Impatience is often seen as the province of youth. The tendency to be restless, whether in one’s personal life or political engagement, is something many in my generation experience on a daily basis. I certainly do. That restlessness seeps into our conversations, often showing up as interrupting others to get a point across, cramming information into a single sentence, or treating arguments as competitions. The goal becomes showcasing one’s intellectual sharpness, how quickly we can speak, and how confidently we can counter. But this style of debate, while energetic, often sacrifices attention to detail, nuance, and the opportunity to understand another perspective. What once might have been chalked up to youthful eagerness now seems to define debate at every level at every age, from classrooms to TikTok to national political discourse.

We see this reflected across the media we consume. Take the YouTube channel Jubilee, for example. Their videos revolve around fast-paced discussions on controversial topics, with participants given only minutes, sometimes less, to make complex points. The channel has over 2.7 billion views and nearly 10 million subscribers. Clips from these debates flood social media, reshaped into soundbites and stitched into reaction videos. Some participants, like streamer and commentator Dean Withers, have launched entire platforms based on this fast, confrontational model. And it isn’t just YouTube. News outlets follow suit, inviting guests or politicians to make their case, and defend it, in under 15 minutes. These appearances often prioritize spectacle or sensationalism over understanding. The result is a culture that values speed over substance, confidence over curiosity.

There is nothing inherently wrong with quick thinking or rapid-fire dialogue. It can be engaging, and I have often been impressed by it. But I’ve watched with concern as this becomes the only model for disagreement both online and in person. The way we speak to each other, especially when we disagree, increasingly mimics what we see online: fast, competitive, and often aggressive. We’ve all had that classmate who voices an unpopular opinion that is quick, confrontational, and draining for those around them. But when this becomes the standard, what do we expect? It’s seen as intellectual, even admirable, and it’s no surprise we all adopt it. When we only debate this way, we lose the chance to have productive conversations. Channels like Jubilee unintentionally contribute to this shift by emphasizing speed over depth. Part of the issue lies in the format itself because how much nuance can really be explored in just a few minutes?

This wasn’t always the case. In the 1960s and ’70s, there were televised conversations that modeled a very different approach. The Dick Cavett Show, for instance, would dedicate an hour or more to interview s and debates. On the TV series SOUL!, an interview featured James Baldwin and Nikki Giovanni in a rich, layered conversation about race, gender, and power. They disagreed, sometimes passionately, but their discussion was rooted in reflection, patience, and mutual respect. The heat that arose was born out of passion, not performance. Today, tension in debate often stems from a desire to dominate, to win. Interruptions, dismissiveness, and verbal sparring are mistaken for intellectual rigor. When these tactics are rewarded with likes, retweets, and praise, they become habits, then norms.

I’m not saying that careful listening always leads to agreement. Disagreements, like those filmed on Jubilee, are rooted in deeply-held and valid beliefs. I don’t intend to dismiss the reality or intensity of those conversations, but we no longer seem to value how we disagree. We rarely create space for disagreement that is both meaningful and respectful — disagreement that invites critical thinking, not just clever comebacks or one-ups. This speed-focused style of argument has begun to erode our ability to think deeply. It also plays into our lack of attention span and preference for sensationalism. Responses are reduced to quick facts, strong statements, and aggressive rhetoric. It becomes difficult to grasp the larger picture, the ideologies behind the statistics, the historical context, or the lived experiences that shape opinions.

The long-term consequences of this shift are already visible. Our politics often reflect the same problems: leaders shouting past each other instead of engaging, debates filled with barbs instead of substance. In classrooms and everyday conversations, disagreement becomes a source of tension and mistrust rather than an opportunity for collaboration. We’re entering an era where disagreement feels inherently combative, where debate isn’t a path to understanding, but a battleground. If we want to change that, we need to make space in our classrooms, in the media, and in our conversations for more thoughtful, intentional dialogue. That means funding and supporting platforms that prioritize long-form conversation. It means teaching and modeling communication that values clarity over speed and mutual respect over domination.

Taking time to build a cohesive argument, to listen, and to respond with care is not a sign of weakness but  a form of intellectualism that’s just as valuable. If we can prioritize that, we might build a world where disagreement leads not just to friction but to connection, insight, and real solutions. Right now, we’re stuck in a cycle of tension, domination, and unhelpful debate. But it doesn’t have to be that way.