The Instigator
philosphical
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

Debate should be considered a recreational activity, rather than educational

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,465 times Debate No: 9926
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (10)

 

philosphical

Pro

There is alot of dispute on whether debate in itself should be considered educational rather than recreational.
I will be arguing on the PRO side of this debate.

DEFINITIONS

Recreational:
1. Refreshment by means of some pastime, agreeable exercise, or the like.
2. A pastime, diversion, exercise, or other resource affording relaxation and enjoyment.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Educational:
1. Pertaining to education.
2. Tending or intended to educate, instruct, or inform: an educational show on television.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

ARGUMENTS

1. As far as education goes, debates generally provide nothing substantially tangible for educational. Any one arguing against some one else, usually knows everything about the topic they are arguing about before hand. So when the actual debate comes in, basically it's just a constant clash of opinions.

2. People are generally ignorant. An individuals opinion is formed from what they grown up seeing from those closest to them. People generally seem to stay with that opinion they were brought to believe. When they are disproved on an argument, human nature is to find any other possible route to refute the said argument. What this does, is just extend arguments. Neither of the individuals, actually learn anything from the experience, however both can find the debate entertaining, thus being a recreational activity.

3. A great example of debate being recreational, is this very site.
A1: The vast majority of people on this sites are teenagers. It is a very rare occasion, when one can find a teenager doing something educational on their own time.
A2: Most of the people on this site, spend ALOT of time on this site. Obviously these people must think that debate is fun in some sort, or else they would not spend so much time on it.
A3: The argument may come up that people come on this site to learn from other peoples debate. However, some people think that learning CAN be fun, thus entertainment.

It is apparent that in every way shape and form, that debate is more recreational, than educational.

I would like to thank whoever accepts this debate. It should be fun and simple.
Thankyou
-Philosophical
RoyLatham

Con

I accept Pro's definitions of "recreational" and "educational."

Pro offers three arguments in favor of the resolution:

1. Pro contends that there is no educational value because "Any one arguing against some one else, usually knows everything about the topic they are arguing about before hand." On many topics, if both sides knew everything abut the topic then they would agree upon all the relevant facts and many of the conclusions, but that is rarely the case. What the two sides typically start with is a belief about the topic. The debate provides the forum for deriving the belief by reasoning from relevant facts. One educational value of the debate derives from each side having to justify their reasoning by carefully formulating a case, including finding references for claimed key facts.

2. Pro claims, "People are generally ignorant." That assertion contradicts Pro's first contention, that nothing will e learned from the debate because the participants already know everything. The truth is that people know some things and don't know other things. The debate helps sort out what each side really knows from what they believe without good reasons. The opponent focuses intently upon exposing unjustified claims and erroneous logic. From an educational viewpoint, that's comparable to a one-on-one teaching situation. It puts the person on the spot to think carefully and research the subject. That's a more intense learning process than hiding in the back of the classroom as the teacher drones on. Being put on the spot is motivational, and motivation is the key element in education.

3. Pro references this site, debate.org for several points.

A1. Pro claims, "It is a very rare occasion, when one can find a teenager doing something educational on their own time." If that is true, then it does not prove that debate fails to educate, it proves that debate is wonderfully educational because it is motivating teenagers to learn when it is not their habit to do so. However, it's quite clear that most teenagers are not on this site, so whatever is going on here is an exception to broad generalities about teenagers. Not many teenagers read philosophy or program computers in their spare time either, but some do and those ones who do are engaging in educational activities. Like debate, if most teenagers do not participate in those activities, it doesn't diminish the ones who do.

A2. Pro claims, "Most of the people on this site, spend ALOT of time on this site. Obviously these people must think that debate is fun in some sort, or else they would not spend so much time on it." Most members of the site are casual users, with only a relative handful spending a lot of time. It's true that those who spend a lot o time probably enjoy it, but that just means they are enjoying an educational activity. Some people enjoy school, and any more enjoy certain classes in school. That doesn't mean that school as a whole or particular classes are primarily recreational. It means that activities that are educational may also be enjoyable.

