‘No Debate’ Signals Weak Claims

Calls to shut down discussion (e.g., on trans policy or climate) are framed as dominance plays and grifts that rely on sacralizing groups and moralized language ('silence is violence,' 'words are violence'). Robust claims welcome debate because evidence clarifies urgency; 'No Debate' typically masks thin evidence piled into moral certitude. These dynamics are reinforced by institutional incentives that expand with visible social pathology (e.g., homelessness services). — It offers a practical test for media, policymakers, and citizens to distrust debate‑closure rhetoric as a marker of weak epistemic foundations and perverse incentives.