Donald Trump’s encounter with the National Association of Black Journalists yesterday reminds us of the purpose of debate and dialogue. Mutual back-scratching is all very nice, but what’s valuable about a public forum comes to the fore when liars and bullshitters are put on the spot.

I’m not perfect. I too have joined crowds waving signs in opposition to some malevolent public figure’s visit to campus. I felt disgust at the idea that the institution I serve was lending some of its prestige, and handing a probably not too small honorarium, to somebody whose claims I thought were contradictory to the whole idea of free inquiry and equality of persons. Racists, gerrymanderers, stackers of the deck, that sort of people.

But the offense I took at those invitations would be greatly mitigated if institutions would agree to a set of rules for appearances by Highly Controversial People.

HCPs must know that by entering a public forum, they are agreeing to have their ideas and assumptions questioned. Those who invite them are put on notice that any flattering treatment the HCP receives must be balanced with an equal share of time allotted to an antagonist. Or better yet, as soon as the visit is announced a sign-up sheet must be opened for questioners. Each questioner will have, let’s say, three minutes. Not to scream at the HCP or to grandstand, but to point out contradictions, faulty evidence, a lack of attention to consequences, or other flaws. The HCP’s answers to these questions will go into the public record.

Somebody may anticipate that the sign-up sheet can be stacked with pro-HCP voices, thus nullifying the act of critique. This potential problem can be dealt with to some extent by subjecting the order of appearance of questioners to a lottery. And if there’s a scramble to get on the questioners’ list by voices pro and con, surely this only enhances the value of having the debate, and the public record of the responses will show pretty clearly who’s pitching softballs and who brought their best game.

In his appearance before the NABJ, the large orange man revealed his weaknesses so abjectly that the event even restored my faith in dialogue. Bravo to the uncompromising questioner, Rachel Scott. Let this event be the example in our minds next time the temptation to de-platform arises. Create the conditions for actual questioning and we may all learn something.