A3. Pro admits, "some people think that learning CAN be fun, thus entertainment." The measure is how much knowledge is gained for the time spent participating. For example, if one's hobby is playing ping pong, the activity is fun and healthy exercise, but very few consider it an educational activity. What makes debate an educational activity is the high educational content.

Pro's first argument was that participants knew everything about the debate subject, and his second argument was that participants knew nothing about the subject. The spectators are in the camp of being interested enough to read or listen to the debate, but not having any necessary level of knowledge in the subject. Many debates have more than two voters judging the debate, so educational value may be greater for the audience than the participants.

N1. Educators consider debate to be educational. Hundreds of times more people participate in academic debate than in this site. If there is any doubt that debate.org is educational, there ought to be no doubt that academic debate programs are educational. For example, the Los Angeles Times reports, concerning high school debate.

". . . Like the topics they argue, debate itself takes research and strategy. Students receive nearly 600 pages of high-level research organized into specific topics that they craft into an argument... Students who participate show improved academic achievement, according to the national urban debate league. ... Literacy scores among debaters have increased by an average of 25%. High school graduation rates among regular participants are nearly 100%, and more than 75% of urban debaters attend four-year colleges." http://articles.latimes.com...

On the college level, there are 115 schools having College Policy Debate Programs http://www.wcdebate.com...
Another organization, "The American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA) includes over 50 member schools..." http://www.apdaweb.org... These debate organizations include the nations top schools. Top academic institutions recognize the educational value of debate by their sponsorship.

The are many other debate organizations worldwide, "Competitive Debate is an organized activity with teams competing at the local, national, and international level. It is popular in English-speaking universities and high schools around the world, most notably in South Africa, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. Many different styles of debate occur under a variety of organizations and rules." http://en.wikipedia.org...

N2. In addition to the research n preparing to debate and the information gleaned from watching a debate, debaters learn skills of analysis, such as the identification of logical fallacies and the development of step-by-step arguments. Such skills are important, and most people will learn them from debate if they earn them at all. That makes debate an important educational activity.

============

If participants think something is fun, does that mean it is primarily recreational? If someone thinks learning to solve simultaneous partial differential equations is fun, does that mean we should consider the activity recreational? No, activities, including debate, ought to be judged and considered educational based upon what they teach. If participants learn substantially for it, then it ought to be considered educational. Debate teaches facts, logic, and why others believe what they do. That makes it educational.
Debate Round No. 1
philosphical

Pro

1. "On many topics, if both sides knew everything abut the topic then they would agree upon all the relevant facts and many of the conclusions, but that is rarely the case."

I would file that statement as in-correct. A debate in which you are referring to, is that of the like of a scientist and a caveman. When debating, and when both sides are informed on the topic at hand, they base their arguments off of why they think their side is right or more moral due to those relevant facts. For example: Say two people have studied abortion together thoroughly, and know all the details of the topic. Both know every fact about abortion in itself, but one might argue that the killing of the fetus is murder, while the other might say that it's the mothers right to choose.
Both debaters know everything about the topic, and simply have a mere dis-agreement in opinion of those facts.

"One educational value of the debate derives from each side having to justify their reasoning by carefully formulating a case, including finding references for claimed key facts."

Yes, but that would be addressing the studying itself, being educational. What one studies beforehand, has a bearing in the debate, however in the debate itself, an individual doesn't actually learn anything at all. Sure they may have made educated upon forming the case, but that comes from their previous study and knowledge of the topic. This is further proof that debate is a mere clash of opinion on morality, and other such values. For some, this would be considered fun. But as far as actually learning something from a debate, one can hardly say after walking out of one that their knowledge on the topic has increased substantially.

2. "From an educational viewpoint, that's comparable to a one-on-one teaching situation. It puts the person on the spot to think carefully and research the subject. That's a more intense learning process than hiding in the back of the classroom as the teacher drones on."

Debate:
1. A discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. A formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

You see, there is a vague difference between a student, asking conflicting questions to a teacher as opposed to two fully knowledgeable opponents debating a topic. In the student's scenario, there questions that are brought forth are not for the purpose of debate, but for the purpose of understanding the issue at hand.
When someone does not know the full detail on a topic, they are merely getting firsthand information about the topic at hand.

People are generally ignorant. To justify this claim I would like to ask my opponent some questions.

