There is no debate

as bad people used to say

Why this fetishisation of “debate” in all the liberal papers? Is it because opinion columnists tend to be people who were good debaters in school and university? Why the pretence that Charlie Kirk was trying to persuade his opponents?

The purpose of gladiatorial debate is not to change your opponents’ minds, but to reinforce in your supporters the conviction of their own righteousness, and to entertain and perhaps persuade the onlookers. It’s a performance of social positioning, not a means of reaching the truth, which is why post-classical societies have confined it to the courtrooms, where it is bound by rules of evidence and conduct. Even in science its use in the search for truth is limited: everyone knows the axiom about knowledge advancing one grave at a time. If you want to change people’s minds you don’t debate with them, you talk. This is partly because a mind is much bigger and slower moving than an opinion. It’s the difference between Corrymeela and the House of Commons.