Are We Losing the Art of Debate?

We’ll never know if Socrates and Plato would have engaged in public debates on X (formerly known as Twitter), but they might not have been prepared for the impact of social media on debate and discourse. 

In today’s digital age, we have an unprecedented wealth of knowledge at our fingertips—smartphones, tablets, and computers give us access to vast libraries of information and ideas. But rather than enhancing the quality of our conversations, it seems the art of debate has been lost. Instead of thoughtful exchanges of ideas, we’re seeing comment sections flooded with insults like “stupid” and “moron” (and that’s at the tame end of the scale). This shift is concerning, especially when one of the fundamental rules of debate etiquette is to avoid personal attacks. By reducing complex discussions to name-calling, we end up undermining the very essence of meaningful discourse, thus missing out on the opportunity to learn from differing perspectives.

Comment sections are flooded with insults...

In the days of Socrates and Plato, debate was methodical, a rigorous process. The Socratic method, in particular, was about asking questions that stimulated critical thinking and illuminated ideas. It wasn’t just about winning an argument; it was about searching for truth and understanding. Participants in these discussions were expected to engage with one another’s ideas thoughtfully, challenging assumptions as well as refining their own perspectives in the process.

Fast forward to today, and the landscape looks quite different. The platforms may have evolved, but the purpose of debate seems to have been lost along the way. Instead of engaging in constructive discourse, many online interactions are reduced to shouting matches, where the loudest voice—or rather, the one with the snappiest comeback—prevails. Nuance that was once a hallmark of intellectual debate has been replaced by pithy one-liners, and while wit and humour have their time and place, all too often constructive conversation is overshadowed by the desire for likes and retweets. 

One of the most alarming trends in this new era of online debate is the prevalence of personal attacks. Comment sections are rife with insults like “stupid” and “moron.” These attacks are not just a breach of basic etiquette; they’re a sign of a deeper issue. When we resort to name-calling, for example, we’re not just disrespecting our opponents—we’re also shutting down the possibility of meaningful dialogue. The moment a debate becomes personal, it stops being productive. The focus shifts from the ideas being discussed to the people discussing them, leaving any hope of reaching a deeper understanding lost.

These attacks are not just a breach of basic etiquette; they’re a sign of a deeper issue.

This trend goes against one of the fundamental principles of debate etiquette: the avoidance of personal attacks. In a true debate, the goal is to critique ideas, not individuals. By respecting this rule, we create a space where different perspectives can be explored without fear of ridicule or hostility. This, in turn, fosters an environment where constructive debate can occur. But when personal attacks become the norm, the opposite happens—an environment of defensiveness and division is created, and people become more concerned with protecting their egos than with expanding their minds.

So, how did we get here? We could look at the evolution of instant messaging, for example, and it could be suggested that we have been affected by immediacy. It can take a long time to craft a post if you’re an overthinker, but if you’re a little more impulsive (read: reckless), social media can quickly become very intoxicating. Users can hide behind usernames and aliases, using anonymity as an invisibility cloak to avoid any consequences that may result from their musings, finding themselves emboldened to say things they might never say in person. The lack of face-to-face interaction removes the social cues and consequences that often keep our worst impulses in check. Without the need to look someone in the eye, it becomes all too easy to dismiss them, and worse. 

And this is another piece of the puzzle; how many tweets, statuses, stories, posts are thoughts that needn’t have been published to any audience, regardless of how small? We filter our thoughts when we speak, and even when we write, but typing it out and posting it to social media seems to weaken that filtering process, such is the immediacy of posting something. 

The lack of face-to-face interaction removes the social cues and consequences that often keep our worst impulses in check.

Part of the problem lies in the very nature of social media. A common feature of popular platforms is that they are designed to prioritise engagement, often at the expense of substance. In such environments, the most provocative content tends to rise to the top, while more thoughtful, nuanced discussions are pushed to the margins. This creates a feedback loop where sensationalism is rewarded, and intellectual comment is devalued.

But while social media may be part of the problem, it’s not the whole story. The decline in the quality of debate also reflects a broader cultural shift. We live in a time where people are increasingly polarised. The pressure to pick a side, and defend it at all costs, can make it difficult to engage with opposing viewpoints in good faith. In this context, debates often become more about winning than about learning, and more about affirming one’s own beliefs than about exploring new ideas.

So, what can we do to reclaim the art of debate? It starts with a commitment to engage with others respectfully and thoughtfully, both online and offline. This means focusing on the ideas being discussed rather than the people discussing them, and being willing to consider perspectives that differ from our own. It also means recognising the limitations of social media as a platform for meaningful debate and seeking out other spaces—whether in person or online—where more substantive conversations can take place.

Ultimately, if we want to elevate the quality of our debates, we need to return to the principles that guided thinkers like Socrates and Plato: commitment to truth, respect for others, and a willingness to engage in dialogue with an open mind. Only then can we hope to turn the digital space into one where meaningful discourse can thrive.