When you accepted this debate, did you intend to learn anything?
Do you feel there is anything on this topic, that you don't already know?
Would you yourself, enter into a debate that you felt you only were half read-up on?
Is it true, that no matter what argument I bring up, you will try to your best ability make an counter-argument?

Debate is recreational. To justify this claim, I will ask my opponent some more questions.

Did you personally accept this debate for the sole purpose of getting educated?
Do you think debate is fun?
If so, what about debate do you find so fun?

Ignorance does not define the quality of the person, or their debating skills in anyway. People have strong feelings towards what they believe, and will do anything to stand by those beliefs.

3.
A1. "However, it's quite clear that most teenagers are not on this site, so whatever is going on here is an exception to broad generalities about teenagers. Not many teenagers read philosophy or program computers in their spare time either, but some do and those ones who do are engaging in educational activities."

It is true, that some teenagers find doing activities such as 'fixing a computer'. But that is the activity itself, that they believe is fun. The actual hands-on aspect of them knowing they are building something. Fun is relevant to the person themselves. And even more, some even think that learning IS fun.

A2. "It's true that those who spend a lot of time on this site probably enjoy it, but that just means they are enjoying an educational activity. "

Like you said, they are enjoying the use of it. Whether they are getting educated or not is irrelevant now, due to the fact that they are actually having fun, thus recreational.

"Some people enjoy school, and many more enjoy certain classes in school."
As far as enjoying school, I can personally attest to the fact that it's the social aspect of school that the teenager enjoys. But again, enjoying a certain class, is still enjoying, meaning recreational!

"That doesn't mean that school as a whole or particular classes are primarily recreational. It means that activities that are educational may also be enjoyable."

Referring back to the definition I have provided regarding recreational, would you not say that fits the definition perfectly?

A3.
"What makes debate an educational activity is the high educational content"

But the point is, that in studying the topic of debate, you are becoming knowledgeable, which leads to the educational content of the person, rather than the debate itself. The debate is merely an argument of opinions already made on the facts that have been established.

"Pros first argument was that participants knew everything about the debate subject, and his second argument was that participants knew nothing about the subject."

Actually this statement would be false. My first argument was that the debater knows everything about their topic already, and the second was saying that they will stand by them with any argument they can think of, because ignorance leads to defensiveness, and a heated debate.

"Many debates have more than two voters judging the debate, so educational value may be greater for the audience than the participants"

Except for in a judge's position, they are merely looking at the speaking skills of a debater, and seeing if they are knowledgeable on the subject.

N1. School debate, and debate.org, I would not classify as much of a difference.

I have already refuted this argument several times above, but I will say that yes, I would agree with your sources
resolution that debate has increased intellectual activity decently. This is true, and one of the many subjects that people can really enjoy. However all the increased knowledge comes from before hand research of a topic. On the actual debate itself, all anyone is doing is arguing there opinion on the facts.

N2. I can basically just say the exact same to this argument. Indeed, debate is helpful and used all around the world. Its is such a popular activity, because not only does it help one increase their ideas educationally, due to their study of the said subject, it also spikes the interest of the many people who take debate.

==========

Recreation means that some one has found something that they find leisurely, and enjoyable, or in general just a pastime. So in answer to your question "If participants think something is fun, does that mean it is primarily recreational?"

Debate is fun!
Can someone honestly tell me that they would be involved in debate if it weren't? Especially extra-curricular debate sites such as the ones this site presents!

And " If someone thinks learning to solve simultaneous partial differential equations is fun, does that mean we should consider the activity recreational?"

Well sure! If someone prefers to study amoebas all day, or solve math equations, because it spikes there interest, then all the power to them. While it is educational, they are also experiencing recreation!

Good luck to my opponent.
thanks
-philosophical
RoyLatham

Con

The resolution is "Debate should be considered a recreational activity, rather than educational" I have made two arguments in negation of the resolution. They are:

(1) Debate is both a recreational activity and an educational activity, therefore is incorrect to assert that it only a recreational activity.

(2) Whether something is considered "educational" ought to be judged by how much education it provides, and debate provides a substantial amount of education. Therefore debate should be considered educational.

The resolution offered is comparable to "Tennis should be considered a recreational activity rather than a form of exercise."

