The Instigator
jump
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
alpaca
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Online debates are better than real life debates

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 10/9/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,873 times Debate No: 13332
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

jump

Pro

In today's debate, the aff must prove that online debates are a better source of practice than debates in real life.

Definitions
Better: more beneficial
Real life debates: my partner and I define real life debates as debates that actually physically occur. Also, real life debates must include a judge, opponents, and must actually finish. If a round does not finish or include a judge, it is not even considered a real round. This is because if a person just gives a speech and leaves, then it is just a speech, with no actual debating.

Framework: The negative side must include all the parts that are included in a real-life debate. For example, the neg must take into consideration the time spent traveling to the topic, or setting up the debate round. This is a logical framework because when considering whether something is better, you as the judge must consider how much work goes into preparing a round and whether or not it contributes to the overall effect.

Contention 1: Online debates allow for more analysis
In a online debate, the two participants are allowed more time to think of their contentions in the actual round. This lets online debaters more time to think and comprehend their opponent's arguments before actually having to give a speech against it. However, in real debates, debaters only have a limited amount of time to think of arguments, which leads to less benefits for both sides. As a result, people do not actually get a lot of practice refuting and analyzing their opponents arguments; instead, they are forced to stand up and give a speech without much time to prepare or the ability to review their arguments. At the end of the day, the participants in the online debates are left off worse and with less practice than if they had done an online debate.

Contention 2: The time it takes to prepare a physical debate is not worth it.
Remember back in the framework that our opponents must consider what goes into preparing an actual round. For example, in an actual physical debate, the debaters must first make sure that the debate can take place at a time and a place that is convenient for both of them. Also, you as the judge also have to consider the time and money that it takes in order to prepare the debate. For example, at a debate tournament, all schools must pay an entry fee, get judges, organize the tournament, provide food, and take care of many other things that are just a drain on money. Looking at the example of a debate tournament, we can see that at the end of the day, a person only gets three rounds of practice. Also, that person pretty much uses the entire day in order to get only three rounds of debate done. Conversely, looking at the time it takes to participate in a tournament, people could have gotten many rounds done online, considering the amount of time and resources that are spent on a real tournament. For example, if the people that were to participate in a real tournament were to spend all that time doing an online debate instead, its easy to conclude that those people would be able to get a lot more rounds done, with a lot more practice.

Contention 3: online debates give a higher quantity of practice.
In an physical debate, all of the debaters must stay for the entire duration of the round. This is bad because then the round takes up a large portion of time, which does not allow for the debate to be held at many times of the day. Also, the debaters must also make sure that their schedule does not interfere with the debate round. This leads to less practice because people are unable to hold as many debates. In an online debate however, the participants are allowed to post their speeches whenever they want. For example, a debater could post their speech and then go eat dinner, as I have just done. Another example would be that debaters could post a speech then have the rest of the day to think of refutations and new arguments, which ties in with contention 1. As a result, more practice is gained by both sides because debaters are given a much more ample time span to think of their arguments and refutations.

Contention 4: online debates give a higher quality of practice
Subpoint A: Online debates exercise all the same skills as a real debate.
A main benefit of online debates is that it exercises the same skills as an actual physical debate. Both sides practice arguments, refutations, and analysis. The only benefit that physical debates give is speaking practice. However, this is not necessary for two reasons. First of all, a person can become a better speaker by taking a speech class or doing an event that involves more speaking. Second, a debate does not even improve speaking very much. A debate focuses on refutations and analysis, which we have already proven to be better exercised in an online debate. In a physical debate, speaking is only used as a method to get the point across, not as an actual debating skill.
Subpoint B: people can get help and critique from others
In an online debate, people can see what others people from all around the world think about their debate. They can get critiques from their coaches, as well as helpful points from other people. In addition, the result of a debate is much more equal and much more helpful. This is because the winner of the debate can be decided by many people. In a physical debate, people are limited to critiques from only a few judges, and whoever happens to be watching the round.
Subpoint C: Online debates allow for practice against many different people.
People who rely on physical debates are unable to practice against different people. More practice would be achieved if people constantly debated different people. However, physical debates are limited in the sense that people are stuck debating the same people over and over again. For example, at a school, there is a very small pool of opponents to practice against. After a person has debated everyone else in the school, the only way to get more practice would be to go out of the way to debate people from other schools, or from a long distance away. Online debates solve this problem because pretty much every debater has a access to the internet. This allows people to debate all kinds of people from every location. For example, two people living on the opposite sides of the US would be able to have a debate online, while if they wanted to do it physically, it would be much harder. In addition, people would be able to go up against some of the best debaters around, with less hassle. For example, if the greatest debater in the world lived in Europe, not many people would be able to debate against him or her in the US. However, using the handy invention of online debating, people would be able to practice online against that person. Also, online debates allow for practice against many different types of debating styles.

