"Government of, by, and for the people depends upon healthy debate and a civil exchange of ideas." - Mike Johnson

As I write this, it is less than forty-eight hours since the assassination of Charlie Kirk at a Turning Point event on the campus of Utah Valley University. Kirk had made a career out of open and public political debate events such as this one. I didn’t always agree with Kirk’s opinions, but admired the civility and professionalism he displayed at those events. 

That’s the crux of this in my opinion. I didn’t completely agree with Kirk, just as I don’t completely agree with anyone. And no one is obligated to completely agree with me. I would rather engage in the open and civil debate of ideas than live in an echo chamber where everyone agrees completely. There is a danger inherent in the group think that echo chambers create, especially when those who think differently are vilified. 

Couple that with the inflated political rhetoric seen in our society lately, and you run the risk of inciting violence. When everyone who thinks differently is hated and condemned as evil, and your political opponents are constantly compared to the most hated public figure of the twentieth century, it’s easy for people with less than robust psyches to plan and commit  heinous acts targeting them. 

However, the answer to Kirk’s assassination is not to outlaw “hate speech.” That is exactly the response he would have despised, and it is in fact the justification used for his murder. This is not to say speech has no consequences. But it isn’t a crime in a free country, and if it ever becomes one we truly have begun the descent into tyranny.

Debate has been the cornerstone of participatory government since ancient Greece. It is by no means a perfect tool, but without civil discourse a republic cannot exist. We should encourage skillful debate. It should be valued no less than skill at arms. Not only is true debate not valued enough in our society today, the skill of arguing your position logically and without resorting to logical fallacies or personal attacks is rare indeed. 

I’ve often espoused the ancient ideal of the “warrior scholar.” This ideal should include both the ability to do violence if needed, and the ability to debate peacefully if allowed. Learn to think critically rather than be ruled by your emotions, to engage in debate without insult or anger, and you will be able to do more good than you ever will through physical prowess alone.