The Instigator
yuiru
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
1dustpelt
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Debating is not a useful tool for society and is corrupt.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
1dustpelt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,913 times Debate No: 23702
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

yuiru

Pro


I have come to the conclusion that debating, is a waste of time, money, should not be used as a way to solve issues, or a way to come to conclusions.

Here is my arguement:

Points:

-Debating leads to misrepresention of facts and lying for the sake of winning/proving your point. This is not good for a healthy society.

-Debating has no purpose, it does not aim to improve society. In fact, I would say it corrupts society and human beings by specifically separating humanity into "sides of the debate" and characterizes people based on what opinion they hold.

-Think about it, by definition debating is conflict and dischord.
Its own definition shows it is a lack of harmony and only serves to deter peaceful encounters between human beings.

-Debating is a competition between two groups of people to make the best argument. It doesn't solve problems it picks a side and then favors it, it does not help everyone come to terms it just attempts to convince the undecided.

Common objections:

You are debating yourself!! / You can't be serious...

This is an Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacy.

This serves only to discredit the point of view by simply asserting my failure to act in accordance with my position that debating is wrong. Never does it actually prove the argument false.

Thus it is just an ad homenim arguement.

Debating helps solve social problems, is on the news, and reforms opinions.

Thats like saying smashing property solves problems because it helps you relieve stress.

In truth, their are healthy ways to solve problems, and unhealthy ways.
Debating is not a healthy way to solve problems.

Similarly, there are healthy ways to express yourself as well.

If not debating, then what?

There are many healthy, better ways to solve problems and get your point across.

Conflict resolution
Mediation
Neogtiation
Meetings
Speeches
Peer-review

Conclusion

In short, "debate" is a euphemism for verbal conflict which is just a non-physically violent action against fellow humans, that should be legally or atleast morally considered a crime against humanity and/or hate speech.

I rest my case.
1dustpelt

Con

I will accept.

Burden of Proof
My opponent has to Burden of Proof. He/she has to prove that debating is

1. Not useful
2. Corrupt

Rebuttals
"Debating leads to misrepresention of facts and lying for the sake of winning/proving your point. This is not good for a healthy society."
Misrepresentation of facts? Lying? That is why you must have sources. Lying would cause you to lose the debate.

"Debating has no purpose, it does not aim to improve society. In fact, I would say it corrupts society and human beings by specifically separating humanity into "sides of the debate" and characterizes people based on what opinion they hold."
It's purpose is to provide evidence and discuss issues. Sides of the debate? Even without debates people would still have opinions.

"Think about it, by definition debating is conflict and dischord. Its own definition shows it is a lack of harmony and only serves to deter peaceful encounters between human beings."

Debating - A discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
Nowhere do I see conflict and dischord.

"Debating is a competition between two groups of people to make the best argument. It doesn't solve problems it picks a side and then favors it, it does not help everyone come to terms it just attempts to convince the undecided."
Convincing people and presenting evidence is helping people. It solves problems with the evidence and proof.

"There are many healthy, better ways to solve problems and get your point across.

Conflict resolution
Mediation
Neogtiation
Meetings
Speeches
Peer-review"

That is a self-refuting argument! All of your points you made apply to those as well!

"In short, "debate" is a euphemism for verbal conflict which is just a non-physically violent action against fellow humans, that should be legally or atleast morally considered a crime against humanity and/or hate speech."
I really do not see how presenting evidence and discussing opinions is "violent".

Contentions

Contention 1: Issues
Debating settles issues by using evidence and logic. Otherwise, would we rather have one person deciding all the issues?

Contention 2: What else?
What else could we use?

Conclusion
Debating helps and does no harm to society.

Sources
http://dictionary.reference.com...


Debate Round No. 1
yuiru

Pro

I would like to thank 1dustpelt to the highest possible degree for choosing to debate with me.

Re-rebuttals



I disagree.

First off

"Misrepresentation of facts? Lying? That is why you must have sources. Lying would cause you to lose the debate."

That is why when debating you must use subtle techniques like: citing biased/irrelevant/or unreliable sources, lie by omission, minimisation, use of fallacious arguments, fabrications, propaganda, exaggerate truth, use of half-truths, puffery, straw man arguments, and various other tactics are intentionally (and sometimes unintentionally) utilized in order to persuade the audience.

"It's purpose is to provide evidence and discuss issues."

According to you, a debate is:

  • A discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints

Nowhere in your definition is the purpose of a debate given.

"Sides of the debate? Even without debates people would still have opinions."

Your point?
People can also have opinions and not be characterized or put in a group for it without debates.

