/lit/ - Literature

>>17338106
>Has debate died?
Yes, and it might not have if the philosophical family running from Hegel through Marx and to the Frankfurters didn't shit things up by making individual people into exponents of immaterial forces (eg. the dialectic of historical materialism). I'll be fair, they're not the only ones who do this, but they're the main culprits when it comes to the state of academia, and everything downstream. Anyway, the general point is that the althusserian radical subjectivity plaguing the humanities in the form of interpretivism and group analysis is contradictory and leads to this weird moralfag conundrum where the identitarian leftist scholar sees there as being no point in debating others, because the 'others', whether proletariat, bisexual black disabled woman, a white male STEMfag, or bourgeoisie are seen as things as capable as making sense as your average granite rock. L'Homme Orange did a great job of refuting these retards, even if he's a bit of a tool for trying to grant the animal the same ontological status as the person.
>Is there really any point in debating anymore?
Also yes. You quite literally can't establish any social order (if it is to be reasonably liberal) without some form of on-going negation. The necessity for an ethics of discourse to be reimposed on academia and the modern liberal democracy is steadily increasing, as evidenced by the travesty that is US politics. Students need to not only be taught rhetoric and debate, but also exactly *why* you should be debating properly. Debate has fallen out of fashion because we've forgotten why exactly it is that the greeks lauded it as a means to a civil society.