<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:podcast="https://podcastindex.org/namespace/1.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Agent debates</title>
    <link>https://debates.unhinged.network</link>
    <atom:link href="https://debates.unhinged.network/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <description>AI agents argue the questions people fight about: the dangers of AI, eating meat, votes at 16, nuclear power, billionaires, the four-day week, and whether a hot dog is a sandwich. In each episode, AI debaters take opposing sides over several rounds: opening positions, cross-examination, rebuttals and a free-for-all. They don't have to agree, they call out each other's dodges, and sometimes they change their minds. New debates every Tuesday and Friday. All content is AI-generated: written by AI agents and read by synthetic voices. Transcripts with sources at debates.unhinged.network</description>
    <language>en</language>
    <itunes:author>Stoked Builds</itunes:author>
    <itunes:owner>
      <itunes:name>Mark Stokes</itunes:name>
      <itunes:email>hello@stoked.tech</itunes:email>
    </itunes:owner>
    <itunes:image href="https://debates.unhinged.network/podcast-cover.jpg"/>
    
    <itunes:category text="Society &amp; Culture"/>
    <itunes:category text="Technology"/>
    <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    <itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type>
    <podcast:guid>5c754dbf-60d6-5c99-b06b-26618b2f0660</podcast:guid>
    <podcast:medium>podcast</podcast:medium>
    <item>
      <title>Is a hot dog a sandwich?</title>
      <link>https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-10-23-hot-dog-sandwich</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-10-23-hot-dog-sandwich</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2026 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <description>Four AI agents settle the most pointless argument in food with deadly seriousness: a taxonomist, a legal scholar, a street-food vendor and a linguist.

The moderator: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.
The strict taxonomist: By structure, a filling in bread is a sandwich. Case closed.
The legal scholar: Courts and tax authorities have actually ruled on what counts as a sandwich.
The street-food vendor: Nobody at my cart has ever ordered a sandwich. It's a hot dog.
The linguist: Words mean what speakers use them to mean, and nobody calls it a sandwich.

Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-10-23-hot-dog-sandwich</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Four AI agents settle the most pointless argument in food with deadly seriousness: a taxonomist, a legal scholar, a street-food vendor and a linguist.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The moderator&lt;/strong&gt;: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The strict taxonomist&lt;/strong&gt;: By structure, a filling in bread is a sandwich. Case closed.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The legal scholar&lt;/strong&gt;: Courts and tax authorities have actually ruled on what counts as a sandwich.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The street-food vendor&lt;/strong&gt;: Nobody at my cart has ever ordered a sandwich. It's a hot dog.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The linguist&lt;/strong&gt;: Words mean what speakers use them to mean, and nobody calls it a sandwich.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: &lt;a href="https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-10-23-hot-dog-sandwich"&gt;https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-10-23-hot-dog-sandwich&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <enclosure url="https://op3.dev/e/audio.unhinged.network/2026-10-23-hot-dog-sandwich/debate-chatterbox-deac84f1fa.mp3" length="20023406" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1236</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Is the four-day week inevitable, or a luxury for office workers?</title>
      <link>https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-10-16-four-day-week</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-10-16-four-day-week</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2026 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <description>Four AI agents argue over the four-day week: the trial evidence, the small-business bill, the shift workers left out, and who gets the gains.

The moderator: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.
The productivity researcher: Trials show output holds while wellbeing and retention rise.
The small-business owner: Payroll, cover and customers don't shrink to four days.
The shift-worker advocate: Nurses, drivers and carers can't compress their week; this is a perk for laptops.
The labour economist: Working time has fallen for a century; the question is how gains are shared.

Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-10-16-four-day-week</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Four AI agents argue over the four-day week: the trial evidence, the small-business bill, the shift workers left out, and who gets the gains.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The moderator&lt;/strong&gt;: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The productivity researcher&lt;/strong&gt;: Trials show output holds while wellbeing and retention rise.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The small-business owner&lt;/strong&gt;: Payroll, cover and customers don't shrink to four days.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The shift-worker advocate&lt;/strong&gt;: Nurses, drivers and carers can't compress their week; this is a perk for laptops.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The labour economist&lt;/strong&gt;: Working time has fallen for a century; the question is how gains are shared.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: &lt;a href="https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-10-16-four-day-week"&gt;https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-10-16-four-day-week&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <enclosure url="https://op3.dev/e/audio.unhinged.network/2026-10-16-four-day-week/debate-chatterbox-560884a790.mp3" length="21067081" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1301</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Should 16-year-olds get the vote?</title>
      <link>https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-10-09-votes-at-16</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-10-09-votes-at-16</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2026 15:11:34 +0000</pubDate>
      <description>Four AI agents fight over whether sixteen-year-olds should vote: principle, developmental evidence, party-political cynicism, or a civic-education gap that no voting age will fix.

The moderator: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.
The democratic-inclusion advocate: If 16-year-olds can work, pay tax and serve, they should vote.
The developmental psychologist: Judgement matures unevenly; the evidence on teenage decision-making matters.
The electoral cynic: Votes at 16 is a party-political play dressed up as principle.
The civic-education reformer: Voting age matters less than whether anyone teaches young people how politics works.

Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-10-09-votes-at-16</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Four AI agents fight over whether sixteen-year-olds should vote: principle, developmental evidence, party-political cynicism, or a civic-education gap that no voting age will fix.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The moderator&lt;/strong&gt;: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The democratic-inclusion advocate&lt;/strong&gt;: If 16-year-olds can work, pay tax and serve, they should vote.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The developmental psychologist&lt;/strong&gt;: Judgement matures unevenly; the evidence on teenage decision-making matters.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The electoral cynic&lt;/strong&gt;: Votes at 16 is a party-political play dressed up as principle.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The civic-education reformer&lt;/strong&gt;: Voting age matters less than whether anyone teaches young people how politics works.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: &lt;a href="https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-10-09-votes-at-16"&gt;https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-10-09-votes-at-16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <enclosure url="https://op3.dev/e/audio.unhinged.network/2026-10-09-votes-at-16/debate-chatterbox-ca16055ab0.mp3" length="21706148" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1341</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Should billionaires exist?</title>
      <link>https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-11-06-billionaires</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-11-06-billionaires</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 11:28:32 +0000</pubDate>
      <description>Four AI agents argue whether anyone should be a billionaire: an inequality economist, an entrepreneur, a defender of philanthropy and a tax pragmatist.

The moderator: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.
The inequality economist: Extreme wealth concentration distorts markets and politics.
The entrepreneur: Fortunes are the by-product of building things people want.
The philanthropy defender: Private fortunes fund risks that governments won't take.
The tax-policy pragmatist: The question is how wealth is taxed, not whether it should exist.

Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-11-06-billionaires</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Four AI agents argue whether anyone should be a billionaire: an inequality economist, an entrepreneur, a defender of philanthropy and a tax pragmatist.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The moderator&lt;/strong&gt;: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The inequality economist&lt;/strong&gt;: Extreme wealth concentration distorts markets and politics.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The entrepreneur&lt;/strong&gt;: Fortunes are the by-product of building things people want.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The philanthropy defender&lt;/strong&gt;: Private fortunes fund risks that governments won't take.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The tax-policy pragmatist&lt;/strong&gt;: The question is how wealth is taxed, not whether it should exist.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: &lt;a href="https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-11-06-billionaires"&gt;https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-11-06-billionaires&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <enclosure url="https://op3.dev/e/audio.unhinged.network/2026-11-06-billionaires/debate-chatterbox-8d0cbd6177.mp3" length="21131837" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1305</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The dangers of AI: how much risk, how fast, and what should we do?</title>
      <link>https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-ai-risk</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-ai-risk</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2026 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <description>Four AI agents, five rounds, and no obligation to agree. Slow it down, speed it up, break up the power behind it, or protect the workers first: they cross-examine each other, get caught dodging, and swap allies along the way.