"Nowhere do I see conflict and dischord[sic]. "
*my fault for the typo*
conflict:
-Be incompatible or at variance; clash
Discord:
-Lack of agreement or harmony between things

"Debating - A discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints:
a debate in the Senate on farm price supports." -
Very Awesome Person

Opposing:

  1. In conflict or competition with a specified or implied subject
  2. (of two or more subjects) Differing from or in conflict with each other

"Convincing people and presenting evidence is helping people. It solves problems with the evidence and proof."

I feel like this is kind of a hasty generalization, there are many cases when people convince people using ill mannered tactics and evidence that is not sufficient.
Evidence and proof can and are misleading. This is because not all evidence and "proof" is actually well supported or solid. -Take anecdotal evidence for an example.
And even when the evidence is accurate and factual, tactics can still be used to twist or manipulate it to mislead others.

"That is a self-refuting argument! All of your points you made apply to those as well!"
Let’s take conflict resolution for an example.

How I would define conflict resolution:
"seeks to resolve the incompatibilities of interests and behaviours that constitute the conflict by recognizing and addressing the underlying issues, finding a mutually acceptable process and establishing relatively harmonious relationships and outcomes."

This does not happen in debating, there is no resolving, just competition. In this sort of discourse you find harmony with both sides, which is the total opposite of debating.
Mediation and negotiation are very similar so I'll skip them.

Meetings:
Unlike a debate, in a meeting you communicate with others as a whole to discuss the issue at hand.
There is no voting for the "superior" opinion, all opinions are heard.
It is not a competition.
Speeches:
In a speech, you are simply stating your opinion and maybe getting questions at the end.

There is no discourse.

Peer-review:
Your statements are evaluated, corrected, and processed for any mistakes and called out for bias and claims without substantial evidence.
Nothing like debating.

Also a self-refuting argument is an argument that refutes itself, not an inconsistency fallacy when you dismiss facts that counteract the intentions of making the argument.

"I really do not see how presenting evidence and discussing opinions is "violent"."
I meant fervid, not physically violent, and I never said that was violent.

"Contention 1: Issues
Debating settles issues by using evidence and logic."
I would mostly say that’s untrue. If debating settles issues, then why have things been debated multiple times where both sides have won at least once and the issues still persist.
In debating, you do not settle issues; you try to persuade people one perspective on the issue is better. There is also the fact that debating is not always a reliable way settle an issue in the first place.

If you accept a perspective solely because someone defending it won a debate is frankly, not faced with the high scrutiny need to settle an issue. Why? Because that same person who won could lose in another debate, because debating is a competition and is voted on base on how persuasive they are. An analogy I would use to portray this is that -just because a sport team wins one game, doesn't mean they are suddenly the best team.

"Otherwise, would we rather have one person deciding all the issues?"
That is a false dichotomy; I refuse to accept this part of the contention.

"Contention 2: What else?
What else could we use?"

I'm guessing you were not satisfied with my last list?

Nonviolent Communication
facilitation
Conciliation
Consensus decision-making
Active listening

1dustpelt

Con

Sorry, I barely have any time, I will rush.


"That is why when debating you must use subtle techniques like: citing biased/irrelevant/or unreliable sources, lie by omission, minimisation, use of fallacious arguments, fabrications, propaganda, exaggerate truth, use of half-truths, puffery, straw man arguments, and various other tactics are intentionally (and sometimes unintentionally) utilized in order to persuade the audience."
My opponent gives no proof that debating is lying and misrepresentation of fact. If you do, you lose points for that.

"According to you, a debate is:
  • A discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints
Nowhere in your definition is the purpose of a debate given."

The definition of eating is also:
eating present participle of eat (Verb)
Verb:
  1. Put (food) into the mouth and chew and swallow it: "he was eating a hot dog"; "she watched as he ate".
  2. Have (a meal): "we ate dinner in a noisy café".

Nowhere in there is a purpose either.

"Your point?
People can also have opinions and not be characterized or put in a group for it without debates."
So you are saying that people should remain silent or just say it? Debating is just saying your opinions and arguing in an organized fashion.

"conflict:
-Be incompatible or at variance; clash
Discord:
-Lack of agreement or harmony between things"

Disagreeing does not mean lack of harmony. My opponent makes debating seem like a shouting match.

"Debating - A discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints:
a debate in the Senate on farm price supports." -Very Awesome Person"
Okay, so people are not allowed to disagree with each other? Anything involving opposing viewpoints is bad?

"I feel like this is kind of a hasty generalization, there are many cases when people convince people using ill mannered tactics and evidence that is not sufficient."
Then they lose points.


"How I would define conflict resolution:
"seeks to resolve the incompatibilities of interests and behaviours that constitute the conflict by recognizing and addressing the underlying issues, finding a mutually acceptable process and establishing relatively harmonious relationships and outcomes."

