I like the results of having a civil society with rational discourse. Not simply that it's the result of the inalienable rights of thought and speech, but because society as a whole has massively benefited from it. The marketplace of ideas bubbles to the top the "best" ideas, but it is almost a requirement that its constituent agents at least recognize the value of reason, even if they themselves are flawed and biased implementations of reason.

It may be the case that it's impossible to save discourse, and the future is a world where brute force, power, and hierarchy drive which ideas dominate society. We'd be lesser for it, though, and I don't think we've explored many ideas for preventing that end result.

I agree that a society with rational discourse is clearly the best option, and that this is an extremely difficult problem, notably because everyone likes to think that they're rational. We're always going to be subject to external inputs that change how we perceive reality and the world around us, and not always in a rational way. Some people recognize the value of reason, and make it their business to exploit it, while others recognize the value of reason but fail to acknowledge that the world they live in affects their views and perception of reality, and a third group recognizes the value of reason but sees their identity as immutable -- this is the most dangerous group, in my opinion, and a group I regret to say I've been a part of.

My point is only that our opinions are swayed and altered by propaganda, media, and the world around us in general. To say an opinion has been 'corrupted' is a murky concept to me, because I'm not sure how much of our opinions I believe are original, and what corruption actually means in this instance.