Can We Teach Children To Debate Without Hate?

October 03, 2025 Michelle McHale

Children often consume political ideas on their socials in deliberating polarising fragments. To resist hate, they need the chance to practise real debate, to go deeper than soundbites, and to disagree without dehumanising.

By Attachment Parenting UK

My 15-year-old daughter and I inadvertently saw the shocking shooting of Charlie Kirk unfold on her phone. Not because we went searching for it but because it was pushed by the engagement-hungry algorithms. For many British teenagers, Kirk was as controversial here as in the US — but their knowledge of him came from short, decontextualised clips. That encounter crystallised for me how urgently our children need tools for debate, depth, and protection from dehumanisation.

Why debate matters

Debate is not the same as argument. It is a practice of asking questions, weighing evidence, and testing ideas. Like a muscle, it needs exercise — yet children rarely get the chance to practise. Debate requires listening, patience, logic, strategy and persuasion. These are not soft skills; they are life skills. The question is: are we teaching them?

"Children rarely get a chance to practise real debate. It’s not just about having an opinion, but about the skills that underpin it: listening carefully, waiting patiently, thinking clearly, and responding with respect. Without practice, they fall back on what they see online — shouting, silencing, or disengaging altogether.”

When children do practise debate, they discover that their ideas might be flexible and adaptable. They gain the confidence to stand up for their beliefs — and the humility to change their minds.

Why depth matters

Knowledge is the raw material, but wisdom comes only through lived experience. Teenagers are developing their wisdom - in the meantime we can encourage them to gather knowledge and just as importantly, to learn how to think critically in the sea of misleading, often-AI-invented content.

Ofcom’s latest report shows the paradox: 63% of children aged 8–17 know algorithms shape what they see, but only a third believe most social media content is true. Algorithms heighten the confusion. One child may see Kirk portrayed as a loving father, another as a white supremacist. Both depictions contain fragments, but neither offers context. The result: children are trained to mistrust everything.

That mistrust has consequences. If young people come to believe no information is reliable, they lose faith not only in the media but in truth itself. Cynicism replaces discernment, disengagement replaces debate. At its most corrosive, a general mistrust of government or media risks widespread cynicism, disengagement from politics, and a reduced ability to tackle challenges collectively.

Why dehumanising is the danger

When debate and depth are absent, polarisation too easily tips into dehumanisation. To disagree with an idea is not to reject a person — yet online culture blurs that boundary until opponents are cast as enemies.

We saw this in the celebrations some posted after Kirk’s death: whatever one thinks of his politics, turning violence into entertainment or point-scoring is the starkest form of dehumanisation. Social media accelerates this process. People are presented not as full human beings but as caricatures — simplified, flattened, reduced to fragments that confirm a narrative. Human detail gets stripped away in the algorithm’s drive for engagement, and what is left is ideology without empathy.

Research confirms the risk. Studies show repeated exposure to violent content dulls emotional response. More recent work finds adolescents exposed to online hate become desensitised and less trusting of others. The Youth Endowment Fund reported in 2024 that 70% of 13–17-year-olds in England and Wales had seen real-life violence on social media in the past year — often not by choice but pushed by algorithms. As one young person put it: “you get desensitised to it.”

How parents can help

Model listening. Show your child how to pause, make eye contact, and reflect back what someone has said before answering.
Get curious, not furious. Encourage genuine interest in how someone reached their opinion.

Ways to ask curious questions

“Can you help me understand what the benefits or flaws might be in that perspective?”
“Would you be willing to share how you came to that view?”
Using what and how questions is usually more constructive than why questions, which can sound accusatory and provoke defensiveness.

Simple ways to practise debate

Role reversal. Ask your child to argue the case for an opinion they don’t hold. This helps them experience the reasoning behind differing perspectives.
Low-stakes topics. Suggest two holiday destinations. Ask your child to research both, then hold a family debate on which to choose — focusing on logical thinking and strategy rather than on “winning.”
Normalise disagreement. Families that respectfully disagree at the dinner table help children practise in a safe space.
Teach the pause. A few deep breaths before replying can be the difference between dialogue and escalation.
Remind them: opinions are not identity. Separate strong ideas from the person who holds them.

Towards a different culture

Small acts in homes and classrooms add up. We can raise a generation who practise debate, seek depth rather than fragments, and resist the slide into dehumanising those they disagree with. In a polarised political world, that may be the most radical parenting work of all.