We need to toughen up and have more arguments

It’s such a shame we’ve forgotten the art of civil debate, writes Rupert Hawksley, because proper arguments can be so invigorating

No, not listening: social media has contributed to the decline of debate (Getty)

In the not too distant past, you might remember, we used to do this thing called arguing. It was healthy: sometimes bruising, but often quite productive.

At some point, though, we seem to have forgotten how to argue, preferring instead to flatly deny the validity of someone else’s opinion. Fingers in ears. Much safer that way: if you’re definitely, unambiguously wrong, so the logic goes, then I must be definitely, unambiguously right. The reasons for this are no doubt complex, but social media – its insistence that every statement be reduced to a soundbite – is clearly one part of the problem. It’s such a shame, because proper, reasoned debate can be so invigorating.

I was thinking about this over the weekend because of two pieces we published in the Voices section of The Independent, a few weeks apart, which put forward opposite arguments. One piece called for the Labour Party to move away from the far left; the other for the Labour Party to wash its hands of centrism and be more radical. Both were eloquently written and robust – and I’m still not sure which writer I agree with. Quite possibly neither. But the experience of contemplating both points of view has been infinitely more rewarding than bickering on Twitter (something I still, pathetically, find hard to resist).

Earlier this month, Jordan Tyldesley wrote: “It’s about time we faced the fact that Keir Starmer isn’t the reason why the Labour Party is failing to make strides in the opinion polls. Rather, its far-left activist base is – and the sooner they form their own party, the better.

“That’s because their version of left-wing politics is completely incompatible with the average voter – but even if Starmer managed to remove all trace of Jeremy Corbyn from the party, nothing will change until far-left activists are able to find a new political home. Until then, the public will automatically presume they are speaking on behalf of Labour.”

There was a strong reaction to the piece, and it was sad, if not surprising, that Jordan was abused on social media for her views. So I posted a tweet saying that, rather than attacking Jordan – and yes, we wrote the headline, not the writer! – why doesn’t someone write a piece outlining why they disagree? We’d be more than happy to consider running it in The Independent.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices newsletter by clicking here

Ryan Coogan obliged, and we published his counterargument on the website on Sunday (it is also in the app today). “The idea that there is a middle-ground solution for most of our social ills is tempting. But it just isn’t realistic,” he concluded. “Centrism is a placebo that requires nothing of us, and for which we receive nothing in return. Change, on the other hand, is difficult, but also rewarding – and, ultimately, necessary.”

Now I don’t know if either piece will change anyone’s mind, but it was so refreshing to see this argument played out like it should be – no insults, no bloody-mindedness, just reasoned debate. It all sounds so obvious, and yet somewhere along the way we forgot how to do it.

We can all do better. And if you don’t agree with me, write a letter (letters@independent.co.uk) and tell me why – there’s nothing like a good old argument, and we should have more of them.

Yours,

Rupert Hawksley

Voices senior commissioning editor