Is Debating Scriptural? Why I Refuse to Debate

Every so often, when a man stands up and boldly proclaims what he believes to be true, somebody will come along and say, “Let’s debate about it.” The challenge usually comes with an air of confidence—almost a dare. The challenger believes he is right and you are wrong, and he hopes that, by squaring off in public, he can expose your weakness and silence your influence.

I’ve been challenged before. But I have never once challenged another man to a debate, and I have never accepted a debate invitation. Let me tell you why.

Debating Is Like a Prizefight

A debate is a lot like a boxing match. A man may outfight his opponent for the entire contest and then lose with one well-timed punch. In the world of debating, that “punch” might not be truth at all — it could be a sarcastic quip, a clever joke, or even just making the other fellow look silly. In the eyes of the crowd, if you can embarrass your opponent and get a laugh, you’ve won. But truth doesn’t always win applause.

It Brings Out the Worst in People

Public debates often stir up qualities that are anything but Christlike: anger, pride, rivalry. If you decline to debate, some will suggest you’re afraid. But as Lester Roloff used to say, “Always remember, a lion can whip a polecat any day, but he’ll always come out stinking.” You may win, but the smell lingers.

God Told Me to Preach, Not Debate

When I open my Bible, I see God’s call is crystal clear: “Preach/Teach the Word” (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:16; 1 Tim. 4:1). But I have never once read, “Debate the Word.” Paul didn’t organize debates. Jesus didn’t challenge the Pharisees to a showdown in the synagogue with a moderator and a timekeeper. They preached. They taught. They reasoned. They spoke truth when confronted, but never in a staged contest designed to score points.

Debates Rarely Change Hearts

I’ve had many one-on-one "discussions" with people of other beliefs and even other faiths. In all those conversations, I cannot recall a single time someone stopped me and said, “You know what? You’re right, and I’ve been wrong all along.” This has been true, even though there have been times where their error was crystal clear. Debates don’t usually bring repentance—they harden pride. People "dig in." In a public setting, folks are even more concerned with saving face than finding truth.

And let’s be honest—who generally shows up for a debate? Three kinds of people:

1. Those already convinced (and set in their ways).

2. Those just looking for a good argument, like entertainment.

3. Those so confused already that watching two people argue only leaves them more bewildered.

That’s not fertile ground for the gospel.

The Bible’s View of Debate

It’s telling that when the Bible mentions “debate,” it usually isn’t flattering. Romans 1:29 and 2 Corinthians 12:20 list it right alongside strife and envy. The one time it’s spoken of positively is Proverbs 25:9—where we’re told to “debate thy cause with thy neighbor himself.” In other words, privately, not publicly, and certainly not for show.

Debate as a Shortcut to Credibility

Through the years, some religious leaders have almost made debate into a sport. Win a debate and you gain credibility, respectability, even a following. Alexander Campbell, one of the most famous religious debaters of the 19th century, once boasted, “We are fully persuaded that a week’s debating is worth a year’s preaching.”

And in that line you can hear the danger. When the method of debate is exalted above the ministry of preaching, the messenger and the performance become the focus. That is not the biblical pattern.

The “Prove Me Wrong” Tent

That brings me to something very popular today. Charlie Kirk has made a name for himself with a tent, a microphone, and a banner that says: “Prove me wrong.” Students step up to challenge him, often to their own embarrassment. Some people even call him the “Aristotle of our time” or “the greatest debater of our generation.”

But think about it. Kirk’s “prove me wrong” setup is actually worse than a formal debate. On the surface, it looks like he’s stepping onto someone else’s turf — their college, their professors, their peers. He doesn’t know what questions are coming, and students are free to approach the microphone with whatever they like. It may even appear that he is at a disadvantage.

The reality, however, is quite different. Kirk has heard nearly every variation of these challenges before. He has polished responses ready, refined to land with maximum rhetorical effect. He also has professional apologists who have mentored him and sometimes even stand by his side during debates. Meanwhile, most students are nervous, inexperienced, and unpracticed in public speaking. Even if they theoretically researched his positions beforehand, that preparation rarely translates into confident delivery in the moment. What we usually see are half-formed questions, stumbling words, and easy openings for Kirk to exploit.

In addition, while the event is technically on the students’ campus, Kirk controls the stage. He commands the microphone, the attention of the crowd, and the rhythm of the interaction. The students may have a microphone, but they don’t have the same platform. The environment, though seemingly their turf, functions as his arena. Pride is inflamed on both sides, and most of the audience is there for the “fight”—sound bites and applause lines—not for truth. Many students with genuine questions will never ask them, fearing public humiliation.

So while it appears he is taking risks, the format is heavily skewed in his favor. It is not the picture of two seasoned apologists facing each other as equals; it is more like a chess master playing speed chess against beginners. This ‘debate’ would be like a rookie stepping into the cage with Conor McGregor. It’s like a college boxer being thrown into the ring with Mike Tyson in his prime. It’s the intellectual equivalent of a high school JV team playing the Super Bowl champions.

Entertaining, perhaps even impressive, but hardly a fair contest.

This isn’t ministry. It’s spectacle. We live in an age of spectacle and showmanship. This approach may win followers, but it doesn’t necessarily translate to winning souls.

My Conclusion

Oliver B. Greene put it best: “I will not debate the Word of God. I will preach it, and teach it, but I will not debate it.”

That is my conviction too. I’ll open the Scriptures. I’ll explain what they say. I’ll teach and I’ll preach. I’ll even sit down and reason with someone in love. But I will not enter a contest to see who can come out looking smarter.

The gospel is not advanced through one-liners and put-downs. It is advanced through the faithful preaching of Christ crucified and risen. The Spirit of God does the convicting, not the cleverness of man.

The church doesn’t need debaters. It needs preachers, teachers, and witnesses—men and women who will proclaim truth plainly, in love, and leave the results to God.

Addendum:

Discernment in Engagement and Moral Agreement

While much of modern “debate culture” is focused on spectacle, persuasion, and crowd appeal, the Bible presents a very different model for defending truth. Scripture emphasizes preaching, teaching, and patient correction over public contests or rhetorical showmanship. Even when God’s servants engage with opposition, the aim is never to “win” for applause or notoriety, but to faithfully proclaim His Word and build understanding in others (2 Timothy 2:24–26; 1 Peter 3:15).

This does not preclude recognizing or affirming moral truths spoken by others. The Bible models careful discernment: the Bereans examined Paul’s teaching against Scripture and discerned whether those things were so (Acts 17:11). Similarly, one can agree with certain moral propositions defended by public figures, even if much of their theology, method, or style is unbiblical. Recognition of moral truth must always be anchored in Scripture, and never in the approval of large crowds or cultural popularity (Philippians 4:8).

In short, the biblical approach to engaging opposing views is measured, patient, and Scripture-centered. It is possible—and right—to affirm what aligns with God’s Word while rejecting error, and to do so without embracing unbiblical debate formats or prioritizing performance over truth.