In light of recent events such as Charlie Kirk’s assassination, and extreme political polarization a valid question is raised, has the polarization of political ideologies and concept of free speech ruined a respected practice of peaceful debate?
There is no question in my mind that conversations are the backbone of eliciting change.
Conversations create forums for voters to understand candidates point-of-views. They foster healthy and valid constructive criticism on what our lawmakers can do better. They hold both elected officials and regular citizens accountable for the collective responsibility of making our world a better place.
But, I can’t help but feel a sense of irritation when it comes to the trend of political commentators, or even political influencers coming to college campuses with the sole purpose of riling up the student body.
If we look at Lydia Taylor Davis, a pro-life activist who visited Kentucky’s campus this past week to talk about how Gen Z should be anti-abortion, she serves as a prime example of what I think to be frivolous debate.
On the Students for Life of America website, the company Davis works under, states that “they will win the culture war for life by sharing the truth with the next generation.”
Simply based on how this is phrased, it makes me believe that anyone under that organization who is coming to a college campus is not looking to foster healthy debate. They are not looking to have an open mind and possibly agree and understand those they are debating.
To me, that statement shows that the main goal of this organization is to villanize those who have differing opinions to theirs, and create a black and white judgement on people’s morals.
Political debate is only beneficial and healthy as long as the two sides are both respectful and open to having their beliefs change. Otherwise it’s not a debate, it is just an argument.
People like Davis are not the only ones who come to campus with the desire to spread their ideology.
Last year, former University of Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines came to campus to speak on transgender athletes in sports.
Her speech is an example of what I believe could be a beneficial forum for debate and disagreement.
While I don’t agree with her, to me, her acknowledgement that it is okay for people to have differing opinions shows potential for a beneficial conversation.
Although, it is still important to acknowledge how even people like Gaines are entitled to their opinion, and should be able to have a productive debate. These debate style speeches leave little room for fact-checking and have lots of opportunity for misinformation to be spread.
Take Davis, she claimed that she became pro-life after learning that it was the leading cause of death. However, abortion is not the leading cause of death. Her assumption is working off the notion that life begins at conception. A concept that is debatable, and therefore her claim is not a verified fact.
Another reason why these speeches cause issues to arise.
But, even with all the political commentators or activists that visit campus there is another sector of people coming to campus simply to troll students.
People like Sister Cindy, who has come to campus the past two years to promote her “Ho No Mo Tour” is the perfect example of how not beneficial coming to these campuses can be.
This type of unserious conversation effectively degrades any real debate on difficult topics. As social media usage has increased, the general public has become more unserious on how to approach controversial topics.
This has manifested through these unserious speeches to simply create a hostile and trolling environment that then bleeds into their mindset for serious debatable topics.
And it is not just with the unserious topics.
I was able to watch part of Davis’ debate when she came, and I immediately noticed that many students took it upon themselves to go up and debate her, but rather than trying to have a productive conversation it quickly divulged into simply insulting her and trying to make the crowd laugh.
All that these speakers have shown me is that due to the hyper-polarization of politics at the moment and the current normalization of attacking the character of someone you don’t agree with rather than debating facts, rage-baiters and political debaters on the campus only fuel negative and unproductive conversations.
There are ways to have productive debate. And debate is necessary in democracy. However, the people who come onto college campuses are often targeting young minds with unverified claims that only stir the pot and create hostile conversations between the differing opinions. And for that, I don’t feel that these political debaters have a place on campus in the same capacity that they are coming now.
