Free and open debate, in my view, is never a bad thing. Yet as we saw with The Guardian, The Verge, Anita Sarkeesian and her supporters and even the BBC debate is being shut down and actively spun to be dangerous when it comes to the twin issues of GamerGate and the perceived Misogyny in gaming. There is a tendency to sell the idea as “engaging with harassers and bigots” or some variation of giving hate a place to air its views. I’ve seen this exact line of attack parroted by numerous people, the example here is Movie Bob repeating it, that somehow the contentious issues in gaming are as solved and one sided as the “Creationism Vs. Evolution” debate and therefore these ideas are not even worth discussing. I’ve seen this fallacy repeated numerous times by numerous different people and I think it roundly needs dispelling.

The premise that the evidence against GamerGate and for Anita Sarkeesian’s ideas is as compelling as the fossil record, genetics and 20th century biology as a whole is laughable on its own. But let’s once again follow their own logic because even that is flawed and even destructive.

Here is my problem with that line of argument. You SHOULD want to debate a creationist or a genuine bigot because, even though that person may not recant their views, many observing parties will see their ideas for how wild, baseless and bat shit insane they really are. I think we should debate these people at every opportunity because it helps remove any last vestiges of misinformation or dogma people may hold. Maybe if the USA had more structured, fair debates on primetime TV about issues like creationism less people would be so inclined to “Teach the controversy”.

Only those with ideas that don’t hold up to scrutiny are afraid of debate, and don’t give me that “Giving equal time to bigotry” or “False balance” nonsense; the more unpalatable, repugnant and invalid an argument is, the easier it is to utterly discredit and destroy when the free exchange of ideas is in play. This is another faction of their mind-set of “Trigger Warnings”; that exposure to any controversial, unpleasant or counter idea will somehow seep into their minds and the minds of the innocent corrupting their souls. This infantilizes adults and is the opposite of what happens in reality: when the vast VAST majority of people come in contact with ideas that are racist, sexist or hateful in an environment were equal footing is given to a reasonable counter argument they will recoil in horror at the repulsive ideas being spouted. THIS is how you dispel ignorance: you can’t simply say “Well that’s obvious, why would we debate that?” because even basic ideas are not obvious to some people. And if your ideas are so overwhelmingly correct, so self-evident that putting them in the arena of debate would be such a crushing victory why would you refuse to do that? If there is a large group of vocal people opposed to your ideas why not show them, in a conclusive and open way, just how well your argument stands up? You have nothing to lose if you have total confidence in the validity of your ideas: that’s why you SHOULD debate a creationist even if you feel it is a waste of time because it is somewhere where the overwhelming evidence is on your side.

The other prong of the attack on debate is the idea that discussing controversial ideas is somehow going to cause ‘harm’ by a group of people having to listen to ideas that make them uncomfortable or that elicit any kind of reaction or that the identity of the speaker completely strips them of validity before they have spoken. The risk of someone being “triggered” or offended seems to outweigh the risk of removing entirely free speech or expression. We see this seeping into academia and even British universities: the “Right to be comfortable” has begun to trump the examination and discussion of difficult topics and who is making an argument is seen as more important than the argument itself. As I described in my postmodernism piece intellectual dishonesty is being used to attack and undermine ideas instead of producing a proper counter argument or analysis. “You are a man therefore you can’t refute accusations of sexism and by virtue of being a man or a gamergate supporter or someone who questions ideas your words are a result of hatred.”

