Forward Assist’s Veterans Debate Training and the Healing of Moral Injury

Moral injury has become one of the most pressing concerns in contemporary discussions of veteran well-being. While post-traumatic stress disorder has been widely recognised for decades, moral injury touches a different part of the human condition. It does not emerge only from fear, shock, or combat trauma, but from a deep rupture in the moral and ethical framework of the self. Veterans often return home carrying the burden of having witnessed, participated in, or felt complicit in acts that profoundly violated their sense of right and wrong and for some, this means recalling moments when they could not prevent the deaths of civilians, or when rules of engagement forced them into actions that now feel unforgivable. Yet, for others, it is the shame of surviving when comrades did not, or the guilt of being unable to live up to an ideal of honour and loyalty. Unlike conventional psychological wounds, moral injury corrodes the relationship between the individual and their own conscience. It is not merely a problem of intrusive memories or hypervigilance, but of feeling broken at the level of identity.

In recent years, Forward Assist, a British veteran support charity, has pioneered innovative ways of addressing this wound and among its more distinctive interventions is the Veterans Debate Training programme. At first glance, debate may seem an unlikely therapy for the scars of war. One might imagine that veterans would benefit more from counselling sessions, outdoor retreats, or vocational training. Yet debate, with its structure of argument, listening, rebuttal, and persuasion, has proven to be a powerful medium through which veterans can process moral injury, reclaim their voices, and restore a sense of moral agency. By engaging in structured argument, male and female veterans have found a way to re-enter dialogue with themselves and with society, challenging the silence and stigma that moral injury often imposes. The damaging impact of moral injury on veterans’ lives can scarcely be overstated.

Many describe an abiding sense of shame that alienates them from their families and communities, some withdraw into isolation, unable to articulate what they feel or to share experiences that seem unspeakable. Others descend into cycles of anger, substance misuse, or despair, believing they can never reconcile with what they did or failed to do. Unlike trauma that may be eased by time and desensitisation, moral injury festers in silence because it attacks the very narrative a person tells about who they are the soldier who may have once seen him/her-self as honourable, brave, and protective. A female medic may have defined herself by compassion and responsibility and when circumstances force them into roles that contradict those identities, the sense of betrayal by self can be catastrophic. Healing requires not only psychological support but a profound reworking of moral meaning. Debate training is not therapy in the conventional sense, yet it offers precisely the conditions in which such moral reconstruction can occur. The art of debate requires participants to examine issues from multiple perspectives, to articulate positions with clarity, and to listen carefully to counter-arguments and for veterans, this process mirrors the inner conflict of moral injury: the clash between what they did and what they believe they should have done, between loyalty to comrades and regret over actions, between military necessity and personal morality.

Debate externalises that internal dialogue and by arguing in a structured setting, veterans can begin to bring into the open the contradictions that torment them, allowing them to be named, explored, and reframed. For male veterans, the military culture of stoicism and silence can make it especially difficult to admit to feelings of guilt or shame. Many have been conditioned to see vulnerability as weakness, and to equate emotional honesty with failure. Debate training cleverly circumvents this barrier because when a man is asked to argue a point, he is not confessing but performing. He can explore difficult themes under the cover of rhetoric, using the format of debate as a protective shield. Paradoxically, this makes it easier to articulate truths he may never otherwise admit. For example, a veteran may be assigned to argue that military interventions cause long-term harm to civilian populations. In building his case, he may draw upon memories of civilian suffering he witnessed, memories he has never spoken of and buried. Yet the debate structure allows him to voice this pain in a socially sanctioned way and afterwards, he may recognise that what he articulated was not only an argument but an expression of long-suppressed grief. Similarly, for female veterans, the benefits of debate training often emerge in slightly different ways. Women in the armed forces have historically faced unique challenges: marginalisation, sexism, or the pressure to prove themselves in environments shaped by masculine norms and when they return from service, they may find that their experiences of moral injury are compounded by a lack of recognition or validation. Debate training gives them a platform to claim authority. In standing before others and asserting an argument, they occupy a space of intellectual and moral agency that civilian life may otherwise deny them. Some female veterans have spoken of how debate has enabled them to challenge not only military hierarchies but also societal assumptions about women’s voices. In speaking persuasively, they begin to heal the wound of invisibility that moral injury can deepen.

The structure of debate also cultivates key psychological skills that counteract the corrosive effects of moral injury. One of these is perspective-taking. Moral injury often traps veterans in a rigid, self-condemning narrative: “I am unforgivable because I did X.” Debate, however, requires stepping into alternative viewpoints. A veteran asked to argue for the necessity of military intervention may have to acknowledge contexts of national security or humanitarian protection. Conversely, asked to argue against, he or she may highlight human costs and ethical compromises. In either case, the exercise disrupts the fixity of the inner story. They learn to see that their actions can be interpreted in multiple ways, that moral judgment is complex, and that absolute condemnation may not be the only verdict. Debate also fosters communication skills. Moral injury isolates by making veterans feel they cannot be understood. Through debate, they practice conveying difficult ideas to an audience unfamiliar with their experiences and learn how to structure narratives, how to frame arguments, and how to connect with listeners. In time, this improves their ability to talk with family members, partners, and the wider community. Where once they may have been tongue-tied by shame, they develop confidence in articulating perspectives.

