The Weaponization of Debate

More about The Weaponization of Debate

This whole “right to debate” thing has turned, in the hands of extremists, into a weapon to legitimize the worst bullshit ever spoken on the face of the earth. It’s like those who demand a “debate” on climate change: what the hell do you even want to debate? The scientific community is unanimous — global warming is man-made. Full stop. The discussion, if any, is about predictive models — how fast and how bad the crash will be — but the overall picture is clear.

And the same dynamic repeats everywhere. Look at Palestine: there’s no need for a “debate” there, it’s genocide broadcast live, with bombings, starvation used as a weapon, children slaughtered. Or take Ukraine: Russia’s invasion has brought war rapes, deportations, civilians shelled — and yet there’s always someone shouting about “alternative narratives” and the need to “hear both sides.”

The so-called debate is not a free pass for every kind of nonsense. You cannot put a human right violated on the same level as the propaganda of those who violate it. Human rights, sure, have a history, a context, an evolution. But our reference point must be here and now, in Europe, where — with all our flaws — we’ve built a culture that makes rights its backbone.

So let’s say it loud and clear: not everything deserves “debate.” There’s no debate about whether Rwanda was genocide. There’s no debate about whether South African apartheid was apartheid. And there’s no debate about whether today, in Palestine, in Myanmar against the Rohingya, or in Sudan, we are witnessing crimes against humanity. If there are victims, then there are perpetrators. And this obsession with “debate” cannot and must not be the alibi for looking away.