A long-standing and influential thought is that for democracies to function well—or perhaps to function at all—they need vigorous but reasonable public discourse. The ideal is that they should be spaces of reasons—spaces where reasons for policy decisions can be exchanged and listened to. Yet there is mounting evidence suggesting that not only are human beings subject to biases and errors in reasoning but they are also particularly bad at spotting when biases and errors affect them. As a result, one might suspect that one should be deeply skeptical about whether public discourse can ever be reasonable. In this chapter, the authors follow this suspicion to its logical conclusion, raising a novel skeptical argument based on the problem of “bad bias.” This skeptical argument raises a serious challenge to the possibility of reasonable public discourse. Even so, reflection on the argument also points toward new ways of confronting this challenge—a challenge that arguably goes to the heart of democracy itself.