How the internet killed debate – and how we can fix it

I am no technophobe. I recognise the potential the internet possesses as a contemporary colosseum, hosting gladiatorial battles of ideas, culminating in the ascension of the worthy and the death of the irrelevant. This potential is, however, lost. Tainted by constrictive algorithms, echo chambers, and a frightening quantity of cognitive dissonance, the internet has mutilated debate, failing to produce more than digital feuds without meaningful conclusions.

As you’ve taken the liberty to read this article, I take it you know what the internet is and that The Boar isn’t your only webpage haunt (although I wouldn’t blame you if it is). Presumably, you use at least one of Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok, or Reddit – maybe even all of them – and while using these platforms, you will have observed many a comment-section row. Cliques of impassioned typers angrily slamming their heads into keyboards, producing reams of vitriol that fail to reach any form of constructive conclusion. What’s worse, this vexed, sensationalist nonsense has diffused beyond the screen into brick-and-mortar life.

This piece was inspired by the Jubilee YouTube channel, known for staging debates between a large group of people supporting one side of an issue, arguing against one individual opposing them. The video that initially caught my attention was entitled ‘Can 25 Liberal College Students Outsmart 1 Conservative?’, with the 25 “woke” youths pitted against Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist and founder of Turning Point USA, a non-profit organisation aiming to inspire conservative activism. There is a lot to unpack in the over hour-and-a-half-long set of ‘debates’ which poignantly reflects the digital-fued lunacy that has seeped into reality.

The internet sections people into echo chambers of shared ideologies through the agents of algorithms and user retention, reinforcing ideals and never challenging them

The format has the students compete for the chance to argue against Kirk on a set prompt, lasting until half of their fellow students vote for their removal. This means every student is against a clock as much as against Kirk, resulting in arguments either being half-baked and unfinished, or individuals opting for rash, overly-emotive soundbites to convey their message within the limited time frame. It’s the realisation of a social media comment section: individuals wrapped in their continual scrolling with flicker-long attention spans incapable of articulating a complete argument, often swiftly resorting to personal insults or childish mannerisms (cue the cringeworthy ‘L+ratio’).

One commentator surmises another issue proficiently: “Just because you don’t let someone talk, doesn’t mean you’re winning a debate”. Kirk and his rowdy college students tend to end up bickering over each other, jousting for control, and not understanding. The internet sections people into echo chambers of shared ideologies through the agents of algorithms and user retention, reinforcing ideals and never challenging them. The result? Individuals cannot comprehend that someone has a different view from their ‘objectively correct’ perspective, and thus, differing ideas are seen as perspectives to belittle, berate, and ostracise. It’s no wonder we have these incoherent, glorified shouting matches.

The erosion of debate is facilitated by internet anonymity. In a 2015 article, Eric Barton explored how internet anonymity erodes the moral dimension of decision-making, particularly for competitive enterprises, but the phenomenon applies more broadly. The internet is like the Wild West – it is lawless, deeply hostile, and detached from personal security scrutiny and accountability. When people aren’t answerable for their actions, the metaphorical ethical line is distant and oh so blurry, breeding offensive tribalism, tainting what was once known as debate.

The reason internet arguments descend into one-line insults and meaningless quibbles is because of how much internet there is. It’s the fall of Rome on one tab

The modus operandi of debate has been unintentionally crippled by the internet’s design, with the endless conflict of unflinching idealogues having had wide spread implications beyond the screen, evidenced by the deeply sensationalist nature of contemporary politics. We are not, however, perpetually doomed to this debauchery. We can save ourselves from the continual debate-decline.

Firstly, internet anonymity needs to be addressed. The internet can be used as a medium for criminality and hate speech. And yet, it would be considered heinous to allow anonymity to those who perform these acts in person, but we accept, if not even defend, the online separation from accountability. Holding individuals to account will not only reduce grim online behaviour but also incite humility and human decency rooted in individual responsibility.

Secondly, we need to use the internet less. Yes, I am suggesting that, to fix internet debate, we need to occasionally steer clear of the internet altogether. The reason internet arguments descend into one-line insults and meaningless quibbles is because of how much internet there is. It’s the fall of Rome on one tab, a video of the world burning the next, with one of your painfully loud echo chambers after that. We type, like, and move on endlessly. The internet is practically infinite – seemingly far too large for an argument that transcends jabs at others’ appearances or belief structures. So, let’s, at least sometimes, take a step away from the vastness of it all.

When you avoid considering other viewpoints because you assume – often rightly – that you’ll be plunged into the toxic, vitriolic waste, festering within debate discourse, you have an issue. It censors people to ideas, the unintentional result of the internet’s design and the damning effects it has on human behaviour. This has become an en masse affair, eroding the foundations of liberal free thought.