The claim is that students are increasingly reluctant to debate. The consequences?

Though it represents a welcome departure from the polarized mudslinging of the 90's culture wars, it also represents a failure to fully engage with the world, a failure to test one's convictions against the logic and passions of others. It suggests a closing off of the possibilities of growth and transformation and a repudiation of the process of consensus building. "It doesn't bode well for democratic practice in this country," Professor Anderson said. "To keep democracy vital, it's important that students learn to integrate debate into their lives and see it modeled for them, in a productive way, when they're in school."

The writer also claims that similar to "the knee-jerk acceptance of the positions of others," irony is a form of detachment, "a defensive mode that enables one to avoid commitment and stand above the fray".

I have my doubts. Some people dislike debate because they're just not very good at it. All too many debaters "win" by mere rhetoric or appeal to emotions. What's the point of winning that way?