Once upon a time, public debates were seen as a noble exercise—a way for societies to exchange ideas, challenge authority, and progress through constructive disagreement. Intellectuals, scholars, politicians, and ordinary citizens engaged in discussions that shaped policies and worldviews. But today, it feels like we are losing the ability to have meaningful conversations. Instead of dialogue, we see shouting matches. Instead of persuasion, we see cancel culture. Instead of debates, we see personal attacks.
But is civil discourse truly dead? Or has it just changed form? If we look at history, political and ideological conflicts were often just as fierce as they are today. The debates between philosophers in ancient Greece, the fiery exchanges between political leaders in the 19th and 20th centuries, and even the media battles of recent decades all show that disagreement has always been part of human interaction. The difference now is the platforms we use, the speed at which information spreads, and the way arguments are framed. Instead of happening in universities, parliaments, and newspapers, debates now take place in tweets, comment sections, and viral videos. Has this shift weakened debate, or has it simply transformed it?
Why do people seem more hostile and less open to opposing views today? A big reason lies in human psychology. Humans are wired to protect their beliefs. When faced with an opposing argument, we don’t always analyse it rationally—we often see it as an attack on our identity. This makes discussions feel personal rather than intellectual. Social media allows us to interact only with those who share our views. Over time, we become less exposed to different perspectives and more convinced that our way of thinking is the only "right" one.
The rise of clickbait headlines, fake news, and viral outrage has fueled emotional rather than rational reactions. Instead of engaging with arguments, people respond to sensationalised versions of them. This combination of psychological tendencies and social media design makes civil discourse harder. When people believe they are in a war of ideas, they stop seeing debate as a tool for understanding and start seeing it as a battle to be won.
If educational institutions train students to spot misinformation, challenge their own biases, and engage in thoughtful discussions, we can build a generation that values conversation over conflict
Another reason for the decline in meaningful conversations is how language and media have changed. Platforms like Twitter force people to squeeze complex arguments into short, digestible snippets. This leads to oversimplification, misinterpretation, and, often, hostility. Many public debates today are no longer about convincing an opponent but rather entertaining an audience. TV panel discussions, viral social media arguments, and even some academic debates are performances designed to impress supporters rather than engage with opposing views.
Terms like “traitor,” “extremist,” “fake news,” “snowflake,” “woke,” and “cancel culture” have turned into weapons. Instead of debating ideas, people label and dismiss each other, making meaningful conversation almost impossible. This means that today’s debates are often louder but emptier. People are talking, but few are listening.
Is the decline of debate a worldwide phenomenon, or does it vary across cultures? In many countries including Pakistan, political discourse has become highly polarised. The rise of social justice movements, nationalism, and populist leaders has led to increasing hostility between different ideological groups. In countries like Pakistan, civil discourse has unique challenges. Political debates are often reduced to party loyalty, religious disagreements can turn into sensitive or dangerous topics, and online discussions quickly become emotionally charged. Even within intellectual circles, ideological rigidity sometimes discourages free debate.
Some cultures still encourage strong debate traditions. In some academic settings, structured debates remain a respected way to exchange ideas. Certain communities actively value disagreement as a way to learn. This shows that while the nature of debate is changing everywhere, how societies handle disagreement depends on historical, cultural, and technological factors.
If civil discourse is fading, can we revive it? The answer is yes—but it requires a collective effort. In Pakistan, where political and social debates often turn into emotional battles, change must start at both the individual and institutional levels. Social media platforms, which play a major role in shaping public conversations, should be redesigned to promote meaningful dialogue. Instead of amplifying anger and misinformation, they could introduce features that slow down impulsive reactions—such as time delays before commenting on heated posts or reminders to read an article before sharing it. Encouraging longer discussions, prioritising verified news sources, and limiting sensational content could help shift online debates from hostility to understanding.
Education is another crucial factor. Schools and universities in Pakistan should go beyond textbook learning and actively teach students how to debate, analyse arguments, and question information critically. Debate competitions, discussion-based assignments, and media literacy programs should become a core part of education. Many young Pakistanis get their news from social media, often without questioning its accuracy. If educational institutions train students to spot misinformation, challenge their own biases, and engage in thoughtful discussions, we can build a generation that values conversation over conflict.
At an individual level, the solution starts with small but meaningful actions. Instead of reacting angrily to opposing views, we can practice patience and ask questions to understand different perspectives. Communities can organise local discussion forums where people from diverse backgrounds share their opinions in a respectful setting. Religious scholars, journalists, and public figures should lead by example, promoting thoughtful debate instead of fueling division.
If we fail to do this, we risk creating a world where people stop talking to each other and start shouting at each other. But if we make the effort, debate can not only survive but thrive once again. Because at the end of the day, progress has always come from the clash of ideas—not the silencing of them.