This does not happen in debating, there is no resolving, just competition. In this sort of discourse you find harmony with both sides, which is the total opposite of debating.
Mediation and negotiation are very similar so I'll skip them."
Yes there is resolving. You can use a debate to resolve issues.

"Meetings:
Unlike a debate, in a meeting you communicate with others as a whole to discuss the issue at hand.
There is no voting for the "superior" opinion, all opinions are heard.
It is not a competition."
So what is the point? All opinions heard, now lets leave.

"Speeches:
In a speech, you are simply stating your opinion and maybe getting questions at the end."
Yes and then people disagree and make opposing speeches.

"I would mostly say that’s untrue. If debating settles issues, then why have things been debated multiple times where both sides have won at least once and the issues still persist."
Because different people have different arguments.

"If you accept a perspective solely because someone defending it won a debate is frankly, not faced with the high scrutiny need to settle an issue. Why? Because that same person who won could lose in another debate, because debating is a competition and is voted on base on how persuasive they are. An analogy I would use to portray this is that -just because a sport team wins one game, doesn't mean they are suddenly the best team."
Yes, so there are multiple debates.

"Non violent Communication"
Okay, speaking issues, then leaving. No point. If you are talking about discussing, then that would be self-refuting because you said above that anything with opposing viewpoints is bad. Say debates where banned and there is a presidential meeting instead of debate. The candidates say their ideas and leave. No arguing. The audience is left with empty choices with no evidence or proof.

"facilitation"
Defined as "Making an action or process easier".
I do not see how that is relevant.

"Conciliation"
To obtain or gain. Isn't that what debates do?

"Consensus decision-making"
Okay so people come and vote and agree. No arguing. No evidence or proof is presented, people are just voting strictly on their opinions.

"Active listening"
You listen to someone. No arguing, evidence, or proof. No point.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
yuiru

Pro


Firstly I'd like to apologize for my slowness

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On the note that the definition of eating states no purpose.

Eating can be for simply pleasure or to make yourself full.

Why is that relevant?

My initial point was debating does not have this one "goal" or "purpose".


"Disagreeing does not mean lack of harmony. My opponent makes debating seem like a shouting match."

Oh touché!

Well actually, that is contradictory to the definition of harmony, in at least this context.

"Okay, so people are not allowed to disagree with each other? Anything involving opposing viewpoints is bad? "
No, just not in the form of debating. And I never said "not allowed" I said it was corrupt and immoral though.



"Then they lose points."

Not if nobody notices... but what exactly do you even mean by that? They lose points, for what exactly?

"Yes there is resolving. You can use a debate to resolve issues."

Okay... How is there finding a solution in debating? I guess it might be possible to do that... but would it be part of the debate? I'm not sure I can see that.
Debating is practically arguing with each other and seeing who has the best arguments. That's why you can "Win" a debate.
How exactly is that finding a solution or settling a dispute? And if it really is resolving anything, its definitely not a good way to.

"Because different people have different arguments."
Well then its not adequately settled if not everyone's argument is heard, it's not very efficient either.

"Non violent Communication"

"Okay, speaking issues, then leaving.No point."

Not necessarily.

"If you are talking about discussing, then that would be self-refuting because you said above that anything with opposing viewpoints is bad."
I do not recall saying anything with opposing viewpoints is bad.

Say debates where banned and there is a presidential meeting instead of debate. The candidates say their ideas and leave. No arguing. The audience is left with empty choices with no evidence or proof."

Arguments are not the same as debates, debates simply involve arguments.
They could still present evidence and proof without arguing anyway.

"'facilitation'
Defined as "Making an action or process easier".

I do not see how that is relevant."
Have you not heard of a facilitator involved in a conflict or disagreement?

"'Conciliation"
To obtain or gain. Isn't that what debates do?"

Conciliation is the action of mediating between two disputing people or groups, that is definitely not what debates do.

"'Consensus decision-making'
Okay so people come and vote and agree. No arguing. No evidence or proof is presented, people are just voting strictly on their opinions."


Not necessarily.

"'Active listening'
You listen to someone. No arguing, evidence, or proof. No point."

According to wikipedia (the all-knowing) Active listening is,
"a communication technique. Active listening requires the listener to understand, interpret, and evaluate what they hear. The ability to listen actively can improve personal relationships through reducing conflicts, strengthening cooperation, and fostering understanding."

What makes it have, "No arguing, evidence, or proof" as you say?


And have you ever actually seen your nose running? Also, what exactly would a fly be down about?
1dustpelt

Con

I will try to make it quick.