This goes for any debate such as and the earlier baffling refusal of people like Anita Sarkeesian, Ben Kuchera or Movie Bob to actually defend their extreme ideas about Video games effects in the real world. If GamerGate and the earlier opposition to the narrative of structural misogyny within the gaming community, industry and technology at large is based solely on hatred and spite how would an open debate not reveal this fact? Do what the great interviewers or orators of the past have done: let these hateful bigots, if indeed they are hateful bigots, hang themselves with their own words. Once someone reveals their argument to be based on a dishonesty or malice its hard for even ardent supporters to ignore that and especially persuades neutral parities. If GamerGate and the push back against the Misogyny narrative is comparable to “Terrorism” as many on your side have repeatedly stated, you surely have overwhelming and persuasive evidence of that fact which would stand up to the rigors of scrutiny. But you don’t possess those facts. You don’t possess any facts. You fear open debate because your ideas are based on self-referential lies. Yes. Lies. Not half-truths, not misinterpretations. Straight up lies. I’m not going to sit here and call you a monster, or an abuser, or a bigot, or any of the vast sums of insults and smears hurled at ordinary gamers. I’m going to call you a lair; my harshest indictment is not of your character but of your ideas. And those ideas fall over in the face of any scrutiny or debate. The only counterargument you can muster is that some of these people producing facts and evidence might not rank in the right place on your “progressive stack”, snarky cries of “manspaining” or “Right winger” in the face of ideas you can’t hope to refute, a cowardly attack on the speaker and not the speech.

At most we get feigned neutrality from figures like Steven Totillo or more recently the laughable antics of PC gamers Chris Thursten, who simultaneously waved his finger at GamerGate for not engaging whist simultaneously using a blacklist that blocks everyone even remotely connected to it, even some of its detractors. Will any of these people pontificating in print take the time to actually engage on a subject, or is the very most we can expect hollow words backed up by contradictory actions? Why has no major gaming website held a meaningful debate on the subject? Al Jazeera held a text debate but it received no profile, no coverage and very disrespectful levels of participation from the supposed opposition, with Arthur Chu claming not to regard the debate at all.

The answer seems to be you don’t like ideas based on merit or validity, you simply want people to “Listen and believe” without any semblance of critical thought, never mind a discussion in a setting where someone can challenge your ideas without precondition. Debate would shatter this carefully constructed illusion; we saw it with the discussion hosted by Erik Kain, Janelle Bonanno, Total Biscuit and Greg Tito where the counter argument seemed to wither in the face of robust examination. I felt kind of bad for Greg in that situation as those where not his fires to put out. The likes of Leigh Alexander, John Walker, Mat lees and foe consumer advocates like Jim Sterling need to be dragged out of their comfortable little echo-chambers and made to justify the torrents of disinformation and dishonestly they spew on a daily basis. You can’t ask gamers for money or sell gamers to advertisers out of one side of your mouth and shit on their interests out of the other.

Let me say this to those people peddling this line of shutting down debate in gaming or in society at large: You are a merchant of ignorance. You know, deep down, that having to debate your ideas would mean letting go of a portion of your faulty beliefs and that terrifies you. It terrifies you because you have built a business out of selling this unquestioned dogma and you have built entire identifies surrounding them. You want these difficult discussions to go away because it personally and financially benefits you and you cloth this naked self-interest in the tenants of “Social justice”. This is the mind-set that allowed Patricia Hernandez to report repeatedly on two of her close friends. This is what allowed Kotaku to see no problem Nathan Grayson testing depression quest and being a close personal friend and lover of Zoe Quinn. They think their ideas can go unchallenged and they are above reproach and therefore their conflicts of interest don’t need to be justified or explained or even discussed.

They think they can simply silence people and ignore all calls for discussion whilst pretending their ideas are so solid and righteous they don’t even require debate. You act like it has already been settled when in actual fact there have been almost no exchanges on these subjects between the two parties. I’m sat here calling for debate, as are most other passionate gamers, because debate would help settle this. So to all of you journalists in your ivory towers I thrown down this gauntlet; debate me or anyone else of opposing views on this subject. If you are so sure of being right you should be able to roundly defeat some no-names from the internet. But every second you refuse to have this debate, or any discussion, you reveal yourself as the intellectual cowards you are and your ideas as not deserving to be treated as valid. YOU don’t deserve to be called a journalist or academic if you won’t even lift a finger in service of getting to the truth, and debate has a history stretching back to antiquity as a powerful tool of testing ideas and removing faulty arguments. You discredit this legacy and disgrace yourselves if you spout assertions without the conviction or confidence to have them countered or tested. Have some fucking dignity and show some respect for the gaming audience and the profession of journalist, analyst or developer.