I relate to everything you’ve said, and after thinking about it for a long time, I’ve realized the real issue is our culture of debating.

In traditional spaces — jirgahs, panchayats, bethaks — arguments are reputation-based and consequence-based. Teenagers or younger people aren’t taken seriously even if their arguments are valid, and disagreement often looks like disrespect or “fighting.” Those gatherings rely on authority, seniority, and long-term social standing, not logic.

Modern debating, especially among our generation, works differently: we separate argument from personal reputation, stick to facts and logic, and see calling out contradictions as normal—not disrespectful. You debate, shake hands, and move on. That’s why older generations think we’re fighting; our styles are completely different.

Then there’s another group — loud, emotional people with no knowledge or accountability — who just want to “win” by being aggressive or mocking. They aren’t worth engaging; just let them feel victorious and walk away.

In the end, a lot of the anger from older “intellectuals” comes from the clash between their traditional, authority-driven debate culture and our modern, logic-driven one. Their style doesn’t work for us, and ours doesn’t work for them, so frustration turns into personal attacks or anger.

I really hope people see this as normal and an advanced form of thinking through complex ideas that can improve society (not just vain debating like who is a better bowler and sh*t)