Turning to Pro's specific arguments:

1. Pro gives a single example of a topic upon which a fairly large body of facts are agreed to by the two sides in the debate. That's true for some debates, but I asserted that for many debates there was no such agreement. For example, in a recent debate on health insurance http://www.debate.org... the facts related to insurance company profits were not known by the opponent accepting the debate. In debating a 9/11 truther, http://www.debate.org... the proponent did not know the official explanation of the WTC 7 collapse. In a debate on investment banking http://www.debate.org..., the proponent did not know the definition of investment banking nor the status of public financing. My experience is that at least two-thirds of debates have important facts in dispute.

Even though the debater will often deny the presented facts or claim them unimportant for the sake of the debate, any reasonable person will use the learned facts in the future.

Pro argues that the study done before a debate as not part of "debate." This is like arguing that competitive weightlifting is not an athletic pursuit, because most of the exercise is obtained in training. We are considering the whole of the debate activity, not just the time when the debate is held. Note that most debate is done in academic environments, where preparation is coached and reviewed as a requirement for participation. That's clearly educational.

2. I compared the educational process in a debate to a tutorial. Pro argues, "In the student's scenario, there questions that are brought forth are not for the purpose of debate, but for the purpose of understanding the issue at hand." It doesn't matter what the purpose of the questioning activity is, it is nonetheless educational. In fact, in a debate motivation is likely to be higher because the student wants to win the debate. It's comparable to a person who is lost being more likely to learn about reading his map than a student having an abstract lesson on map reading. The situations are different, by the motivation and focus needed for education are greater in a debate than in a class.

Pro asked some questions. I'm not sure why, because there is no guarantee I am a typical debater, but I will respond.

"When you accepted this debate, did you intend to learn anything?"

Yes. For example, I looked up information on the variety, extent, and value of high school and college debate programs. I didn't know that stuff. I expect to learn something from every debate.

"Do you feel there is anything on this topic, that you don't already know?"

Yes, certainly. For example, I still have not found the numbers of individual participants in academic debate programs.

"If so, what about debate do you find so fun?"

I am learning about the subject, improving my ability to reason and explain things, and teaching young whippersnappers things they need to know in order to take over society.

"Would you yourself, enter into a debate that you felt you only were half read-up on?"

Yes, certainly. I expect to read up on the other half.

"Is it true, that no matter what argument I bring up, you will try to your best ability make an counter-argument?"

No. Not ever. I agreed with you that debate is fun, but am arguing that it being fun doesn't imply that it should not be considered educational. In general, denying the obvious is a poor debate practice, because it undermines the credibility of your other arguments.

Apparently, Pro meant to argue that people are dogmatic, not ignorant. That's sometimes true -- the previously cited debate on health insurance company profits showed that as a clear example. Belief was proclaimed even though all the facts were contrary. It's also true that if a person is convinced they are wrong in a debate, they are not likely to admit it. The the person is likely to have learned something he won't admit. However debates with dogmatists educates reasonable people observing the debate both as to what the facts are and the tactics of presenting the arguments to people who cannot be convinced.

3.
A1. Pro agrees, "And even more, some even think that learning IS fun." So some activity made be purely educational for everyone in a class, then one guy gets to like it. At that point are we supposed to reclassify the activity as recreational, even though the activity itself didn't change? No, because we ought to judge activities as educational or not based on how much they educate, not what people feel about the activity in terms of enjoyment.

Note that the Army commissioned a PC game for the purpose of educating soldiers. It is sold commercially and bought by people who presumably play it for fun. So does that make it no longer educational? It is nonetheless used to teach.

A2. Pro argues, "Whether they are getting educated or not is irrelevant now, due to the fact that they are actually having fun, thus recreational." Whether something is educational can be measured objectively through tests. Fun is subjective. We ought to care whether something is educational or not, because many tasks require education. Therefore whether it is fun or not is irrelevant to the legitimate purposes of education.

A3. I seems to me Pro is agreeing activities such as debate can be both educational and recreational. Where we differ is that if any fun is involved then he insists it "should be considered a recreational, rather than educational." Why, exactly, cannot it be considered both? If one insists that anything with fun ought not be considered educational, then educational activities that are fun ought to be eliminated from school curricula. The school's objective is to educate, so it ought not foster activities that are not considered educational.

