The Instigator
OakuraSchool
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
firestorm
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

That debating is a waste of time

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
OakuraSchool
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,132 times Debate No: 37326
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

OakuraSchool

Pro

Debating is obviously a waste of time for many reasons:

--It cuts into kid's precious learning time making them loose valuable skills. There are also many extra sporting opportunities you could be doing to keep fit.

--It creates loads of arguing everywhere which can easily escalate to physical violence.

--It teaches kids to talk back and argue.

--In online debating it keeps people glued to the computer instead of being outside with friends keeping healthy. Studies show that people who spend more time on the computer have reduced real life social skills.
firestorm

Con

My opponent has made a few errors in his argument.

“The topic that has been chosen is that debating is a waste of time”.

These are his opening arguments.

  1. 1. Kids loose valuable skills.
  2. 2. Debating can escalate into violence.
  3. 3. It teaches kids to talk back and argue.
  4. 4. People suffer loss of health and social skills.

He insists that debating will degrade your mind and your health; it is actually quite ironic that he is debating this topic.

Contention 1

--It cuts into kid's precious learning time making them loose valuable skills. There are also many extra sporting opportunities you could be doing to keep fit”

This is a flawed statement, debating is a considered a healthy way to open your mind and fine tune and sharpen your lingual skills. Debating requires you to engage in a battle of knowledge testing your opponent’s statement and arguments.

“Making them loose valuable skills”

This excerpt is fatally wrong; to be an adept debater or even a debater it requires you to have certain skills such as understanding of the language and punctuation that you are debating in. Having avid knowledge of the topic you wish to debate, or having the ability to understand and internalise facts of the topic. Therefore how does debating cut into kids learning time when debating is a learning tool itself.

http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg...

Contention 2

Debating is not a gateway for violence and misconduct.

Debating can be misconceived as being just an argument; however debating has been described as a form of argument with strict rules and conduct with quite sophisticated arguing techniques. To participate in an actual debate you must uphold politeness and refrain from abusing your opponent. If you are just stabbing at the person you are debating then it is clearly not a debate. The definition of a debate is this, A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward”. Putting an emphasis on formal discussion.

I will now address the points my opponent has made about this contention. “He has said that it creates loads of arguing everywhere which can easily escalate into physical violence”. If we look at my definition we can see that a debate cannot and will not escalate into physical violence.

He has also said that “it teaches kids to talk back and argue”. Again we can see from my previous contention that there are a set of rules of conduct that must be followed when debating, and the putting emphasis on the definition of formal discussion. A debate doesn’t teach kids to talk back and argue, this is a part of a Childs nature and there is ways to deal with that but the root of that cause cannot be linked back to debating.

Forms of child back talk.
http://www.empoweringparents.com...#

Why children back talk
http://www.fisher-price.com...;

Contention 3
Debating cannot cause health issues.

In my opponents last topic he seems to be focused on the biological issues that debating or online debating to be more specific. He states that online debating, it keeps people glued to the computer instead of being outside with friends keeping healthy”. Let’s use this site for an example, you have the ability to pick your debates or create your own, this site does not force you into debating all the time. If you do participate in a debate there is a time limit of at least 2 days giving you the option to break up the development of your argument. Like many addictions it’s a behavioural problem the person has a problem with being on the computer rather than being stuck on debating. This argument doesn’t meet his topic nor will make his resolution.

http://www.indiana.edu...

To make another note about this contention “Studies show that people who spend more time on the computer have reduced real life social skills”. Again how does this show that debating is a waste of time, it shows that being on the computer is a waste of time and is a burden on your health.

In Closing

My opponent has not been able to state why debating is a waste of time. My argument poses many reasons why debating is good not a waste of time. My opponent seems lost in the argument, stating many facts about health rather than the topic at hand.

Debate Round No. 1
OakuraSchool

Pro

My opponent said this:

"to be an adept debater or even a debater it requires you to have certain skills such as understanding of the language and punctuation that you are debating in. Having avid knowledge of the topic you wish to debate, or having the ability to understand and internalise facts of the topic."

That is not true at all. Many people on online debating are just people wanting to start an argument, while the few good natured people are just wasting their time.

Looking over the internet I found this:
http://www.shoeboxblog.com...
I think it explains online debating thoroughly and truly.

I also found a few quotes:

cymry3jones said on "uk.answers.yahoo.com" that "it [debating] can have a negative effect" and goes on explaining many of her own bad personal experiences with debating.
Dave an administrator on "www.decorumcomics.com" said "Online debating is all in the opposition. Too stupid and nothing meaningful happens, so it's boring. Too smart and you're outgunned every time you type a word. Happy media, that's what you need." He is absolutely right.

Skawesome also said on the same thread on "www.decorumcomics.com" that "you end up in an argument with an idiot. Then the webmaster gets rumors about death threats and your favorite forum gets shut down because adults revert to acting like children when politics/religion/beliefs get involved in a semi-anonymous arena. Yes this actually happened to a small forum I used to frequent."

As you can see there are many people who think debating is a waste of time and are correct in thinking that way.
firestorm

Con

firestorm forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
OakuraSchool

Pro


Before I begin I would like to point out that my opponent agrees with my argument. He forfeited the last round, opting to use his time wisely instead of wasting it on online debating.

The dictionary definition of debating is ‘an argument generally formalised’. Emphasis on generally. A debate does not necessarily have to be formalised, so that means any argument is a debate. And a lot of the time when someone starts an argument with someone else it is for no particular reason. They might be bored or they might be bratty people. So they go around arguing (debating) with everyone making everyone go into a negative mood.

On the internet I found a quote about online debating:

On ‘http://www.decorumcomics.com...; Arancaytar said “Rather than mitigating their emotions, debaters are frustrated by the impossibility of raising their voice, and compensate by using stronger language and hardening their tone on the whole.

The negative sentiment is very much amplified by the isolation of messages: Rather than immediate rapport of face to face conversation, the debater is alone while reading the text and equally alone while formulating their response. No feedback mitigates their interpretation of the text, leaving them to draw their own (usually the most aggressive) conclusion. At the same time, the frustrating inability to interrupt the other debater while reading a text they disagree with is compensated by being all the more merciless in their rebuttal.

Which ultimately means that any of two (the most common) approaches to internet debate are doomed to failure:

1.) Believing that your job in the debate is to argue until everyone else agrees or shuts up. (the idiot approach)

2.) Ignoring the frustration and latent aggression that the lack of non-verbal communication channels can cause. (the approach of people who can debate offline, but mysteriously fail online)” I believe he is right.

firestorm

Con

firestorm forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
OakuraSchoolfirestormTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had more arguments and counter-arguments as Con FF.