Faced with such a question, the first answer that comes to mind is quite simply: no. There are things that should not normally be debated. Thus, factual truths should not a priori be discussed: the Earth is not flat, the Nazi extermination camps existed. If we do not agree on the facts, there is no point in debating. On the other hand, it goes without saying that we can persist for a long time on the representation of these same facts, to which we rarely have direct access (because the archives, the figures, the statistics, they only constitute an image of the aforementioned facts. , which for all kinds of reasons can be skewed).
Then, a second restriction, less clear-cut and more problematic than the previous one, also comes to mind: it is risky to discuss principles. The truth, which is that of principles, is not, however, factual; it expresses values, ideals that are dangerous to question. Let us take an example of such principles: equality between women and men. This can of course be open to discussion (it has been contested in the past and is nowadays in other countries). However, to be drawn into a discussion about him would have the immediate consequence of weakening him by temporarily placing the opposing thesis on an equal footing with him, and of drawing us into quibbles the truth of which would probably not emerge stronger. , while democracy would emerge weakened. It should be noted, however, that while it is preferable that the principles remain indisputable and indisputable, their interpretation and their scope provide material for numerous and legitimate debates.
Apart from these two exceptions, no theory, no concept, no doctrine should present itself as an obvious truth in order to escape debate, in other words, the possibility of questioning; neither the concept of rape culture nor the critical theory of race, or the interpretation of the principle of the secularism of the state, etc. Just as we should be able to debate the best way to end a pandemic or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Everything must be a legitimate object of debate. Not only because he alone can advance the cause of truth by subjecting all these theses to criticism, but also because free debate is the only means we have to try to convince others without having recourse to coercion and arguments of authority.
Ideally, we like to believe, perhaps not without naivety, that the debate can change the mind of one of the interlocutors, or even both. In the first case, one of them would readily admit that the other is right; it must be admitted, however, that this is quite rare. In the second, the two debaters, without reaching a common position, would put, as they say, water in their wine, would agree on certain points, while maintaining their disagreement on others; it is much more common.
This is precisely the virtue of the debate: it forces those who argue to clarify their ideas, to define the concepts they use, to multiply the examples … and sometimes to moderate their words. So, as John Stuart Mill said, they learn or discover for themselves what they really think. One can indeed take the measure of his own thought only by confronting it with that of others. From this point of view, the debate does not leave us unscathed, even if we ourselves sometimes believe we are sticking to our positions and give the impression of doing so. Even imperceptibly, even after a delay, sometimes long, these will necessarily have changed, at least if the interlocutors are at least in good faith.
The debate is not therefore a panacea, nor a magic ritual allowing to immediately advance the cause which one defends. The humans that we are, all unanimously convinced to serve a good cause, do not change our minds and convictions so easily. A debate rarely causes the kind of conversion or enlightenment that struck Saint Paul when he met Jesus on the road to Damascus! And in a way, that’s fortunate, because a lot of doubts about our supposedly rational minds would hover if we changed our minds like our shirts and all the time. The best argument rule isn’t for people in a hurry. The truth is slowly dawning in us.
Any thesis, any theory which seeks to escape the debate can only impose itself by violating the conscience. But in doing so, convincing unanimously only in appearance, it condemns itself to no longer being able to persuade freely.
In fact, an idea, a theory, whatever it is, or even a concept, which asserts itself indisputably and which claims to evade any criticism, loses in the change. In Of freedom, Stuart Mill (again him) explains very well that such an idea, regardless of its validity, is transformed from then on into dogma, into a received idea, which one only asserts out of conformism and habit, without worrying of its meaning, sometimes without even understanding it, and that it ends up losing all consistency and vanishing into the limbo of consciousness. Debating is preferable. It keeps spirits awake and ideas alive.