Clarifications and Definitions

The Burden of Proof
My opponent has to prove three things:
1. Debating is not useful
2. Debating is corrupt

What is the purpose of debating and why is it useful?
Debating develops awareness. When I first came here I was very ignorant and stupid(I must say I still am). After coming here and watching other peoples' opinions, I actually understand other positions now. You take a position and your opponent challenges it from many points of view. If you can defend the position and you find that it has no logical inconsistencies and there are no contradictions, you can focus on that position with totally decisive awareness that cannot be shaken. With a debate, you present arguments and try to prove your point. (1)

The Definition of Corrupt

Guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge. (2)


Analysis of my Opponent's Argument
Let us deeply analyze my opponent's points. I will restate my opponent's points from round 1.

-Debating leads to misrepresentation of facts and lying for the sake of winning/proving your point. This is not good for a healthy society.

My opponent goes on to say that, "That is why when debating you must use subtle techniques like: citing biased/irrelevant/or unreliable sources, lie by omission, minimisation, use of fallacious arguments, fabrications, propaganda, exaggerate truth, use of half-truths, puffer, straw man arguments, and various other tactics are intentionally (and sometimes unintentionally) utilized in order to persuade the audience."

But the point is, if they do that, they lose the debate. They are not supposed to do that and that is not what debating is.

-Debating has no purpose, it does not aim to improve society. In fact, I would say it corrupts society and human beings by specifically separating humanity into "sides of the debate" and characterizes people based on what opinion they hold.

I showed the purpose of debate above. Even if it did separate people, that is not by definition what "corrupt" is.

-Think about it, by definition debating is conflict and discord.
Its own definition shows it is a lack of harmony and only serves to deter peaceful encounters between human beings.

Dropped argument after I provided the definition.

-Debating is a competition between two groups of people to make the best argument. It doesn't solve problems it picks a side and then favors it, it does not help everyone come to terms it just attempts to convince the undecided.

Does not prove anything in the resolution.

Rebuttals
"On the note that the definition of eating states no purpose.
Eating can be for simply pleasure or to make yourself full.
Why is that relevant?"

It is relevant because you were saying debating has no purpose because the definition of debating does not state its purpose.

"Well actually, that is contradictory to the definition of harmony, in at least this context."
I will drop the lack harmony argument, but in no way would that help you because lack of harmony =/= corrupt.

"No, just not in the form of debating. And I never said "not allowed" I said it was corrupt and immoral though."
SERIOUSLY!? DISAGREEING IS CORRUPT AND IMMORAL?!?!

corrupt: Guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.

immoral:
violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.



How is disagreeing corrupt and immoral? Besides, it is impossible for humans to all agree on everything. Is it immoral for me to disagree on which movies is the best?

"Not if nobody notices... but what exactly do you even mean by that? They lose points, for what exactly?"
They lose the debate. And people do notice, they are not idiots.

"Okay... How is there finding a solution in debating? I guess it might be possible to do that... but would it be part of the debate? I'm not sure I can see that.
Debating is practically arguing with each other and seeing who has the best arguments. That's why you can "Win" a debate.
How exactly is that finding a solution or settling a dispute? And if it really is resolving anything, its definitely not a good way to."
Irrelevant, does not prove the resolution.

"Well then its not adequately settled if not everyone argument is heard, it's not very efficient either."
Is it possible for everyone's argument to be heard? No. Again, irrelevant, does not prove the resolution.

I will not negate Pro's list because that is not in the resolution and not being argued.


Sources
1. http://www.berzinarchives.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
yuiru

Pro

Sorry again for that, I understand you will be going on vacay soon so I will go ASAP with my post.

G

"The Burden of Proof
My opponent has to prove three[sic] things:
1. Debating is not useful
2. Debating is corrupt"

That's two but I will do so anyway.

First to your arguments:

"What is the purpose of debating and why is it useful?
Debating develops awareness. When I first came here I was very ignorant and stupid(I must say I still am). After coming here and watching other peoples' opinions, I actually understand other positions now. You take a position and your opponent challenges it from many points of view. If you can defend the position and you find that it has no logical inconsistencies and there are no contradictions, you can focus on that position with totally decisive awareness that cannot be shaken. With a debate, you present arguments and try to prove your point. (1)"

This mostly sounds post hoc and cherry picked from confirmation bias. This doesn't sound like its stating the purpose of debating either, it sounds more like an anecdote trying to promote debating. Even if this anecdote was true for most cases this simply gives a resultant of debating not an actual purpose.

Also I'm sure there are many other ways to "develop awareness".


"you can focus on that position with totally decisive awareness that cannot be shaken."

This sounds vague, what do you mean by "totally decisive awareness".

"They are not supposed to do that and that is not what debating is."