Communication does not erase the wound of moral injury, but it breaks the silence that keeps it raw. Another key benefit is the cultivation of critical reflection. Debate rewards not only assertiveness but the willingness to engage with counter-arguments. Veterans are challenged to listen actively, to question their own assumptions, and to refine their positions. This process mirrors the moral reckoning they face within. Instead of suppressing doubts, they learn to confront and examine them in a psychologically safe environment. A male veteran who once insisted that he was solely to blame for a comrade’s death may, through the give-and-take of debate, come to see the wider context of command decisions, operational chaos, or sheer contingency. A female veteran who felt complicit in a morally dubious mission may, through argument and counter-argument, begin to recognise the constraints she faced and while debate does not absolve responsibility, it does contextualise it, offering a more nuanced and compassionate moral account.

The communal dimension of debate is equally crucial. Moral injury thrives in isolation. Veterans often feel that no civilian can comprehend their experiences, and that their comrades are either unavailable or equally unwilling to speak. Debate training brings veterans together in a collective activity. They become part of a community where honesty is possible, where difficult topics can be aired without fear of judgment. Male veterans, who may have been reluctant to share emotions in informal conversation, discover that debate provides a legitimate arena for expression. Female veterans, who may have struggled to find recognition in mixed-gender environments, discover solidarity and respect. In listening to each other’s arguments, they begin to realise that they are not alone in their struggles, that moral injury is a shared human condition rather than a personal failing.

Over time, the benefits extend beyond the training room. Veterans who have engaged in debate often describe a renewed sense of purpose. They find that the skills of argument and persuasion enable them to contribute to public life, to participate in community discussions, and to advocate for issues they care about. Some have gone on to speak in schools, universities, or public forums, educating others about the realities of military service and the ethical dilemmas it entails and in doing so, they transform their wounds into sources of wisdom. Instead of being defined by guilt and shame, they become teachers, mentors, and advocates. This re-framing of identity is a powerful antidote to moral injury. The impact of debate training on male veterans is sometimes expressed in terms of restored dignity. Many men feel emasculated by the sense of having failed morally, believing they no longer live up to ideals of honour or courage. Debate gives them a new arena in which to prove themselves, not through physical toughness but through intellectual engagement. Standing in front of peers, articulating a compelling argument, and receiving recognition for skill and clarity can rekindle self-respect. It reminds them that they remain capable of leadership and influence, qualities once central to their military identity. Yet,for female veterans, the impact is often articulated as empowerment. Many have had to struggle against marginalisation, both in service and after. Debate training provides a space where their voices carry weight, where they are not defined by gender but by the strength of their reasoning. In winning arguments or commanding attention, they reclaim authority over their narratives.

This empowerment directly counters the disempowerment of moral injury, which convinces individuals that they have lost control over their moral lives. Forward Assist’s programme also addresses the damaging impact of moral injury through its emphasis on structure. Moral injury often leaves veterans feeling that their world is chaotic and incomprehensible. Debate, by contrast, is highly structured: opening statements, rebuttals, closing arguments. This structure provides a sense of order in which difficult emotions can be contained. Veterans can bring painful material into the debate, but they know it will be held within a framework that guides interaction. This containment prevents them from being overwhelmed and creates a safe space for moral exploration. Furthermore, the discipline of debate echoes aspects of military training. Veterans are familiar with drills, preparation, and performance under pressure. Debate taps into these familiar modes, allowing them to engage comfortably in a setting that honours their skills. Yet unlike military drills, debate is not about obedience but about critical thought. This subtle shift helps veterans transition from a culture of command to a culture of reflection, a transition essential for healing moral injury.

One of the most damaging consequences of moral injury is the erosion of trust: trust in oneself, in others, and in institutions. Veterans may feel betrayed by commanders who gave dubious orders, by political leaders who justified questionable wars, or by societies that fail to understand their sacrifices. Debate training addresses this erosion by rebuilding trust in dialogue so when veterans see that they can argue passionately yet still be respected, when they see they can disagree without hostility, they rediscover the possibility of constructive human exchange. This is not a small achievement; it is the foundation upon which reconciliation with society can be built. The transformative potential of debate is evident in the stories of veterans who have gone through Forward Assist’s programme. Some speak of initially fearing that they had nothing to contribute, only to find that their experiences gave them unique authority and others describe how debate reawakened intellectual curiosity long dormant since their school days, providing a sense of growth rather than stagnation. Many emphasise the camaraderie of the group, the sense of shared struggle and mutual respec and for both male and female veterans, the programme has opened pathways toward new careers, community engagement, and personal healing. Critically, debate training does not deny the reality of moral injury. It does not offer easy forgiveness or simplistic reassurances. Instead, it acknowledges the gravity of what veterans carry, and provides tools for living with it. Moral injury cannot always be “cured” in the sense of erasing memory or restoring innocence but it can be integrated into a broader narrative of growth, responsibility, and contribution. Debate training facilitates that integration by helping veterans articulate, contextualise, and transform their moral struggles.The damaging impact of moral injury on veterans is profound: isolation, shame, fractured identities, and despair.

Forward Assist’s Veterans Debate Training addresses this not by offering platitudes but by equipping veterans with the skills of dialogue, critical reflection, and persuasive communication. For many veterans, it provides a sanctioned arena in which vulnerability can be expressed through performance, restoring dignity and agency. For others it offers a platform for empowerment and recognition, countering invisibility and marginalisation and for both groups, it builds community, structure, and trust. In the end, the true significance of debate training lies in its capacity to transform silence into speech, shame into agency, and wounds into wisdom. Veterans who once felt morally broken discover that they can stand, speak, and be heard. They may never undo the past, but they can shape its meaning, for themselves and for others. In doing so, they not only heal their own injuries but also enrich the moral fabric of the societies to which they return. Forward Assist’s vision demonstrates that healing does not always come from traditional therapy. Sometimes it emerges from the courage to argue, to listen, and to reclaim the voice that war once took away. For more information see https://www.forward-assist.com/the-great-veterans-debate-project

Tony Wright