That’s not what this is mocking. I don’t have to debate with any comer—regardless of how dishonest, disingenuous, or bad faith—in order for democracy to survive.
I don’t owe time and energy to people who are arguing in bad faith. Patiently debating everyone who is devils-advocating against my existence won’t preserve democracy. That “debate style” is what this SomethingAwful post (and the awesome comic @smulder shared ) are mocking.
What I owe democracy is to listen very seriously to people describing how policies affect or would affect them.
I owe it to my Jewish, Muslim, Sanātanī, Sikh, black, brown, disabled, ND, women, fellow LGBT siblings to listen when they tell me how America’s policies are affecting them. If we don’t listen, if we make decisions without the input of the people who are affected, then we don’t have democracy. On those terms, I’m not sure we’ve ever had democracy.
I’d like to believe democracy could survive the death of formal, western-style debate*. I have faith it can survive the death of disinterested, disingenuous hobby contradiction. (I’m not saying you’re doing the disinterested, disingenuous hobby contradiction, by the way. If you don’t see yourself in the comic smulder linked, this stuff may not apply to you at all.)
*As much shit as I’m giving formal, western-style debate, I don’t necessarily think the debate style itself needs to be destroyed. I just think it’s currently used as a crutch for euro-centrism and to silence people who haven’t had the privilege they would need to learn it.
