The trend to refuse debating is more harmful than it looks. Here are some defences I've seen so far 1. Debating is pointless because the person wont change th

The trend to refuse debating is more harmful than it looks. Here are some defences I've seen so far 1. Debating is pointless because the person wont change their mind On the Internet, you're not debating a person. You are also debating for the benefit of uninformed (yet potentially well meaning) bystanders that are watching and reading. Hard as it may be to imagine, a lot of these people just don't know what you know. This is the exact time to bring out your best, most convincing material and information. Why not do it? Its not a stretch to assume a lot of generally well meaning people will be sceptical to progressive ideas at first. After all, isn't the whole premise that we've normalised unfair behaviour so much that people can no longer easily see it from within their bubble? Can we really afford to write off everyone that is like that completely? Why not try and give them a peak outside their bubble instead? 2. Debating will legitimise the other person's reprehensible point of view. We are taking a huge step backwards just by engaging. Assuming no other information is available to the uninformed bystanders, here is how this looks like to them: * Person A makes a plausible-looking argument; * Person B says they're wrong, * wont even dignify that with a debate * will continue to be enraged * will do everything in their power to get person A fired. A bystander might try and find some resources on their own. Or they may conclude this is a matter of "free speech": person B, having no arguments in their favour are just trying to shut person A down. 3. I'm outraged right now. Not quite in the state to educate people. I also just debated with 50 others before this person and I'm sick of doing it over and over. Thats understandable. Please though, if at all possible, consider the potential consequences of continuing to engage without a debate.