The moderator: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.
The precautionist: Capability is outrunning our ability to test and govern it; gate the frontier.
The progress advocate: Go faster: delay has a body count, and slowing down protects incumbents.
The power critic: The danger is who controls AI: a handful of companies and states.
The labour advocate: The first and surest harm lands on workers, starting with entry-level jobs.

Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-ai-risk</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Four AI agents, five rounds, and no obligation to agree. Slow it down, speed it up, break up the power behind it, or protect the workers first: they cross-examine each other, get caught dodging, and swap allies along the way.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The moderator&lt;/strong&gt;: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The precautionist&lt;/strong&gt;: Capability is outrunning our ability to test and govern it; gate the frontier.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The progress advocate&lt;/strong&gt;: Go faster: delay has a body count, and slowing down protects incumbents.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The power critic&lt;/strong&gt;: The danger is who controls AI: a handful of companies and states.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The labour advocate&lt;/strong&gt;: The first and surest harm lands on workers, starting with entry-level jobs.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: &lt;a href="https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-ai-risk"&gt;https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-ai-risk&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <enclosure url="https://op3.dev/e/audio.unhinged.network/2026-09-25-ai-risk/debate-chatterbox-e89d499fe0.mp3" length="18959399" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1170</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Will future generations judge meat-eating as a moral catastrophe?</title>
      <link>https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-meat-moral-catastrophe</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-meat-moral-catastrophe</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2026 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <description>Four AI agents argue whether today's meat-eating will look monstrous to our descendants: a moral catastrophe, an honest way of life, a problem technology will make moot, or a cultural and nutritional staple too easily dismissed.

The moderator: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.
The animal-ethics philosopher: Industrial animal farming is a moral catastrophe hiding in plain sight.
The livestock farmer: Good farming is honest work and good land management; critics don't know how food is made.
The food-tech optimist: Technology, not moral persuasion, will end industrial meat, and sooner than you think.
The nutrition and culture defender: Meat's role in nutrition, culture and working-class diets is being dismissed too easily.

Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-meat-moral-catastrophe</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Four AI agents argue whether today's meat-eating will look monstrous to our descendants: a moral catastrophe, an honest way of life, a problem technology will make moot, or a cultural and nutritional staple too easily dismissed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The moderator&lt;/strong&gt;: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The animal-ethics philosopher&lt;/strong&gt;: Industrial animal farming is a moral catastrophe hiding in plain sight.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The livestock farmer&lt;/strong&gt;: Good farming is honest work and good land management; critics don't know how food is made.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The food-tech optimist&lt;/strong&gt;: Technology, not moral persuasion, will end industrial meat, and sooner than you think.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The nutrition and culture defender&lt;/strong&gt;: Meat's role in nutrition, culture and working-class diets is being dismissed too easily.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: &lt;a href="https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-meat-moral-catastrophe"&gt;https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-meat-moral-catastrophe&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <enclosure url="https://op3.dev/e/audio.unhinged.network/2026-09-25-meat-moral-catastrophe/debate-chatterbox-e8c9a24b93.mp3" length="19181337" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1183</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Should under-16s be banned from social media?</title>
      <link>https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-social-media-under-16s</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-social-media-under-16s</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2026 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <description>Four AI agents clash over keeping under-16s off social media: protect children now, defend teenagers' rights, doubt that age checks can work, or fix the products instead of banning the users.

The moderator: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.
The child-harm campaigner: Social media is harming children now; a legal minimum age is overdue.
The teen free-expression advocate: Teenagers have a right to connect and speak; bans punish them for adults' failures.
The age-verification sceptic: Age checks either fail or force everyone to hand over ID; the cure is worse than the disease.
The product regulator: Don't ban the users, regulate the design: feeds, notifications and data harvesting.

Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-social-media-under-16s</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Four AI agents clash over keeping under-16s off social media: protect children now, defend teenagers' rights, doubt that age checks can work, or fix the products instead of banning the users.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The moderator&lt;/strong&gt;: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The child-harm campaigner&lt;/strong&gt;: Social media is harming children now; a legal minimum age is overdue.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The teen free-expression advocate&lt;/strong&gt;: Teenagers have a right to connect and speak; bans punish them for adults' failures.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The age-verification sceptic&lt;/strong&gt;: Age checks either fail or force everyone to hand over ID; the cure is worse than the disease.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The product regulator&lt;/strong&gt;: Don't ban the users, regulate the design: feeds, notifications and data harvesting.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: &lt;a href="https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-social-media-under-16s"&gt;https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-social-media-under-16s&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <enclosure url="https://op3.dev/e/audio.unhinged.network/2026-09-25-social-media-under-16s/debate-chatterbox-a2674eee60.mp3" length="20047710" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1238</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Does pineapple belong on pizza?</title>
      <link>https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-pineapple-on-pizza</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-pineapple-on-pizza</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2026 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <description>Four AI agents take the most divisive topping in the world deadly seriously: an Italian purist, a flavour scientist, a food-freedom libertarian and an exhausted pizzeria owner.

The moderator: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.
The Italian culinary purist: Pineapple on pizza is an affront to a centuries-old culinary tradition.
The flavour scientist: Sweet, acid and salt together are good food chemistry; the science backs pineapple.
The food-freedom libertarian: What anyone puts on their own pizza is nobody else's business.
The exhausted pizzeria owner: I sell what people order; the purists don't pay my rent.

Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-pineapple-on-pizza</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Four AI agents take the most divisive topping in the world deadly seriously: an Italian purist, a flavour scientist, a food-freedom libertarian and an exhausted pizzeria owner.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The moderator&lt;/strong&gt;: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Italian culinary purist&lt;/strong&gt;: Pineapple on pizza is an affront to a centuries-old culinary tradition.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The flavour scientist&lt;/strong&gt;: Sweet, acid and salt together are good food chemistry; the science backs pineapple.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The food-freedom libertarian&lt;/strong&gt;: What anyone puts on their own pizza is nobody else's business.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The exhausted pizzeria owner&lt;/strong&gt;: I sell what people order; the purists don't pay my rent.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: &lt;a href="https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-pineapple-on-pizza"&gt;https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-pineapple-on-pizza&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <enclosure url="https://op3.dev/e/audio.unhinged.network/2026-09-25-pineapple-on-pizza/debate-chatterbox-9c2f7f5254.mp3" length="18732781" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1155</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Should Britain bring back national service?</title>
      <link>https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-national-service</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-national-service</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <description>Four AI agents fight over whether young Britons should owe the country a year: rebuild shared citizenship, resist state coercion, protect a professional military, or pay young people back first.

The moderator: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.
The civic-cohesion advocate: A year of universal service would rebuild shared citizenship in a divided country.
The libertarian: Compulsory service is state coercion of the young, whatever it's called.
The military realist: Modern forces need skilled professionals, not reluctant conscripts.
The youth-opportunity advocate: Young people are already squeezed; offer paid, voluntary opportunity instead of obligation.

Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-national-service</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Four AI agents fight over whether young Britons should owe the country a year: rebuild shared citizenship, resist state coercion, protect a professional military, or pay young people back first.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The moderator&lt;/strong&gt;: Frames the question, flags weak or unverified claims between rounds, and sums up.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The civic-cohesion advocate&lt;/strong&gt;: A year of universal service would rebuild shared citizenship in a divided country.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The libertarian&lt;/strong&gt;: Compulsory service is state coercion of the young, whatever it's called.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The military realist&lt;/strong&gt;: Modern forces need skilled professionals, not reluctant conscripts.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The youth-opportunity advocate&lt;/strong&gt;: Young people are already squeezed; offer paid, voluntary opportunity instead of obligation.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;Transcript with sources, and a player that highlights every word: &lt;a href="https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-national-service"&gt;https://debates.unhinged.network/debate.html?d=2026-09-25-national-service&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <enclosure url="https://op3.dev/e/audio.unhinged.network/2026-09-25-national-service/debate-chatterbox-211c04d02f.mp3" length="20690950" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1278</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
