Are certain topics inappropriate for debate?

[sippincoffee]

 

Some people believe things that are not true. Many neo-nazis and anti-semites believe that the Holocaust did not happen, for example. The Flat-Earth Society, while tiny, still exists. Claims that the Nanjing Massacre of Chinese civilians by Japanese troops in 1937 never happened continue to be influential in contemporary Japan, and it was denied by Japanese government officials as recently as 1990 - there is widespread scepticism in some Japanese nationalist circles about other Japanese wartime atrocities. An enormous number of fundamentalist Christians believe that the world was created by God in seven days a few thousand years ago. Many who hold views like these seek to gain a wider audience for these views, by appearing in public, television or radio debates, for example, or by publishing in mass-circulation magazines and newspapers. They are often denied access to such public platforms. Some experts in the relevant fields refuse to engage with them on such terms – for example the historian Deborah Lipstadt, author of Denying the Holocaust, refuses to debate with Holocaust deniers. Others, such as the evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller, are keen to take part in debates with their opponents. University debating societies too sometimes have to confront this issue, in considering whether to invite controversial guest speakers; in some cases this has led to clashes with university authorities over issues of freedom of speech and association.Note that I do not rehearse any arguments for or against Holocaust denial or scientific creationism. This is because both are simply false positions. This is not a debate about whether they are true; it is a debate about how to respond to false positions.