Is Debating Some Topics Morally Wrong?

null, Holly Lawford-Smith (University of Melbourne)

‘No debate!’ is a tactic deployed by (some) proponents of certain positions in certain debates. They refuse invitations to debate their opponents and attack those on their side who initially accept; they pull out of edited volumes or online symposia when they discover their opponents will be included too; they call for speakers on the other side to be deplatformed; they write to university vice chancellors and deans demanding that events giving airtime to their opponents be cancelled. Can this approach ever be justified? That is, are there some topics such that debating them is morally wrong, and the moral wrongness rises to a level of seriousness sufficient to refusing public deliberation? And if the answer is ‘yes’, what is it that makes such debates wrongful? Rather than advancing a position on the justifiability or otherwise of ‘no debate!’ tactics, I’ll focus on offering some conceptual resources to those who want to develop their own position on this issue.