Because of this, we can see that online debates are better than physical debates, and we urge an affirmative ballot.
alpaca

Con

I would like to do this debate in public forum format, I shall write a 'case,' and then we shall have a question 'round'

Contention 1: Debates in Real Life provide necessary life skills.
To debate in real life, you must maintain eye contact with your judge, you must have proper hand gestures, etc. If you were to talk to somebody for say a job interview, for example, if you couldn't maintain eye contact, and you were constantly fiddling with your fingers, you would come across as a shy, bashful individual. Furthermore, debating in real life requires for you to be calm, and to maintain your composure when all you want to do is yell at your opponent at the top of your lungs. You must resist the urge to speak out against them and shout back just as loud as they were. You also learn respect and manners. If you are a male and debating a female, you must respect them and be polite. Being rude and showing no etiquette will get you nowhere in debate. This can also be applied to real life. If you're a rude and obnoxious individual, less people will like you.

Contention 2: Spur of the moment
In a Public Forum debate round, each team gets a total of two minutes for prep time. This means that for the majority of the speeches, you have to be a quick on your feet, you have to create your speech as you say it. Tying back to contention 1, this is also a relevant life skill, at least once or so, you'll be put into a tight situation, and you'll have to make something up on the spot. You don't get an opportunity to research what you don't know, you have to know everything already. Yes, you have more time to prepare your speech with more analysis in an online debate, but it doesn't compare to making your speech up in a matter of seconds based on the notes you took earlier.

Contention 3: A Real Life Debate is more engaging.
In an online debate, you submit speech after speech with no direct contact with a person online that you're debating with. The judges are voters who are people that happen to come upon this debate. In a real life debate, you actually meet these people, the judge, and the opposition. You get to directly communicate with the opposition in cross x's, and often times these get 'heated.' You argue back and forth non stop until the time runs out. Once again tying back to my first contention, interaction in person greatly improves your speaking skills. Debating online is nothing compared to debating in person. Once your debate is over, you go up to the opposition, thank them for the debate, and leave. Even if you didn't win the round, you still interacted with people, and were engaged in this debate the entire time, rather than writing a speech, waiting two days for your opponent's response, then writing another speech.

Therefore, I strongly urge a negative vote on today's ballot.
Debate Round No. 1
jump