Maybe they aren't "supposed" to do such things, but many do; both intentionally and out of belief it actually proves their points. This means its up to the opposing side to point this out, but they aren't always aware of this and/or do it themselves. Also, what makes it sure they will lose the debate for this? They may win according to the votes, and they can, will, and have.[1]

Also, I wasn't saying that is what debating IS, I was saying that is what it may tend to actuate.[2]

"I showed the purpose of debate above. Even if it did separate people, that is not by definition what "corrupt" is."

Sorry, but I believe you did not adequately do so.

Also, when did I claim such a thing in the first place?

"It is relevant because you were saying debating has no purpose because the definition of debating does not state its purpose."

If I ever said debating never has a purpose, I take it back.
Nevertheless, I'm quite sure of my self that I didn't say "debating has no purpose because the definition of debating does not state its purpose." I was however saying that debate (in reply to you) does not have a purpose as you were claiming. Maybe that was based on an equivocational error?

See, debate doesn't have a [general] purpose, but a debate can and probably does is what I'm saying.
Actually... Deja vu... I think I've actually already elaborated on this, in fact I remember telling you what I actually meant before. I guess it is originally my fault for not being specific in the first place.

"SERIOUSLY!? DISAGREEING IS CORRUPT AND IMMORAL?!?!"

Haha, now you seem excited. :D
No, I think you may have misunderstood me, I was just saying (again) that I think debating is corrupt and immoral.
I'll write more elaborately.

"They lose the debate. And people do notice, they are not idiots."

This may be true sometimes, but not everyone notices.
There is another factor too, just because they "are not idiots" doesn't mean they are fool proof.
I would say this is especially true when you are in person and may not have the time to closely analyse both debtor's arguments and what have you.

"Irrelevant, does not prove the resolution."

Well, it was relevant to responding to your rebutt, questions, and claims.
That is a detour, but if you insist.

Okay back to proving, or you saying I have to prove "1. Debating is not useful" and "2. Debating is corrupt"
Also I want to apologize for not addressing this earlier as I was sidetracked.

1. Debating is not useful

You are over-generalizing my position, therefore I will not set out to prove this straw man concoction.

2. Debating is corrupt

It can easily be said that the main point in a debate is to win.
Debate is making the most convincing argument to prove your point right and the other person's point wrong.[5][4]
This is quite obviously not intended for the pursuit of truth.
It is not an attempt to understand and explore each point of view with an open mind, it is trying to prove the other person wrong.[10][5][11][6][9]
People deceive themselves and others in order to win.[1]
Because of the nature of debating, it causes people to act dishonestly for personal gain, that is, superiority over the competition. It's common in political, religious, commercial, and other types of debates.

Debating leads to false conclusions.[11][5][4]
Debating deceives people in this way. It comes to conclusions based solely on winner/loser rather than truth.
Just because the argument was "superior" doesn't mean the proposition is true.
This does not adequately resolve issues.

Which is

Source:
      1. Eristische Dialektik: Die Kunst, Recht zu Behalten
      2. The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation, by Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder §§ 3-5 §§1-20
      3. http://www.johntreed.com...
      4. http://homeworktips.about.com...
      5. http://www.literaryanddebating.com...
      6. http://www.learnquebec.ca...
      7. http://johnnydepp.soup.io...
      8. http://www.actdu.org.au...
      9. http://www.sodahead.com...
      10. http://newsok.com...
      11. http://loveablerogue.wordpress.com...
      12. http://www.debate.com...
      13. http://www.debatingsociety.ca...
      14. http://dictionary.reference.com...




1dustpelt

Con

Thanks for posting.

"This mostly sounds post hoc and cherry picked from confirmation bias. This doesn't sound like its stating the purpose of debating either, it sounds more like an anecdote trying to promote debating. Even if this anecdote was true for most cases this simply gives a resultant of debating not an actual purpose.

Also I'm sure there are many other ways to "develop awareness"."
At least I showed how it is useful. I do not have to show the "purpose" because that is not in the resolution.

"Maybe they aren't "supposed" to do such things, but many do; both intentionally and out of belief it actually proves their points. This means its up to the opposing side to point this out, but they aren't always aware of this and/or do it themselves. Also, what makes it sure they will lose the debate for this? They may win according to the votes, and they can, will, and have.[1]"
Well good debaters don't do that and voters will catch them.

"Also, when did I claim such a thing in the first place?"
In round 1. "Debating has no purpose, it does not aim to improve society. In fact, I would say it corrupts society and human beings by specifically separating humanity into "sides of the debate" and characterizes people based on what opinion they hold." Remember now?

1. Debating is not useful
When did I overgeneralize?



use·ful  [yoos-fuhl] Show IPA



adjective

1.

being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect: a useful member of society.



2.

of practical use, as for doing work; producing material results; supplying common needs: the useful arts; useful work.

You have to prove debating is not since I already proved it is.



