“Change my mind” debates have poisoned public discourse. The format is not debate. It’s not dialogue. It’s not a meeting of minds. It is a performance designed to give stupidity a platform and call it discourse.
The problem starts with the premise. Someone sets up a table. They write “change my mind” on a sign. They take a position. Maybe it’s “climate change isn’t real.” Maybe it’s “racism isn’t systemic.” Maybe it’s “trans people shouldn’t have rights.” They invite challengers. They film it. They call it debate.
It is not debate. The premise is a shit-filled cupcake decorated to please the eye.
The person saying “change my mind” has no intention of changing their mind. They’re not inviting conversation. They’re inviting targets to perform against. They’re setting up a camera and hoping someone will engage so they can create content. The title is dishonest. The format is dishonest. The entire premise is a lie from the first word.
In genuine discourse, the person making the claim has to prove it. “I believe X, and here’s my evidence.” That’s how argument works. The claimant bears the burden of proof. “Change my mind” inverts this entirely. “I believe X, and you have to prove me wrong.” This is logically backwards. The claimant makes an assertion and demands that others do the work of disproving it. They set up a position that might have taken them five minutes to conceive and demand that challengers spend hours researching and preparing refutations. The work is asymmetric. The effort is unbalanced. The game is rigged from the start.
This gives license to positions that don’t deserve it. “Change my mind: the earth is flat.” No. The earth is round. This isn’t a debate. It’s a fact. “Change my mind: vaccines cause autism.” No. They don’t. This isn’t a debate. It’s settled science. “Change my mind: the Holocaust didn’t happen.” No. It did. We have the camps. We have the testimony. We have the bodies. The position that the Holocaust didn’t happen is not a perspective. It’s a lie designed to rehabilitate fascism. It does not deserve debate. It deserves contempt.
Some positions aren’t worth debating. Racism isn’t just an opinion. Transphobia isn’t a reasonable position to hold. Climate change denial isn’t a valid perspective. When these positions are treated as debate topics, they’re normalized. They’re given legitimacy they don’t deserve. The people affected by these positions aren’t debate topics.
They are human beings.
When someone sets up a table and says “change my mind: trans people shouldn’t have rights,” they’re treating human rights as entertainment. The trans person watching this “debate” isn’t seeing an intellectual exercise. They’re seeing their existence treated as something to be argued about for content.
The format is designed for performance, not truth. The position-holder sits comfortably. They have their talking points memorized. They’ve prepared for common objections. The challenger arrives expecting genuine debate. They come with facts, evidence, logic. They think they’re engaging in discourse. They’re actually serving as a prop in someone else’s video. The position-holder isn’t listening. They’re waiting for their turn to speak. They’re looking for weaknesses to exploit. They’re performing for the camera. The goal isn’t truth. The goal is content.
Social media algorithms reward engagement. Controversy generates views. “Change my mind” is optimized for the algorithm, not for truth. The more inflammatory the position, the more engagement it gets. The platform doesn’t care whether the position is true. The platform cares about attention. The format turns misinformation into profit. Lies are profitable. Truth is boring. The algorithm doesn’t care.
The commercial element is not accidental. These debates are monetized. YouTube videos with ads running. Livestreams with donations rolling in. Merchandise with the phrase printed on it. “Change my mind” is a brand. It’s not about truth. It’s about building an audience and selling to them. The position is the product. The challenger is the raw material. The truth is irrelevant.
Good-faith participants are wasting their time. They arrive with evidence. They present logical arguments. They cite sources. They think facts matter. They think the position-holder might actually change their mind. They won’t. The position-holder isn’t listening. They’re looking for moments where the challenger stumbles or hesitates. They’re looking for anything that can be clipped to make the challenger look bad. The challenger leaves frustrated. They’ve been used. They provided content for someone else’s brand. They were a prop. They were raw material. They were free labor.
Eventually, good-faith participants stop trying. They see the format is rigged. They see that truth doesn’t matter. They see that the position-holder isn’t interested in learning. They disengage. This leaves the field to bad actors. The only people left debating are those who want to spread misinformation and those who haven’t yet learned that the format is a waste of time.
The Dunning-Kruger effect amplifies the problem. People who know the least are most confident in their positions. “Change my mind” gives them a platform. Someone who spent an hour watching YouTube videos thinks they can debate someone who spent years studying the subject. The format treats them as equals. It pretends their positions are equally valid. It pretends their knowledge is equivalent. It pretends that fifteen minutes of Googling is the same as a degree.
The rejection of expertise is built into the format. “Do your own research” is the mantra. Years of study are dismissed as elitism. Credentials are treated as evidence of bias. The format suggests that any position is valid if you can argue for it. It suggests that facts are just opinions and opinions are just perspectives. It erodes the distinction between knowledge and belief.
The cumulative effect on society is real. When every position is treated as equally valid, society loses the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood. Policy is made based on lies. People die from misinformation. Vaccine denial leads to preventable deaths. Climate change denial delays action that could save lives. Racism denial prevents solutions to systemic harm. Transphobia disguised as “just asking questions” leads to legislation that harms real people. The format has consequences beyond the video.
The Steven Crowder table became a meme. “Change my mind” signs appeared across social media. Each one followed the same format. Assert a position. Demand others disprove it. Never intend to change. The meme spread because it worked. It generated engagement. It created content. It built audiences. It made money. It also spread misinformation. It also eroded shared reality. It also trained a generation to believe that all positions are equally valid and all opinions deserve equal time.
