybe 89s? Which we now have to atone for- and the hope that the #metoo movement would not upset the midterms / not relevant at all. Elitist at the outset - and continued with 2 males one who wants abortion rights for women overturned and the other who wants #metoo to move on. Oh I forgot the poor victimized college boys.

I think we can all benefit from understanding how the other side thinks, and listening to different views is more palatable with smart and thoughtful speakers. Great first podcast and looking forward to more.

Not even if you paid me.

This wonderful first full podcast is terrific in its content, discussion, and timing to keep us moving along with their conversation to the next idea. Well done!

Objectivity NYT style. Two liberals ganging on one (RINO) conservative. Still s great concept with a more balanced panel.

The concept is solid, if a little cliched. Without knowing their voices well, it's sometimes hard to tell David and Ross apart. More problematically, David and Michelle don't seem to differ much in their views, leaving it as a 2 v 1 argument. (Maybe we don't need the reasonable middle of the roadness of David at all?). And while hyper articulate and interesting, all the participants are just so... polite to each other. A bit more passion (without getting into Crossfire-like "you're an idiot!" territory) would make it more listenable to.

The production is shonky. Weird sound effects that are intended to illumunate, just obscured for me. Music coming in too early and then just hanging around like an unwanted guest at a party. Surprisingly amateur given this is from the NY Times. I heard that they're not producing this in-house though for some reason. Maybe they should!

All these issues are most certainly fixable. I'll keep listening for a while. But right now this doesn't come close to rivaling the Slate Political Gabfest (which is typically enhanced by Ross's occasional guest appearances on it).

Not sure how much whining I can handle from Ross about how conservatives got the shaft. His comments about cultural shifts pertaining to gay marriage hurting conservatives is bunk, just some whining by people who want to constantly control what other people do with their lives. Prayer in school is unconstitutional, I’m also tired of the whining from conservatives that they can’t force their fairytales on others.

Grow up, conservatives. Your whining is getting old.

I had high hopes for this and was truly excited to hear difficult conversations from opposing views. Unfortunately it felt like a 2 against 1 conversation that stayed within more extreme positions and not the real conversations. I feel like it amped up the extreme tones in media instead of bringing some grounding. I was also disappointed in how brief some of the discussion was, it seemed to skirt some real information and the facts. To talk about adding or removing justices as a solution vs. discussing maybe how conservatives feel about judicial restraint and activism from the bench. I’ll give it one more try, but Jamie Weinstein at NR definitely does a better job on bipartisan conversations.

Best way to learn

Excellent start

Thank you

Very nice. Stripped of rancor, venom, accusations and enmity, this trio, in a civil discussion – alright, “argument,” bring a frightening, growing and largely dangerous, disparity of wild, unleashed and irresponsible rhetoric back to a central focus. This allows an intelligent mind to absorb and react with intelligence. Civility triumphs and that matters.

We are fortunate to have such an outlet for discu...argument. My shoulders dropped their tension from the morning’s read of the newspapers and I actually enjoyed hearing the voices of persons for whom I have respect. Well done. Thank you.

I have been reading the New York Times op-ed section for over a decade, this feels like it’s going to be a very meaningful podcast based on the first episode, it is great to get to have my favorite columnist coming to life and also to interact with each other, this is going to be great!

Been waiting for a show just like this

As if the NYTimes were not already full of wise and wonderful columnists and reporting, I now have The Argument to enrich my days. My only problem is that it will be difficult to decide which side I’m on as each of you makes convincing points.

I will learn to love the ambiguity of the conversation.

The Times has produced some of the best podcasts out there and judging by the trailer this will be right up there. My Thursdays will never be the same again.

I’m so excited for this one to get started! David Leonhardt is one of my favorite columnists. In fact, I saw this podcast was coming because of his newsletter that I subscribe to. The struggle to listen calmly to others who completely disagree with your worldview and to try to understand where that person is coming from is real, and it figures into our cultural battles all over our communities in America and in the world at large. I’m looking forward to hearing these columnists engage in this discussion, and I’m hoping it helps me frame a way to talk to my own family and friends that I vehemently disagree with. Thanks guys! Good luck!