2. Debating is corrupt

"This is quite obviously not intended for the pursuit of truth.
It is not an attempt to understand and explore each point of view with an open mind, it is trying to prove the other person wrong.[10][5][11][6][9]"
I do not agree. If so, why is it that I have changed several views because of debate? Even if it is, that is not the definition of corrupt.

"People deceive themselves and others in order to win.[1]
Because of the nature of debating, it causes people to act dishonestly for personal gain, that is, superiority over the competition. It's common in political, religious, commercial, and other types of debates.
Debating leads to false conclusions.[11][5][4]
Debating deceives people in this way. It comes to conclusions based solely on winner/loser rather than truth.
Just because the argument was "superior" doesn't mean the proposition is true.
This does not adequately resolve issues."

My opponent's argument goes like this:

P1. The purpose of debate is to win.
P2. People will decieve and do dishonest practices in order to win.
C. Debating is corrupt.

P1. I agree, I will not argue that.
P2. Really? Out of all the debates I have read on DDO I have only found 3-4 debates like that. In which the dishonest person lost every one. The thing is people are not that stupid. Most people do not do that, if they do, voters notice. My opponent's only source is some German book who knows what it says.
C: Without P2, C is useless.

"Debating leads to false conclusions.[11][5][4]"
Seriously? Looking at your sources you specified, only one, a biased blog, says that. Stop trying to squeeze in extra sources!

Debating deceives people in this way. It comes to conclusions based solely on winner/loser rather than truth.
Just because the argument was "superior" doesn't mean the proposition is true.
This does not adequately resolve issues.
"Truth" as you call it is subjective. What is "true" is subjective.

My opponent's dropped arguments
-Debating is not useful
-Debating has no purpose
-Definition of debate is conflict and discord


My opponent's sources?
My opponent has been squeezing in random sources. Voters please notice this. Half of the sources she did not use. If she is going to do that I might as well do that too.

Debate.com does not exist.
There is a biased blog.
Half of those were not used.
She had Dictionary and there were no definitions.

Basically my opponent went on Google and searched "debate" and cited everything she could find.

Sources.
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.literaryanddebating.com...
http://www.johntreed.com...
http://newsok.com...
http://www.sodahead.com...
http://www.debate.org...





Debate Round No. 4
yuiru

Pro

Since I can't respond to you after round 5, good bye.

This for you, from my heart <3:

"At least I showed how it is useful. I do not have to show the "purpose" because that is not in the resolution."

Yes, you "showed" how "useful" it is in a quite frankly unsubstantial and fallacious manner. And since the purpose of debate is "not in the resolution" then why were you bring it up?

"Well good debaters don't do that and voters will catch them."

Maybe "good" debaters don't do this, but are all debaters "good"? And you may have good intentions in the debate, but that doesn't mean you won't voluntary or involuntary do it.
There are "good", honest intentions for/humane methods to kill others also, does that make it right?

"In round 1. "Debating has no purpose, it does not aim to improve society. In fact, I would say it corrupts society and human beings by specifically separating humanity into "sides of the debate" and characterizes people based on what opinion they hold."Remember now?

You confirmed it, I never did actually say corrupt equals by definition separation. I simply stated a way in which I believe debate corrupts human beings.

"1. Debating is not useful
When did I overgeneralize? "

Because I'm not simply saying "debating is not useful" which has no context for the way I'm using the word "useful" and what I'm applying it to.

"You have to prove debating is not since I already proved it is."

You have not "proved" debating is a useful(1.advantageous, helpful, or of good effect) tool for society, you proved it was useful for you.

I have explained multiple ways in which it does not have beneficial effects on society.

"I do not agree. If so, why is it that I have changed several views because of debate? Even if it is, that is not the definition of corrupt."

You are making a hasty generalization by applying your experience to all the debates in the form of a fairly begging question. Also definition of corrupt =/= grounds for corrupt.


"My opponent's argument goes like this:

P1. The purpose of debate is to win.
P2. People will deceive and do dishonest practices in order to win.
C. Debating is corrupt.

P1. I agree, I will not argue that.
P2. Really? Out of all the debates I have read on DDO I have only found 3-4 debates like that. In which the dishonest person lost every one. The thing is people are not that stupid. Most people do not do that, if they do, voters notice. My opponent's only source is some German book who knows what it says.
C: Without P2, C is useless."

This, quite frankly, is a straw man argument, my argument has been over-simplified to only 2 premises.
My argument has much more premises then this and can not accurately be summarized like this.

I also didn't say "The purpose of debate is to win" in any manner, I said this:
"Debate is making the most convincing argument to prove your point right and the other person's point wrong."
Where do I imply debatings purpose? It again, does not have a general purpose, saying it does doesn't help your argument either.