Pro claims, "But the point is, that in studying the topic of debate, you are becoming knowledgeable, which leads to the educational content of the person, rather than the debate itself. The debate is merely an argument of opinions already made on the facts that have been established." If that were true, then debaters would always give the same speeches, regardless of what their opponents said. That's not true. Debate teaches participants to think on their feet. They must analyze opposing arguments and point out logical flaws. That develops reasoning ability. Also, new facts presented may provoke additional research.

Pro claims that the people observing a debate "Except for in a judge's position, they are merely looking at the speaking skills of a debater, and seeing if they are knowledgeable on the subject." Pro offers no evidence in support of that claim, and the claim defies common sense. Why would someone bother watching or reading a debate solely to judge debate skills? To judge knowledge, an observer would have to know more about the subject than either participant, which is generally not true. Observers learn facts, learn lines of reasoning, and learn logical errors exposed during the debate.

We should all encourage activities like debate that are both educational and fun. The resolution would discourage any fun learning by dismissing it as merely recreational.
Debate Round No. 2
philosphical

Pro

1. I will say that my opponent makes a great point in this fact. However the plain and simple fact that is ignored, is that the ignorance factor is still in effect. If you will notice, in every single one of the debates my opponent has posted, the opponent attacked, and defended regaurdless. Let's compare this to a teacher trying to tell a student that copying his/her homework is bad. The student may agree with the fact that what they did was bad, but they're going to stand by what they did and defend themself with some lame excuse such as "I did it because YOU did not explain it properly enough", or " I didn't know how to do the homework, thus I am justified in the copying". If the individual doesn't believe that what they did was wrong, and will continue to do it, then what are they really learning? Same applies to a debate. If both individuals believe that that they are right, no matter what the scenario, and will re-frain from using the arguments that have been used against them as burden of proof, then it is simply common sense to say that they have learned essentially nothing.
Now granted there are a few individuals in a debate, who will submit that their oppoent is right, and simply give up.
However, if you looked at how many of those there actually are that would do this on that site, you would find very few in not none. And the ones who do such things usually don't feel like actually typing up an argument.
We need to look at debate as the whole. Virtually everyone, feels like they need to maintain there reputation as smart and cunning, and allowing an opponent a win by submitting themselves to being un-knowledgable, is highly unlikely.

As far as study before the debate. This should not even be considered, seeing as we are talking about the debate itself. What one already knows when going into a debate, is not learning. Learning is actually achieving knowledge through the process. As to your weightlifting comparison. Are you referring to the muscles gained while watching a weight competition, or muscle gained from the weight lifting in general? Because in this resolution we are strictly talking about the tournament in itself. So in that sense, If we are comparing how much muscles the weightlifter acheives during his actual competition, then yes, it would be quite the same, and previous muscles gained, should be deemed meaningless, seeing as they were not gained in the competition.

2. In response to my sudent/teacher scenario, my opponent replied that it didn't matter what the purpose of the questioning activity was. However, that makes no sense in referal to debate. Debate means you are clashing your opinions with an opponent, not simply asking questions, and having them answered. That situation would be seen as an educational one, because the student is learning beneficiary things, rather than arguing and opposing everything the teacher brings up, which would easily be considered debate.

In response to my opponents answer to my questions. Now these questions are going to be the ones that have most effect, following there answers. Seeing as I will not be able to respond after, I would like the audience to examine his answers in the next round carefully. If my opponet provides something of essence that he has learned, he is submitting to the fact that there may be issues in which he himself would say he is un-knowledgable on. This benefits the fact that he has put in the time and energy into showing that he cares enough about the debate, which can be narrowed down recreational. Why else would someone use their spare time to provide to study, unless they had to or they were generally intersted in doing so. Obviously my opponent didn't HAVE to respond to my argument, so seeing as he did respond to them, it shows that he sees this as an interesting oppertunity AKA recreational.

Q: When you accepted this debate, did you intend to learn anything?

A: Yes. For example, I looked up information on the variety, extent, and value of high school and college debate programs. I didn't know that stuff. I expect to learn something from every debate.

