The need for healthy debate

By Maria Millers

When was the last time you had a meaningful conversation with a friend or relative over coffee or over a drink with a mate while watching football?

In previous generations, political discussions were seen as a normal (even expected) part of social life. Today, there’s a stronger emphasis on avoiding topics that might cause discomfort, especially in casual settings.

And you may even have been brought up to believe that certain subjects were not to be raised socially. As the saying went: Never discuss politics, sex, or religion in polite company To do so was considered a social faux pas, a red line not to be crossed. Better to stick to the comfort of banal everyday topics.

While sex has long left this trio of socially unacceptable topics and religion is no longer a dominant force in a predominantly secular society, politics still remain the last major socially taboo subject.

In Australia, there’s a reluctance to engage in political or philosophical debates in social settings. The rise of cancel culture, political correctness, and extreme polarization makes people wary of saying the “wrong” thing. Instead of engaging in healthy argument, many choose silence or stick to their own ideological circles.

And that is a sad and worrying situation.

Reasons for this could be that people are more divided than ever. Many fear that expressing a political opinion can strain fragile friendships and ruin family relationships. Some even worry about professional consequences. And most no longer have the skills to argue constructively. So they remain trapped in echo chambers created by the social media of their choice.

While the reluctance to talk about politics is understandable, avoiding these discussions entirely weakens our democracy. In less than five weeks we will be asked to exercise our democratic right and cast a vote to elect our next government.

Looking back to Ancient Greece, the birthplace of democracy philosopher Plato believed that engaging in argument helps individuals grow intellectually and morally. By questioning their own beliefs and considering different points of view people become more rational and just.

Without argument, Plato feared that people would be easily misled by emotional appeals or propaganda. A society that values debate is less likely to fall under the rule of demagogues who manipulate the masses. Today, we are constantly bombarded with information, emotional outrage, identity driven narratives and carefully crafted slogans rather than deep discussion of issues

Platforms like X, TikTok, and Facebook encourage short, viral, emotionally charged content over thoughtful, nuanced arguments. Complex discussions get oversimplified, and those who engage in real debate are often drowned out by sensationalism. Time poor people often react quickly without reflecting or engaging in real argument or identifying misinformation:

Wrong information always shown by the media
Negative images is the main criteria
Infecting the young minds faster than bacteria.
(Where Is the Love?” – Black Eyed Peas).

With 24/7 news cycles filled with crises, many people feel overwhelmed by politics and prefer to disengage during social get -togethers to avoid stress or burnout.

Although writing shortly after WW1 in1919 and long before the influence of social media WB Yeats in The Second Coming captures the chaos when reasoned discussions and meaningful conversations break down. He is suggesting when rational voices remain silent extreme voices dominate and society suffers.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Plato also taught that by engaging in debate, people could move beyond opinion and get closer to true knowledge. The challenge is to create spaces where political conversations can be respectful, open-minded, and constructive rather than divisive or confrontational as often is the case on social media.

While argument often involves disagreement, Plato saw it as a path to greater understanding. In a well-functioning society, people must reason together to find the best solutions rather than simply follow authority, tradition or self interest.

We pride ourselves on being a democracy where each voice should count Avoiding discussing issues maybe keeps things comfortable but it also prevents from refining ideas and learning from others and electing the best representatives. A healthy democracy depends on informed, engaged citizens who are willing to discuss, debate, and listen.

Plato saw education as the key to fostering critical thinking but the modern curriculum in schools and universities mostly ignores logic, debate and philosophy leaving many without skills that are more than ever needed today to take part in civil discourse.

In fact, the word argument itself is now mostly understood as an exchange of opposite or diverging views ,typically a heated or angry one rather than as a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.

Political issues are often complicated, and misinformation is widespread. Many feel they don’t have enough knowledge to engage in a meaningful discussion.

For many platforms like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) are the sole source of their information and as we all know there is little objective analysis here, more often certain amplified views where people interact mostly with those who share their beliefs.

And there is oversimplification of complex issues and as Alexander Pope reminds:

A little learning is a dang’rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.

He is warning against superficial understanding in debate, suggesting that true wisdom comes from deep study and reflection. Many with busy lives would perhaps find this a hard ask. When time is so limited they turn to easy grabs from social media instead of in depth articles or podcasts.

There is also increased polarisation making conversations feel more like battlegrounds than discussion. When people perceive political disagreements as personal attacks, they avoid these topics altogether to maintain relationships. To preserve harmony, they steer clear of controversial topics

In The Republic, Plato argued that the ideal society is one ruled by philosopher-kings – wise leaders trained in reasoning and debate. He saw argument as a tool for identifying the most capable rulers and ensuring that decisions were made based on wisdom rather than power or persuasion. Politicians of all persuasions are masters at avoiding answering a question and will either lead the interviewer away or give a totally different answer that has nothing to do with the initial question posed. It is up to us to make sure we get the truth.

A Poison Tree can be read as a cautionary metaphor for what happens when difficult or contentious topics – like politics – are avoided rather than discussed openly. In the poem, the speaker resolves anger with a friend through direct conversation, but with a foe, they suppress their emotions which ultimately leads to something destructive.

A Poison Tree
By William Blake (1794)

I was angry with my friend:
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe:
I told it not, my wrath did grow.

And I watered it in fears,
Night and morning with my tears;
And I sunned it with smiles,
And with soft deceitful wiles.

And it grew both day and night,
Till it bore an apple bright.
And my foe beheld it shine,
And he knew that it was mine,

And into my garden stole,
When the night had veiled the pole:
In the morning glad I see
My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

Now is the time to engage in meaningful conversations with family, friends and even strangers

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969