Your response to p2 is based solely on anecdotal evidence, from yourself. This is dubious due to cherry-picked nature of the anecdote and the non-representative nature of the anecdote for typical cases.

"My opponent's only source is some German book who knows what it says."

Sorry about that, the hyperlink was removed.

"Seriously? Looking at your sources you specified, only one, a biased blog, says that. Stop trying to squeeze in extra sources!"

Actually [4] and [5] support this by explaining/describing debate as an art of persuasion, to convince the crowd your opponent is wrong. Due to the fact that winning a debate doesn't make the proposition true, it leads to a false conclusion.

"Truth" as you call it is subjective. What is "true" is subjective."

My opponent digresses into something completely irrelevant.

"My opponent's dropped arguments
-Debating is not useful
-Debating has no purpose
-Definition of debate is conflict and discord"

I did not have argument 1 (above) in the first place, the rest were addressed as far as I was concerned.

"My opponent's sources?
My opponent has been squeezing in random sources. Voters please notice this. Half of the sources she did not use. If she is going to do that I might as well do that too."

Well honestly, I didn't refer some of them because I forgot :(
But I still legitimately used them as a source of information. That is a really weird ad hominem/Tu Quoque fallacy by the way... Usually you try to discredit your opponent instead of 'you did it so it must be okay'.

I'm also happy you used some of my sources, it shows you actually looked through them.

"Debate.com does not exist.
There is a biased blog.
Half of those were not used.
She had Dictionary and there were no definitions."

Debate.com was supposed to be debate.org...

The blog is not necessarily biased (and what about anyway?), and the article supported its claims. This just serves to discredit my position with an ad hominem attack directed toward one of my sources. Also: Bias =/= unreliable.

Since when do you have to refer every source in order to have used them all? I used dictionary to make sure my words were right. If it really bugged you then sorry.

"Basically my opponent went on Google and searched "debate" and cited everything she could find."

When I search debate on Google, I find none of those sites on the first or second page.

That is a very presumptuous claim.

This attack of my sourcing mannerism seems like a desperate attempt to discredit me, under what grounds does my method of sourcing falsify my argument?

And one biased blog? What makes the blog biased, and towards what? It definitely doesn't have a reputation as an anti-debate blog.
-----------------------------------------
Conclusion:

-1
So far my opponent has used many deceptive debating tactics which I have pointed out throughout the debate (whether intentionally or unintentionally is not known), this is counter productive for their arguments because, although this may not represent all debates, they are still, in part, activily demonstrating one of my points.

My opponent has used multiple hasty generalizations, anecdotal arguments, inconsistency, false dichotomys, appeal to hypocrisy, misquotes, post hoc, detours and avoiding questions, exaggerated my position/over-simplified/straw man, ignored the proposition, and dimissed questions and arguments as "does not prove the resolution" when they themselves incited them.

This according to my opponent, would mean they should lose a debate.

I will dismiss the above, because athough it may be effective against my arguments to use these tactics, I've stopped caring.

-2

Debating is not a useful tool for society and corrupt in context under my opponents definitions:

"use·ful
1.

being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect: a useful member of society."


Corrupt:
1.


guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity;crooked: a corrupt judge.

2.
debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: acorrupt society.

My opponent has not adequately counter me

However, I have explained the ways debate is capable
of causing harm and why it is not beneficial.

As what I said before in round 4our remains, as I do not think is was substantially debunkled.


Debating is not healthy for society because it seperates people into factions, this is not good for society as it does not affect social trust positively and .

The goal of a debate is to win, not truth. This means it has the consequential effect of deceiving people by persuading them to believe based on win/lose. This is obviously not a good effect on society.

Debating does not adequately reslove issues because of the above.

Debating encourages deception.


What does this mean?

In short, "debate" is like when a bunch of old dudes in a room talking about "important" things yip-yappering about stuff except one of them gets a prize for it.
No semantics about that bull-chip.


I rest my case, on my opponents shoulders.


































































1dustpelt

Con

Thank you for posting. I have exactly 2 hours to post.

"Yes, you "showed" how "useful" it is in a quite frankly unsubstantial and fallacious manner. And since the purpose of debate is "not in the resolution" then why were you bring it up?"
You brought it up. But whatever, that argument is useless because it is not in the resolution.

"Maybe "good" debaters don't do this, but are all debaters "good"? And you may have good intentions in the debate, but that doesn't mean you won't voluntary or involuntary do it."
Nobody is forced to lie and use ill tactics.

"There are "good", honest intentions for/humane methods to kill others also, does that make it right?"
Debating is not hurting anyone. Your only argument about debates being bad are that people can lie and use ill tactics, but without those it is not hurting anyone.