Genuine debate requires both parties to be open to being wrong. Both parties come to learn. Both parties present evidence. Both parties listen. Both parties are willing to change their minds based on new information. That’s how knowledge advances. “Change my mind” starts from the assumption that the position-holder is right. The format is a gauntlet, not a conversation. The position-holder has already decided they’re correct. They’re not there to learn. They’re there to win. They’re there to look good. They’re there to create content.
The dishonesty is the point. The position-holder pretends to be open-minded. They pretend to invite debate. They pretend to welcome challenge. It’s a lie. They’ve already decided. They’re not going to change. The title is false advertising. The format is rigged. The game is predetermined.
If someone has a position, they should prove it. They should present evidence. They should make their case. They shouldn’t demand others disprove it. The burden of proof belongs to the claimant. Inverting it isn’t debate. It’s intellectual dishonesty dressed up as discourse. It’s laziness masquerading as openness. It’s cowardice pretending to be courage.
“Change my mind” is not debate. It’s a performance designed to give stupidity a platform. It shifts the burden of proof. It treats lies as equal to truth. It gives license to positions that don’t deserve it. It normalizes misinformation. It monetizes conflict. It exhausts good-faith participants. It erodes shared reality. It waters down discourse and intelligence.
The phrase should be retired. If you have a position, prove it. Don’t demand others disprove it. If you want to debate, come with evidence and an open mind. Don’t set up a table and pretend you’re willing to change when you’re not. Don’t waste people’s time. Don’t treat human rights as entertainment. Don’t turn discourse into content.
If you have to lie about your willingness to change your mind, you don’t have a position worth debating. You have a performance worth ignoring.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“CHANGE MY MIND’ IS NOT DEBATE”
Commenting on Vanguard articles is not debate.
. . . . especially when one’s comments vanish when no comment rule has been broken.
“The premise is a shit-filled cupcake decorated to please the eye.”
I gotta give you points for that line.
When someone sets up a table and says “change my mind: trans people shouldn’t have rights,” they’re treating human rights as entertainment.”
The premise is a lie – no one is saying that trans people shouldn’t have rights (or that they don’t exist as human beings).
When you start out with a lie, there’s nothing to debate.
I think instead of “lie” you mean “embellishment” or “overstated”
That said I see a good number of people arguing there is no such thing as “trans people” therefore they are essentially arguing that trans people don’t have the right to be trans people which in a roundabout way of arguing they have no rights that the straight christian man is bound to respect.
For Matt’s articles in particular, I think it’s better to speak plainly (as he does). To quote (from the first paragraph, above):
“The entire premise is a lie from the first word.”
As for the “right to be trans”, I see very little (if any) argument against adults pursuing that. You’re referring to the “right” to use a bathroom, locker room, or play on sports that aligns with one’s self-perceived gender, if different from biological sex. Yes, they are opposed to that. They’re also opposed to any funding (e.g., from taxpayers or other ratepayers) for the medical establishment to intervene, especially for minors.
Oh, and they’re also flat-out opposed to any medical intervention (funded by taxpayers, or not) for minors.
But that’s obviously not the same thing as stating that they have “no rights”. In fact, all laws (rights and responsibilities) apply to everyone.
Pretty sure that NONE of the “rights” that have been “granted” in recent years (in regard to the trans issue) existed before about 10 years ago. (And I don’t remember any Constitutional amendments during that time, establishing those “rights”.)
As George Carlin once said (but not in regard to this issue – probably because he was already dead by the time this gained traction), people spend a lot of time “yammering” about rights which don’t actually exist.
“no one is saying that trans people shouldn’t have rights (or that they don’t exist as human beings).”
Many people are literally saying exactly those things.
Haven’t seen any saying that.
But if anyone is saying that they “don’t exist”, wouldn’t that (logically) mean that they don’t have a problem with them? How can anyone be “against” something or someone that doesn’t exist?
In such a case, they’d be in the same category as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, or Jimmy Stewart’s rabbit (in Harvey). (Now, maybe some people think those examples do exist – but that’s a different problem altogether.)
Of course, I think that the housing shortage also doesn’t exist – so what do I know, right? :-)
“Haven’t seen any saying that.”
Local example: “Trans identified people should not be allowed to be cops, firefighters, doctors, nurses, k-12 teachers, preschools, childcare-basically anything to do with helping people.”
O.K. – hadn’t seen that. Pretty sure that’s a minority/fringe opinion.
I don’t think that employment can be denied, based on identifying as “trans”.
And the Village People previously proved that you can’t be denied based on being gay, either. Plus, Trump is a fan. :-)
“O.K. – hadn’t seen that. Pretty sure that’s a minority/fringe opinion.
I don’t think that employment can be denied, based on identifying as “trans”.”
Employment protection is enforced by the EEOC. This administration has issued executive orders which have been used by his appointees at the EEOC to eliminate non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ federal employees and employees of federal contractors.
With respect to private employment, the EEOC has dismissed six of their own cases where they were representing workers who were alleging discrimination based on their transgender status. The EEOC cited the president’s executive order.
These executive orders and policies affect thousands of employees.
Enforcement vs. the law itself can be two different things.
In any case, it appears that the Supreme Court has determined such discrimination to be illegal.
https://lambdalegal.org/blogs/20200622_faq_supreme-court-lgbt-workplace/
It will be interesting to see if the court system itself ends up having to define what a “woman” or “man” is. (Probably the reason that the newest appointee essentially declined to answer that question during her confirmation hearing).
For what it’s worth, I don’t support such discrimination, myself. Even though I do acknowledge some of the concerns that someone like Beth brings up in regard to medical interventions, etc.
(Edited)