Pro

In this speech I will be going over my opponent's points and why they are wrong. Then I will be going over my points and why you should vote affirmative.
My opponent accept my framework, which means that whenever my opponent talks about actual debates, he accepts the burden that there is a lot of unnecessary work involved in setting up a physical debate.
In contention one, my opponent would have you believe that debate makes you a better mannered person. However, my partner and I have two responses to this.
The first response is that debate does not improve your personality. Debate makes people argumentative above all else, as that is the point of debate. Also, the actual benefits that my opponent brings up, such as being calm or maintaining composure is better obtained by other methods. For example, other regular speech events such as Dramatic Interpretation improve composure far better than arguing with another person.
The second response is that online debates improve the actual main points of debate. My opponent brings up small and irrelevant benefits from physical debate. However, he does not consider the main skill that is being improved when debating. The most important skill of all for any debater to have is analysis. Debates are created in order to improve analysis, not to improve being calm, or maintaining composure, as my opponent brings up. If what my opponent said were true, then it would be like saying that reading a book is beneficial because it works out your biceps when you hold the book up. Because of this, it's reasonable to say that the point of debate is to improve analysis and thinking of answers to opponents' arguments. While both online debates and physical debates do improve analysis, online debates are better because they allow more flexibility and more rounds to take place in the same amount of time, as I've explained in my first case.
In contention 2, my opponent brings up the benefit of thinking on the spot that real life debates bring. However, there are three responses to this.
The first response is that thinking on the spot is not actually a major life skill. The only instance that I can think of where people would be forced to think on the moment would be to lie or make something up. However, my opponents provide no examples of either of these situations where it would be beneficial. He says in his speech that making up a speech in a short time span is a good thing, yet does not provide any examples that apply to real life.
The second response is that even if thinking on the spot is a good life skill, physical debates do not train this skill. In a round, people must deal with the shortened time span that they are given. As a result, every single debater comes prepared with pre-written blocks and cards. In an actual round, they are just essentially stringing together blocks with transition words.
The last response to this is that other events train thinking on the spot better than debate. As I've proven in the second response, debates do not actually train thinking on the spot. If a person wanted to improve how well they thought on the spot, then they would do other events such as Impromptu and Extemp. Events such as these are actually made in order to improve how well a person can make a speech in a short amount of time.
My opponent's last contention is about how real debates are more engaging.
First of all, my opponent provides no benefits from engaging other people in an actual debate. While talking with other real people is nice, my opponents provide no example of how this improves debate skills or can help in the future. All my opponent does is say, "You can talk to real people," while giving it no impacts or analysis.
The second response is that online debates allow for more time with other people. As I've brought up in my first case, real rounds take a large amount of time and commitment to set up and prepare. However, by doing online debates instead of physical debates, a person would be able to have more time to actually do the things that they want, such as hanging out with friends or researching debate. If anything, if you as the judge really do care about this point about engaging with other people, then you would vote for the affirmative side because online debates allow for more time to enjoy with other people.
In conclusion, if you actually want the benefits that my opponent brings up, then you should vote for the affirmative, because that's what online debates improve. We urge an affirmative ballot.
alpaca

Con

As a brief road map, I will first refute my opponent's rebuttal and then I shall refute his contentions.

Firstly, in response to my opponent's framework, he states that this is 'unnecessary work' but the time that goes into setting up a debate will eventually pay off, as having an opponent and judge with you in the room greatly improves the quality of the debate, as stated in my case (see round 1)

My opponent states that debating doesn't improve your personality, and instead of making you a calm person, it makes you argumentative. He brings up that other speech events such as Dramatic Interpretation will better make you a calm and well composed person, but he doesn't give any examples, other than the fact that it is not a debate event. However, he doesn't mention that in a real life debate, it is crucial to maintain your calm and composure under the provocations of debating back and forth with a person, instead of an online debate where you type your round, wait two days, get a response, then type your next round. Getting argumentative in a debate will get you nowhere, the judge will instantly mark you down.

Furthermore, he states that the main point of debate is analysis. Yes, analysis is needed in order to debate, but debate consists of more parts. To be a good debater, not only do you need analysis, you need speaking abilities such as being able to speak at a good volume, speaking while maintaining eye contact, speaking with consistency, and as I brought up in an earlier contention, you must be able to think on the spot . Yes, while a debate online will provide a better 'analysis' you do not get the proper real life speaking skills that are only attainable in a physical debate.

My opponent states that 'thinking on the spot is not actually a major life skill.' Yes, it's not a major life skill but it's definitely a good life skill to have. While lying is one example, think about something as simple as telling someone a made up story. You must make up this story by thinking on your feet; you don't get two days to create a plot with surrounding details. While your story may not be as good as a story which you had two days to create, your story will please the audience nonetheless.

He also mentions that physical debates do not train this skill, because debaters come prepared with written blocks and skills. I quote, "In an actual round, they are just essentially stringing together blocks with transition words." Coming up with a speech 'on the spot' is not merely "stringing together blocks with transition words". In order to influence the judge that you are correct, you must provide a convincing speech, which can only be done with analysis. Speaking on the spot is easier said than done. He gives an example stating that Extemp. would provide better training for speaking on the spot. However, in Extemp, you get 30 minutes to prepare your speech as well as to research, and so this is pretty much the same as pre-written blocks, therefore a physical debate will provide the same 'training.'