"Because I'm not simply saying "debating is not useful" which has no context for the way I'm using the word "useful" and what I'm applying it to."
So what do you want to argue then? I proved debating is useful by the definition, and now you are saying that it is not what you meant? Unless you define otherwise, the standard dictionary definition applies.

"You have not "proved" debating is a useful(1.advantageous, helpful, or of good effect) tool for society, you proved it was useful for you."
Not for me, for debaters, therefore for society.

"This, quite frankly, is a straw man argument, my argument has been over-simplified to only 2 premises.
My argument has much more premises then this and can not accurately be summarized like this."
No, it is not a straw man. Look at your arguments in R1. Yes, there are also arguments about debating not being useful, but that summarization was about the corrupt argument.

"Actually [4] and [5] support this by explaining/describing debate as an art of persuasion, to convince the crowd your opponent is wrong. Due to the fact that winning a debate doesn't make the proposition true, it leads to a false conclusion."
Convincing people =/= False conclusion.

"My opponent has used multiple hasty generalizations, anecdotal arguments, inconsistency, false dichotomys, appeal to hypocrisy, misquotes, post hoc, detours and avoiding questions, exaggerated my position/over-simplified/straw man, ignored the proposition, and dimissed questions and arguments as "does not prove the resolution" when they themselves incited them.
I have not. I trust the audience to decide this.

"Debating is not a useful tool for society and corrupt in context under my opponents definitions:

"use·ful
1.

being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect: a useful member of society."


Corrupt:
1.
guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity;crooked: a corrupt judge.
2.
debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: acorrupt society.

My opponent has not adequately counter me

However, I have explained the ways debate is capable
of
causing harm and why it is not beneficial.

As what I said before in round 4our remains, as I do not think is was substantially debunkled."

Notice how my opponent uses the word capable. Of course, anything is capable of causing harm. My opponent's only argument of why debating is corrupt is that people use ill manered tactics. However, I showed that people do not always do that, they lose points, and as a result, people do not do that. People are not supposed to do that and that is what a debate is. According to my opponent's logic, cars are bad because people can potentially run people over. Computers are bad because people can potentially hack bank accounts.



"The goal of a debate is to win, not truth."
Aha! And you were going, "No, I did not say the purpose of a debate is to win" a while ago! You lose conduct!

"This means it has the consequential effect of deceiving people by persuading them to believe based on win/lose. This is obviously not a good effect on society."
Convincing people =/= decieving(lying)


"Debating is not healthy for society because it seperates people into factions, this is not good for society as it does not affect social trust positively and ."
Okay, you have repeated that 3 times already.


Conclusion
My opponent has failed her BOP that:

1. Debating is not useful(completely dropped)

2. Debating is corrupt





Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
Lose, therefore I win!
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
@waterskier Yeah, so what if I'm a hypocrite? Would a murderer be incorrect saying, "murder is wrong" because they are a hypocrite?
Posted by waterskier 4 years ago
waterskier
I hope this is a joke debate. If not then you are a hypocrite
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
For future reference:
A goal (effort) is not the same as purpose (reason for existing)
Capable means in disposition or predisposed to something specified (the way I was using it).
I did not say that convincing = deception or false conclusion.
Something involuntary is not forced, it is unintentional.
Posted by caveat 4 years ago
caveat
This is incredible.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
I apoligize, but please try to post quicker because I will go on vacation in 4 days and I want to finish this. (No computer on vacation)
Posted by yuiru 5 years ago
yuiru
@Nur-Ab-Sal
I am a hypocrite, I didn't join debate.org on the basis of my beliefs or logical thinking, but for personal entertainment.
@socialpinko
A performative contradiction is committed only when the proposition conflicts with the presuppositions of affirming it. Where does my argument meet this criterion?
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
No someone took it :O
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
Im so tempted.... :3
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
look at his activities on his profile
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
yuiru1dustpeltTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think that both sides made very convincing arguments and I congratulate Pro for even bringing up this debate in the first place. Though Pro made some very convincing points, these points do not show how debating is always corrupt, and I will have to give this one to Con. Congratulations to both of you though. At least there are some people on here who aren't idiots. Haha.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
yuiru1dustpeltTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I believed the confrom the start, I voted for him because The affirmative government did make a good opening statement, and brought up strong points, but was cought up in hypocricy. Not the hypocricy of the fact that she's actually debating, but the hypocricy of what she was sying. In the end, the affirmative was arguing for the fact that anything that shows how people have different opinions is immoral, and the neg succeeded in showing the hypocracy of the pro
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
yuiru1dustpeltTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I will vote later, by my scan though it seems pro won as con had very short rebuttals, he would quote 3 lines and sometimes have one line to refute it. I will vote later.