No debate, no Baudet

I don't like being around debate fetishists. You may not have consciously noticed this phenomenon before, so I'll give you a few clues: they talk fast, accuse you of fallacies, and like to pedantically quote from a dictionary (ad verecundiam). I hope you have been spared this experience in your study groups, but you probably already know who I am talking about. Bonus points if they are always dressed a little too formally for a classroom.

Debate is to scientific truth-finding what yoghurt gummies are to fruit. A kind of hyperreality; a weak imitation of the original that has taken on a life of its own, no longer corresponding to reality, a simulacrum. You may be beginning to suspect that I, too, have a metaphorical paraphilia for logic, but I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. This is merely a diversionary tactic to shake off the real debate fetishists. Postmodernism is, as I understand it, a kind of red rag to them.

A total ban on debate
At least for Thierry Baudet, perhaps the greatest debate fetishist of our time. No wonder, then, that he came trotting along when invited to an election debate at the REBO faculty, a platform in a sea of woke cultural Marxist indoctrination education. Since this debacle, the discussion has been raging: should un-statutory opinions also be allowed to participate in the debate? I have a very reasonable centrist opinion: I am in favour of a general ban on debate.

I am the last person to think that we should pretend that the university should be a sanctuary for pure, objective science. Because there is no such thing as “pure” science, untouched by human assumptions. A subgroup of debate fetishists cannot accept this. Somehow, the context in which I encounter this often seems to degenerate into a crusade against the gender studies department or a reinvention of racial doctrine.

Invoking objectivity while at the same time being quick and loose with what objectivity should mean in the first place is a winning debate strategy. “But you can't say that anymore these days” gives the debate fetishist his punk-rock feeling. However, Janskerkhof 3 is not a pop stage, nor is it a wrestling ring.

Oil wrestling in the library

It's like oil wrestling in a library. The library is full of books and papers with different points of view, usually substantiated with sources and research, read by peers in the field. All written by people who exercise free speech. In the debate paper-scissors game, however, the sheet (or the screen) always loses to mudslinging.

I can already hear the outrage. ‘What about freedom of speech?’, as if we need to make room next to the physics books for flat-earth literature and climate denial. Or, failing that, a soapbox for all the uncles who are no longer welcome at Christmas dinner because of their rants about 5G and chemtrails.

My patience is wearing thin. My books are filthy.

So that's why: a general ban on debate. From now on, fight it out on paper. If you break the rules, we'll lock you up in Plato's cave. Then you'll have plenty of time for rhetorical shadow boxing.

No debate, no Baudet, by Sara Niknam, is one of the nominated columns for the 2026 campus columnist competition. The winners will be announced on Wednesday, 14 January, at DUB's New Year's reception. The two winners (one for the Dutchpage and one for the English page) will each receive the Erik Hardeman stipend (1,000 euros) and publish a column on DUB every three weeks in 2026.