NEW Q: Okay, then if so, what would you say you have learned from this debate so far?

Q: Do you feel there is anything on this topic, that you don't already know?

A: Yes, certainly. For example, I still have not found the numbers of individual participants in academic debate programs.

NEW Q: Which means that you are generally interested in spending your time to find them, correct?

Q: Do you feel debate is fun? If so, what about debate do you find so fun?

A:I am learning about the subject, improving my ability to reason and explain things, and teaching young whippersnappers things they need to know in order to take over society.

NEW Q: So that means, you would agree that upon debating people, you become interested due to these principles?

Q: Would you yourself, enter into a debate that you felt you only were half read-up on?

A: Yes, certainly. I expect to read up on the other half.

NEW Q: Ah! So you would dedicate your time to looking up that other half then?

Q:"Is it true, that no matter what argument I bring up, you will try to your best ability make an counter-argument?"

A: No. Not ever. I agreed with you that debate is fun, but am arguing that it being fun doesn't imply that it should not be considered educational. In general, denying the obvious is a poor debate practice, because it undermines the credibility of your other arguments.

LAST Q: OH, so then based on what I have seen so far, and based on EVERY other debate you have been in, and with the arguments you have provided your opponents, you would say that this is fact?

Because from what I've seen, is that you've done just that. You've have done your very best to argue each and every single little point to the best of your ability, not only in this debate, but with every other debate you have been in (at least on this site). Therefore, I find it justified, to say that this claim is FALSE. Because if you are not willing to submit to a single argument, and say that you are, then that is what we call ignorance. And I am under the strong impression that every individual, including myself, obtains ignorance. And again, being ignorant is not a bad, thing, because all it does is show that you care enough about your beliefs to stand by them no matter what, although at least being opened minded enough about them.
It is easy to say that you would submit defeat to an argument, if it was logical enough to be dis-proven, but you have to look at the truth. Is this really the case? Would you really, just give up and say, "Your right..."? I can tell you the answer to that is no. We as humans will resort to a defence mechanism, and will find any other door to getting through that, which is possible, and eventually come up with an argument supporting their side. I hope these questions have showed the audience and my opponent this point is true. Because, as sure as I am standing here, I can guarantee every one that we shall hear and expect an argument from my opponent.

3.
A1. I can respond to this whole argument by simply asking: What seperates fun from learning?

The simply fact that fun is involved in the activity, show that the activity is recreational.

A2. But the plain and simple fact ignored here, is that regaurdless of the situation, the individual is having fun. How can this be looked at in any other way than recreational?

A3. My opponent brings up a very good point here. This being fact, I would like to ask the audience to ignore any facts brought up from either, regaurding education being recreational as well. My reason for bringing it up was simply to show that there is other possibilities from this debate.

Seeing as I am just about out of remaining characters, I would like to thank my opponent for providing such logical refutations. I have enjoyed this debate very much.
RoyLatham

Con

The resolution "Debate should be considered a recreational activity, rather than educational" presents a false choice. I compared it to "Tennis should be considered recreational, not exercise." Or how about, "Polar bears should be considered fuzzy, not carnivorous"? I admit that debate is generally fun, and hence recreational. That leaves at issue whether debate is also educational, and if so whether if it ought to be considered educational as well as recreational. Pro's sole affirmative contention is that debate is fun, and hence recreational. I agree, so that leaves only the two latter points to discuss.

My arguments that debate is educational are:

1. A debater must research the subject to prepare for the debate.

Pro admitted that preparation for debate is educational, but only the narrow definition of "debate," meaning the actual back-and-forth interchange ought to count as "debate." Pro's argument is called a "debater's point." It is an appeal to an unreasonable fine point. I'll leave it to the readers of this debate to decide if the "activity" of debate cited in the resolution ought to be so narrowly construed. By comparison, when we consider the exercise value of sports, we always consider the training as well as the execution of a competitive event.