Now, I shall go over my opponent's contentions.
In his first contention, he states that online debates allow for more analysis, since you get a bigger time frame to give your next 'speech' or round. However, I have already proved that analysis isn't the only skill you need in order to become a good debater(see above). You must be able to think on the spot, to maintain eye contact, to have good speaking consistency, etc. Therefore, a physical debate is better.

In his second contention, he says that the time required to set up a physical debate is not worth it. This is not a key issue, because scheduling a debate is not very difficult, it takes around one hour, and only on one day. He brings up that money is also an issue, because as a debater you are required to pay entry fees, and to pay for food. As a debater, you don't have to debate in a tournament; in a tournament you will only get a set number of rounds (ie four rounds in my League I tournament). If I want to debate, I will set up a debate with somebody else, and debate at a public location, rather than having to pay for a tournament. You can get far more rounds by debating practice rounds, and you will get better as a debater by doing more debates. Food is a trivial expense, it's not like if you didn't go to a tournament you wouldn't have to eat.

Lastly, my opponent brings up that online debates give both a higher quantity of practice and a higher quality of practice. He says that a debate round takes a large amount of time, and since you must stay for the entire duration of the round, online debates are better. Usually a debate round takes around an hour, so with 24 hours in a day and 168 hours in a week, I'm pretty everyone can spare an hour of their life. He also states that online debates exercise the same skills as an actual physical debate, which I have refuted above.

Therefore, and for all these reasons, we urge a negative vote on today's ballot.
Debate Round No. 2
jump

Pro

Due to my mistake in setting up this round, this will be a summary and final focus mashed up into one.

At the end of today's round, both of our arguments have come down to two areas: what benefits physical debates bring and what benefits online debates bring.

The first main issue is the benefits of physical debating. There are two points within this issue.

In his rebuttal, my opponent once again brings up the small little skills that he says are trained by physical debates. However, he has failed to refute my point about how these little skills do not make physical debates better than online debates. Improving these small skills does not outweigh the benefits that people gain from online debates. As we have stated in our first speech, online debates improve analysis skills far better than physical debates, while allowing far better practice with many more kinds of people. My opponent has failed to refute this point, and this is a reason why the affirmative should win.

The second point is about the disadvantages of physical debates. In my opponent's speech, he does not refute the fact that physical debates are simply not worth the time it takes to set up. My opponent attempts to refute this by vaguely stating that physical interaction makes everything worth it.

Since my opponent does not refute either of these points, we win on this issue

The second area of this debate is the benefits of online debates.

The first main point in this issue is the quantity of practice that is given by debate. In his rebuttal my opponent claims that physical debates do not take a long time to set up. However, he has failed to refute the main point of my argument, which is that since online debates allow for greater flexibility and fewer restrictions, online debates are better. While practice rounds to take less time to set up than rounds at a tournament, my opponent has not proved why these practice rounds are better than an online debate. Also, even though my opponent states that practice rounds would only take an hour or so to set up, he has failed to refute my main point. In the same amount of time, more online debates could have taken place.

The second point is the quality of practice given by online debate. Online debates improve analysis above all else; all these small skills that my opponent brings up are like saying that writing is good because it works out your wrist. Throughout this round, my opponent has failed to refute the point that online debates allow practice against people from all around the country, rather than in one localized area. Online debates would allow debates against every single debating style in the country, as well as access to the best debaters around. However, my opponent fails to realize that even if practice debates take little time to set up, they would be against the same people over and over again. Looking to Leland High school as an example, if practice debates were to be set up, everyone would run the exact same contentions, while facing the exact same rebuttals. The only way to face different styles of debating would be in a tournament, and my opponent has actually agreed with me that tournaments are not worth the time it takes to set up.

At the end of the round, my partner and I have refuted our opponent's rebuttal, so our case still works. However, my opponent has still failed to prove why the small little benefits he brings up make physical debates better than online debates. Therefore, since online debates provide better practice than physical debates, we urge an affirmative ballot.
alpaca

Con

alpaca forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by starvard 6 years ago
starvard
jumpalpacaTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by alpaca 6 years ago
alpaca
jumpalpacaTied
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 
Vote Placed by adealornodeal 6 years ago
adealornodeal
jumpalpacaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by jump 6 years ago
jump
jumpalpacaTied
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:30