Christian “Debate Bros”: Wrong Tool for the Right Task?

I was talking with one of my former students yesterday. She was speaking about some of those who try to argue with non-Christians in public forums. The reason for doing this is often to promote the Gospel message— something I certainly can appreciate. Very often their Gospel message is also mixed with a political agenda— something I really don’t have any respect for. Regardless she was noting all the animosity that seems to swirl around these events. I cannot really speak to this because I neither participate in these activities nor support them through live or virtual attendance.

The term “Debate Bro” has become popular on the Internet. It describes a certain type of guy (guy or bro because it is usually a male) of a certain age and attitude who argue publically. Often they focus more on disparaging those who disagree rather than promote a thoughtful confrontation of different thoughts and values. They are not necessarily Christian. They can be. However, many different perspectives and created debate bros. In fact, in the early 2000s the “New Atheism” really developed an aggressive sort of public atheism. Often some of these people were quite aggressively “evangelistic” of their beliefs and sought debate online or live to promote their agenda.

I am well aware of some of the problems with debate as a method to persuade change (or even thoughtful disagreement), and I brought that up. My student had taken interreligious dialogue with me and so knew some of my (and others’ concerns) with debate as a method for persuasion. When I brought up my wish that Christian debaters would stop debating and use methods with a better track record, my student noted that the websites for some of these debaters share testimonies of those who were spiritually transformed through their ministries.

My immediate response was “How?” My student shrugged and said that she did not really understand it either but that what the websites say. Fair enough… I should not be one of those people who believes only things that reinforce my previous convictions. So here are my thoughts.

I could be wrong. Maybe it is the right tool. Maybe debate is a good method for conversion, change, transformation. I have read a lot of studies that point to the problem of pushback where people who disagree before a debate end up further apart afterwards. But assuming that is true, perhaps that is only for the average person. Perhaps there is a minority of people who find debates very compelling. Maybe the Holy Spirit uses different methods to reach the heart. Maybe it is the wrong tool but God can use it for the right task. I have written before on “Chick Tracts.” These were (are?) tracts done as mini comics. Many of them (most I think) tend to belittle those who disagree with them. If they don’t belittle, they scare— use fear as a motivation to salvation. I have known people who have found these tracts to be persuasive, even transformative. And yes, I am dumbfounded by this. But the Holy Spirit uses different means to get people’s attention and each person has different motivations. I am not motivated particularly by fear of death. To be brutally honest, living forever is not particularly enticing to me. For me, communing with my Creator, living aligned to thepurpose for which I was created is much more persuasive for me. But each of us is different and the Spirit of God can use even the wrong tool for the right task.Maybe the net results in terms of negative response overwhelms the limited positive response. In other words, maybe it is simply the wrong tool. My student was noting the animosity she has seen at some of the events. She was wondering how to minister to people like that. My first thought is not to use a ministry method that tends NOT to engender animosity. Debate tends not to involve thoughtful and heartfelt discussion of thoughts and meaning in a way that leads to increased understanding. Often it devolves into sophistry and rhetoric— protecting one’s view from the onslaught of arguments (even sound arguments) from the other side, and lashing out at the other side regardless of the merit (or lack thereof) of either side.

With the above three in mind, let’s consider a hypothetical situation. Suppose a debate was held and three people who attended walked out of the event convicted of their sin and recognize the need to be transformed by Christ. Point One would see this as great and it could be argued that those three transformed lives justify most any effort made to reach them, including this debate. And part of me agrees with that.

Point Two may note, however, that most likely those three people were already experiencing questions in their lives… already having the Holy Spirit convicting them of sin, or the pointlessness of their present lives. They probably already know people of faith who have had impact on their lives. The debate was not so much an event that took them from radical opposition to radical faith. Rather, it was a place where they felt, through the work of the Holy Spirit, that they should “fish or cut bait.” They should not maintain a continued status of straddling the fence. Essentially, the divisive quality of debate may have a positive aspect in that God can use its divisiveness to encourage people to pick a side who were already under conviction through God’s work.

Point Three, however, would ask an additional question. If three followed God as a result of the divisive quality of debate… how many were turned off by the theatrics of the debate and felt confirmed in their rejection of God. As I noted, debate is divisive. If it pulls some to faith… how many does it push away. Also, while there is no requirement for debates on faith to also have debates on politics… sadly it does happen. The “debate bros” often have a certain…. controversial… view of politics and often link the gospel with a political agenda. However, many have been turned off to Christ because they were fooled into thinking that following Christ meant embracing an odious political perspective.

I suppose I can and perhaps should stay open-minded on this issue,. at least until I know more. I think there is ample reason to avoid debates. But I probably should not attack or belittle those who think it is effective. I should be open to the idea that perhaps there can be constructive debate, and find ways to encourage that activity.

But I don’t think I will. I will encourage dialogue and discussion. If there is good in debate… then that is awesome, but debaters don’t need my help.