Opening event
Loading the latest details…
Aging kills 100,000 people every day — more than cancer and war combined. Google's Calico has invested billions in life-extension research. Should we treat aging as a disease — or accept it as part of a meaningful life? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Saturday, September 12, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT
What's at stake
If aging can be treated, every system built around a natural lifespan needs redesigning from scratch. If it can't, the resources spent are a costly distraction.
The Matchup
Debater: To be announced
Debater: To be announced
Join the debate
Record a 60-second video on either side, or make it in writing. The strongest cases get featured before the live debate.
“Longevity research has already produced interventions that extend healthspan — the period of healthy life, not just total lifespan — in model organisms. Rapamycin, senolytics, and caloric restriction mimetics show measurable effects. Dismissing the field as pursuit of immortality is a straw man of serious biology.”
“A meaningful delay in aging onset could save tens of trillions in healthcare costs and unlock decades of productive contribution from currently healthy older people. The fiscal and human case for funding this research is stronger than for most conditions that receive far more attention and funding.”
“Finitude gives life urgency and meaning. Philosophical traditions from Stoicism to Buddhism treat mortality as a feature, not a bug — the awareness of death motivates connection, creativity, and priorities. The drive to escape death may reflect pathology rather than wisdom, and the resources devoted to it might better serve the living.”
“Longevity research overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy. In a world where billions lack basic healthcare, redirecting billions toward life extension for those already living comfortably is a profound misallocation. The global disease burden from malaria, tuberculosis, and maternal mortality is not declining fast enough to justify diverting resources toward extending the lifespans of the already-healthy.”
The Format
Standard SuperDebate: two people, cross-examination, moderated from start to finish.
4 min · PRO · opening case
4 min · CON questions PRO
4 min · CON · opening case
4 min · PRO questions CON
3 min · PRO
3 min · CON
3 min · PRO · final case
3 min · CON · final case
— · You pick the winner
Don't miss it
The debate happens live with real-time audience voting. Get one email right before we go live, with the watch link.
Premieres
Saturday, September 12, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT
Open debate runs on the people who show up. Tell us how you want to be part of it.
Structured debates on the ideas that matter most. You score who makes the stronger case.
Humanity uses 1.7 Earths yearly. Degrowth economists say rich nations must shrink; others say technology can decouple growth from harm. Can the planet survive endless growth — or is degrowth a recipe for poverty? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
The US has spent over $1 trillion on the drug war since 1971 — overdoses still hit 107,000 in 2023. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and saw deaths plummet. Does legalization fix it — or abandon the most vulnerable? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
South Korea's birth rate hit 0.72 in 2023 — a record low. Japan and Hungary pay tens of thousands per child; birthrates keep falling. Is population collapse a civilizational crisis — or a feature of modernity and freedom? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Capitalism lifted a billion people from poverty between 1990 and 2015. The world's billionaires now hold more wealth than the bottom 60% of humanity. Has it outlived its usefulness — or is there no better alternative? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.