It's a controversial form of ostracism, a tool in bringing down those with power, cancelling.

Some see it as accountability and a method of calling attention to long-standing injustice.

They say it's always been around, others see a new, very-lin form of mob justice, which

jeopardizes a person's safety and risks indefinite alienation.

Either way, in this modern era, social media has a decidedly amplifying effect.

Against that background, we debate for and against this motion.

Cancel culture is toxic.

Hi, everybody.

And yes, we are talking about lately what's being called cancel culture, the perception

at least and possibly the reality that there has been an outbreak of people being punished

for the ideas they expressed through a process of public shaming that has seemed to be silencing

them to getting them ejected from positions of prominence, even to ending their careers.

Where is much disagreement on whether cancel culture is even real or exaggerated, or whether

it's really something new, and whether it is toxic to public discourse or a necessary

corrective to have these callouts?

Cancel culture on trial.

That's our debate.

I'm John Donovan, and this is Intelligence Squared.

All right, everybody.

Now you have a duty to perform here in this program, and that is to act as the judge of

the debate.

And one of you, what we would like you to do is to tell us which side you feel argued

...