Once we debated. Now, " they" accuse.
And who are they? Talk about diversity. They come in all colours, all causes, and all hashtags. Some scream for justice, others for tradition. Some are young, loud, and online. Others are older, bitter, and wield bureaucratic power. What unites them isn’t belief - it’s certainty, and the weaponisation of offence. No debate required. Just accusation, echo, and cancellation.
From playgrounds to parliaments, the art of debate is being replaced by hashtags, headlines, and hostile mobs.
What began as dialogue has hardened into dogma - and truth, once pursued through reasoned argument, now risks exile in favour of certainty without substance.
In this reflection, I ask:
What have we lost?
And what must we regain before the noise becomes all we know? Today, disagreement ends not in understanding but in accusation.
Instead of reasoned argument, we hear shouting: “Bigot!” “Racist!” “Transphobe!” “Nazi!” “Islamophobe!” “Jew!”
These are serious words - words that should carry weight. Yet they are often flung carelessly, not to expose truth, but to silence dissent. Accusation has replaced argument. Name-calling has become a strategy, not a response. Label someone a purveyor of “hate speech,” and the discussion is over - not because truth won, but because fear did. Fear of prosecution under hate speech laws. Fear of being attacked or imprisoned. Or worse.
A single word, a chant, or a mob of like-minded zealots can now shut down debate before it even begins.
Has zealotry destroyed debate? When disagreement is framed as danger, and dissent is treated as violence, we no longer need to debate: we only need to accuse. That is not how a civilised society operates. That is not discussion. That is suppression.
If we truly care about justice, truth, and human dignity, we must be strong enough to argue, not just shout. Brave enough to listen, not just label. Because in the end, slogans don’t build bridges. Ideas do.
Debating, as a formalised method of argument stretches back thousands of years. It has evolved significantly over time: in fact, today it is a distant cousin to its early beginnings. Debating was a critical skill in education, politics, and many professional fields. Today? Many use cheap tricks like ridicule and raised voices and bullying. Hardly reasoned and thoughtful exchange of opposing points of view.
One of the earliest and most influential traditions originated in Ancient Greece. The Greeks placed high value on public speaking and the ability to argue persuasively. The Sophists, a group of itinerant teachers, were among the first to explore the idea. They taught young men how to construct arguments and persuade audiences, laying the groundwork for formal debate.
Plato and Aristotle further developed the art of debate. Plato's dialogues often depicted Socratic debates, where questions and answers were used to stimulate critical thinking and illuminate ideas. Aristotle, on the other hand, wrote extensively on rhetoric, defining it as the art of persuasion and categorising different types of arguments and logical fallacies. It could almost be said it is the cornerstone of the courtroom - the ability to spin a good yarn to alter public opinion.
Of course, some politicians use what I call the " gift of the gab " to great purpose: Hitler springs to mind. Sir Winston Churchill and such figures as John F Kennedy and the likes of Martin Luther King. And Trump is not too bad at it either, is he?
Yet the gift of the gab is not debating. Not in the formal or normal sense of the word. But, just like courtroom words, modern debating is about persuasion. Using emotion is also a rather good and effective tool. I wonder, though: have facts simply become unpalatable these days? Is it too much for the sensitive ears of the modern sheltered populace to actualy hear the truth?
What role does truth play in persuasion? Sometimes, particularly these days, not so much. In fact, in modern media and politics, the Socratic debate that stimulated critical thinking and the hatching of new ideas seems a rather dusty relic of better times for humanity. Now, the rule of thumb is to persuade to promote a desired conclusion. In other words, Socrates seems to have lost out to Aristotle in the 21st century.
Debating was also prominent in other ancient cultures. In India, the tradition of debating, or "Shastrartha," was a crucial aspect of the intellectual culture. Philosophers and scholars would engage in structured arguments on various topics, often in the presence of kings or in public assemblies. Similarly, in China, Confucian scholars participated in debates to sharpen their reasoning and to advise rulers.
Debating as we know it today began to take shape in medieval and early modern Europe. The scholastic method, used in medieval universities, involved scholars debating theological and philosophical questions. This method emphasised logical reasoning and the careful analysis of texts. In other words, they did their homework.
The first recorded debating society, the Edinburgh Philosophical Society, was founded in 1718. These societies provided a platform for intellectuals to discuss and debate contemporary issues. The London Debating Society, founded in 1830, and the Oxford Union, established in 1823, are among the most famous debating clubs that continue to thrive today.
In the United States, debating societies began to emerge in the 18th and 19th centuries, often associated with colleges and universities. The American Whig-Cliosophic Society at Princeton University, founded in 1769, and the Harvard Debating Union, established in 1892, played significant roles in promoting debate as an academic discipline.
The primary purpose of debating is to cultivate critical thinking, public speaking, and the ability to construct and deconstruct arguments. It teaches participants to think on their feet, to research thoroughly, and to articulate their ideas coherently. These skills are invaluable not only in academic and professional settings but also in everyday life.
When I was a youngster, my teacher encouraged debating as part of our weekly curriculum. He would give us our topic and we would then have to research the topic and be ready to stand up in front of the class and deliver our arguments.
It taught us confidence. Self control. Researching skills. And humility and self respect. There was no room for a tantrum or name calling. I will never forget the day that he gave us a topic about which I felt very strongly as a 10 year old. Quite what it was, I long ago forgot. But I do remember him assigning me as lead speaker of the team that had to argue the direct opposite of what I personally believed. I was furious. But, being a stubborn and opinionated young person, I determined to research and argue and WIN.
And win, we did. It was a hollow victory. I had, along with my team, argued so well that we had managed to prove that I was wrong. I remember going to him ( my teacher ) afterwards ) and telling him it wasn't fair. He responded by telling me that one day I would understand.
60 years later, I do. I listen to the opposing point of view. I research. I learn. I listen. It is rarely that I change my mind, but at least I can say that I came to my belief from a position of knowledge and in full possession of the facts. Yes, emotion still plays a great and important role in my belief system. Yet I can at least say that I no longer come up with a lame and limp declaration that something " isn't fair " just because I do not agree.
If only more people, particularly the leftie luvvies, could see that screaming, rioting, plastering ill advised graffiti on war memorials or statues is not indicative of a mature and reasoned argument.
Surely, we would be better served as a society if our schools taught debating instead of brainwashing? Critical thinking instead of guilt for deeds done centuries ago?
Instead, we are faced with this.
How well is this serving us these days? So I ask again - how well is this serving us these days?
When we raise generations to chant rather than question, to shame rather than engage, and to win by silencing rather than persuading, we lose more than debate...we lose civilisation. We become loud, but not wise. Certain, but not informed. It’s time we remembered how to argue without hatred, to disagree without destruction, and to teach our children that truth cannot be found in a hashtag, but in the hard work of thinking.
Debate, real debate, is not about winning. It’s about understanding. It’s about sharpening ideas through respectful challenge. We’ve forgotten that. Our public square now resembles a courtroom without evidence, a theatre without story, and a school without thought. Perhaps it’s time to return to what our teachers once knew... that truth can withstand scrutiny, that disagreement is not danger, and that the real victory lies not in silencing an opponent, but in engaging them well.
If our society can no longer handle debate, then it can no longer handle democracy. Because democracy demands disagreement. It requires ears as much as mouths. If we are to survive as a free people, we must find our way back to the simplest of civilised skills: the ability to speak, listen, think - and change our minds. Or else we are not debating anymore. We are merely shouting in the ruins.
BLOG COMMENTS POWERED BY DISQUS
