And Rogan's style is better than not permitting dissenting opinions at all.

Except when he unquestioningly platforms conspiracy theorists, quacks, climate change deniers, transphobes, and eugenicists.

Questioningly. He asks his interviewees questions; they respond; as a result, we get a better opportunity to learn what and how they think.

I’m skeptical that this is currently possible for the topic du jour (vaccines and pharmaceuticals) simply because the vast majority of funding is from private companies with no incentive to find problems with their products and with the ability to financially punish those who look for problems.

If adversarial studies occurred it would make those debates a lot more valuable, since the discussion could be based on comparisons of the adversarial research rather than the current ‘pharma bad’ or ‘skeptics bad’ framing.

> some attempt to talk over the top of the other person an a Joe Rogan podcast

Do you have a particular example in mind when that happened? I am trying to remember any live debate on Rogan, and could only come up Tim Pool vs Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde; but I do not remember them talking over each other.