Opening event
Loading the latest details…
Teen depression doubled between 2010 and 2020 in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia — tracking smartphone adoption. Haidt says social media is the driver; critics say the data doesn't prove it. Correlation — or crisis? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Wednesday, October 7, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT
What's at stake
If phones are genuinely the problem, restricting them is clear public health policy. If the evidence doesn't hold, the panic crowds out research into what's actually going wrong.
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.
“Girls' rates of depression and anxiety doubled between 2010 and 2020 across the US, UK, Canada, and Australia simultaneously. That pattern follows smartphone adoption and social media penetration, not economic cycles, political events, or any other candidate explanation. The cross-national, cross-demographic simultaneity is exactly the pattern a single cause would produce.”
“Social media is specifically engineered to exploit the adolescent brain's sensitivity to social approval. Infinite scroll and notification design were built to maximize engagement, not wellbeing. Meta's own internal research showed the company knew Instagram was harmful to teenage girls' body image and mental health — and chose continued growth over remediation.”
“The most rigorous pre-registered studies — including Przybylski's work on 350,000 teenagers — find effects of social media on wellbeing smaller than wearing glasses or eating potatoes. The effect sizes largely disappear when controlling for prior mental health history, socioeconomic factors, and reverse causality: depressed teenagers spend more time online.”
“Mental health deteriorated across the same period in communities with minimal smartphone access, and improved in some communities with heavy use. That pattern is inconsistent with a simple screen-time story and consistent with economic precarity, housing insecurity, academic pressure, and pandemic disruption as primary causes.”
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
Wednesday, October 7, 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.
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.
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.