How Debates have Changed
Debates used to be about a meeting-of-the-minds, a way for two respectable parties to come together and reach some sort of consensus or an opportunity to reform one’s internal story. This can only happen if the two sides trust and respect one another. Otherwise, they are pointless exercises.
Often times when people refer to “debate,” they seem to be referring to some vainglorious spectacle of schadenfreude. One side expects to see the opposing side trounced and humiliated in front of a crowd of spectators. “This person was OWNED,” or some variant is the sign post which signals this trend. Since neither side respects or trusts one another, it turns into a show of strength where one party utterly defames and humiliates the competition. The side with the most entitlement and privilege is automatically the victor, long before the “debate” has even begun. This leads me to conclude that “debate” is a farce, a prelude to mind games and skulduggery but little else.
In this day and age, calls for “debate” have become a farcical trap to lull unsuspecting victims in to experience unimaginable cruelty at the hands of their “betters.” “Betters” in this context, however, only means those who know the game is rigged in their favor, whose privilege and status protects them. Those with the temerity to answer the challenge will soon discover it sometimes takes socio-economic status commensurate with their opponent for a real debate to even be possible.
