A misunderstanding rapidly descended into nationwide violence. Keypad warriors threaten anyone who opposes their beliefs. World leaders reach a shouting match during crucial negotiations.
In a world brimming with bickering and squabbling, have we lost the ability to ‘argue humanely’?
Troublesome TV
Many would agree that we have. Neil Postman, author of Amusing Ourselves to Death, predicted the decline in our ability to debate seriously as far back as 1985, highlighting how TV contributed to our degeneration.
In previous centuries, presidential candidates stood for three hours in front of a live audience, giving thoughtful speeches and debating skillfully with their rivals. Now, in the age of TV, when candidates are all too aware that they are in every home in the country, they prefer to embody the persona of the entertainer. Their purpose? To shock us, of course. This is no more apparent than in the 2024 debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, though it can hardly be called a debate, considering it played out like ‘a reality show’ and mainly consisted of the two hurling personal insults or spewing misinformation.
As author Patrick Lencioni points out, debating should ‘avoid the nasty [conflict] which centres around people or personalities’ and instead focus on the ‘pursuit of truth.’ But, as we have seen, the purpose of presidential debates is no longer for candidates to pursue truth or reassure us of their competence, but to win us over with swagger and charisma.
Trump and Biden rejected carefully crafted speeches, instead favouring snappy, controversial remarks which could be turned into soundbites and spread by the media. Their immaturity may have amused some of us for 90 minutes, but this kind of behaviour has dire consequences. In a world where we seldom have an opportunity to debate legitimately, the US presidential debate is one of the most significant of its kind, and its candidates’ behaviour comes to represent how we choose to discuss important issues. However, the candidates’ inability to argue seriously strips the public of decent role models to guide us on conflict resolution.
‘Impossible’ Echo Chambers
‘Bubbles can boost social polarisation and extreme political views, and, unfortunately, there is strong evidence that echo chambers exist in social media,’ says Chen Avin, Professor at the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ben-Gurion University.
Perhaps more than television, the rise of social media has undoubtedly affected our ability to debate, and the reason is echo chambers.
When you use apps such as Instagram, X or TikTok, their algorithms monitor the posts you engage with positively and send you similar content in the form of a ‘For You Page.’ Pretty soon, the app understands your preferences and can predict your viewing choices. On the flip side, and to keep you hooked for hours, it begins to recognise what you dislike and stops showing you that content in favour of content you might like. For example, TikTok would not have become as successful as it is today if it kept recommending clips of the Premier League to someone who hates sports, or served Liver King’s videos to a vegan. By actively blocking our access to material that opposes our preferences, social media apps help create echo chambers: virtual social bubbles of like-minded people on the internet, who, the longer they remain in these bubbles, become more averse to outsiders’ opinions.
One major aspect of debating is open-mindedness; a preparedness to listen to different perspectives. However, being chronically online has eroded this ability. Too often, discussions of important topics occur on social media instead of in real life. The presence of echo chambers blinds us to opposing viewpoints and makes us lose our willingness to hear the other side’s perspective. So, when two clashing voices do come together, a screaming match (or should I say ‘typing match’) often ensues, because neither side is particularly prepared to engage with an opposing viewpoint. When we fail to understand each other, civilised conversation is thrown to the wind. The result? Hostility at best. At worst, online conflicts that spill out into real-world violence.
Black-and-White Thinking
Echo chambers have hindered our ability to debate in another, less obvious way: Stereotyping. In a world of increased political polarisation, research shows that people are becoming either further right-wing or left-wing than previous generations, and, as such, stereotypes of those at both ends of the political spectrum have spread online. If someone is generally right-leaning, we immediately assume they despise immigration. Likewise, we think it is a given that someone who is left-leaning must inevitably support the transition to green energy. But these stereotypes do not account for the fact that humans are complex beings, whose beliefs and life experiences are nuanced and constantly evolving. If we truly value free speech, assuming that you perfectly understand your opponent’s position without hearing it out or dismissing them as irrelevant because they disagree with you, is no way to conduct a reasonable debate.
It is equally misplaced to assume that a debate must reach a simple conclusion. When discussing controversial issues, too many of us either feel forced to adopt a particular stance or believe that only we are ‘right’ and anyone who opposes us is ‘wrong.’ Here, nuance is key. The world is not black and white. Someone may agree that terminally ill people deserve better treatment, yet object to the Assisted Dying Bill. Someone can support trans rights, but sympathise with the need to protect single-sex spaces, particularly for victims of domestic abuse or sexual assault. Someone might feel that Starmer’s ‘island of strangers’ comment strikes a chord, but acknowledge the benefits of legal, skilled migration. Accepting that our opinions change and that some discussions will never reach a clear-cut answer should not dissuade us from healthy debating.
Unfortunately, the forces that undermined our ability to argue humanely are not likely to abate anytime soon. Over five billion households own a TV. And, according to Professor Avin’s research, social media echo chambers are simply ‘impossible’ to break. All we can do is encourage discussions to happen in real life, preferably in judgment-free areas like schools and homes. The world needs to relearn how to have ‘productive conflict.’
That is not up for debate.
DISCLAIMER: The articles on our website are not endorsed by, or the opinions of Shout Out UK (SOUK), but exclusively the views of the author.