2. The debater will learn facts and logical arguments from his opponent in the debate.

Pro argues that debaters rarely abandon their own arguments and accept their opponent's arguments. (He says that people are "ignorant," but he means to say that they are "dogmatic.") I agree that people only occasionally concede much during a debate, although I maintain that a good debater eventually learns to concede the obvious as a matter of boosting his credibility. But even if the debater refuses to formally concede a point, that doesn't mean he didn't learn something important. The next time he debates, he is less likely to make an assertion that is easily overcome by the facts or arguments he encountered in a previous debate. He learns whether he admits it or not.

Pro claimed, "Because from what I've seen, is that you've done just that. You've have done your very best to argue each and every single little point to the best of your ability, not only in this debate, but with every other debate you have been in (at least on this site)." Pro's statement is clearly false. His major point in our current debate is that debate is fun and therefore recreational. I conceded that at the outset, and I pointed that out to him before he made the claim that I disputed "every single little point."

3. The debater will learn to analyze opposing arguments and to develop logical refutations.

The debater is under pressure to respond to his opponent. The pressure is motivational, and motivation is critical to learning. The debater will try to remember what he knows about logical fallacies or the relevant facts and work them into a logical argument. I did not perceive Pro offering a rebuttal to this point, beyond the general observation that people are dogmatic. They are not dogmatic about their opponents arguments.

4. Educators have the expert opinion that debate is educational.

I cited the number and variety of debate programs supported as educational activities in academia. Pro offered no contrary opinion from qualified educators that debate is not educational or that it ought to be considered as only recreational.

5. The audience learns from debates.

While debaters either have firm opinions or are likely to posture certainty, the audience is far more likely to be open-minded. The audience will learn from the facts and logical arguments presented in the debate. Pro claimed that the people observing a debate "Except for in a judge's position, they are merely looking at the speaking skills of a debater, and seeing if they are knowledgeable on the subject." I challenged Pro to provide evidence supporting that claim, and failed to provide any." It is common sense that people watching or reading a debate are interested in the topic and will learn about it from the debate.

============

Debate is educational, but should it be "considered" only recreational? The job of schools is to provide education, not education. If the resolution is correct, then anything that is fun ought not be considered educational. That is then grounds for excluding it from curricula. So a teacher finds a way to teach an ordinarily boring subject so that it is fun, by the logic of the resolution it ought to be dropped. We would even run the danger that if a few students managed to think a subject was fun, then they would have to excluded on grounds that they were not being educated.

I gave as an example the development by the U.S. Army of a PC game that teaches real combat skills. Should commercial success of the game for fun purposes invalidate its educational use? Clearly it should not. We should seek approaches that are both educational and recreational. We should not stigmatize them with a label of "recreational, not educational."

In this debate I conceded every point that Pro made that I believed valid, most notably Pro's contention that debate is fun. I did not make any arguments that I did not believe to be true. I hope Pro enjoyed this debate and also learned something from it. I did.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by JohnnyFecker 7 years ago
JohnnyFecker
Go Roy Woo
Posted by JohnnyFecker 7 years ago
JohnnyFecker
Dont mock Roy
Posted by I-heart-Gandalf 7 years ago
I-heart-Gandalf
At first glance this debate looks rather spiffing.
it is infact crap
Posted by uptheduffer 7 years ago
uptheduffer
You guys are amazing :D
Posted by YourMamIsACrazyWhore 7 years ago
YourMamIsACrazyWhore
This debate is collecting weight.
Posted by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
At first glance it does not appear that the two are mutually exclusive.
Posted by Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
I would suggest that Debate is the most important educational activity in society and it is one of the best things that a person could do because it teaches the ultimate ability of getting people to agree with you and very few things in this world are more important I mean it doesn't matter how great your invention is or how true your mathematical proof is if you don't get people to agree with you the entire endevour was useless
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Good debate; clean and well argued on both sides.

C: tied.
SP/G: tied.
A: Con. Pro's assumption that both debaters will know everything there is to know about the debate topic is false.
S: tied.
Posted by lelanatty 7 years ago
lelanatty
right. a debate about debate.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
philosphicalRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Kahvan 7 years ago
Kahvan
philosphicalRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
philosphicalRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
philosphicalRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by DanteCloud 7 years ago
DanteCloud
philosphicalRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
philosphicalRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
philosphicalRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
philosphicalRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
philosphicalRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by lelanatty 7 years ago
lelanatty
philosphicalRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33