The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The purpose of a debate is to win, not to present the truth.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 612 times Debate No: 67697
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




To get the ball rolling I would like to start off with a few words to state my position. My goal is not to put down my fellow contender nor his/her opinions, furthermore I neither wish to put down the con side of this debate all together. My purpose is to debate and convey my point in this debate. Also though I don't believe debating its self is supposed to present the truth, that doesn't mean I will lie nor will I stray from the truth. I will try to stray as far away from lying as humanly possible. On a final note my opinion is not based off of any opinion of another individual. The idea for this debate was, but my opinion remains mine. Any facts I use outside of that will be given credit where credit is do. Good luck to my fellow debater and excuse me if I make any mistakes as I am learning how to debate.


In some cases people will only want to present the truth just prove a point. Also an a debate is just a discussion with others in public view. There really is no winning or losing.
Debate Round No. 1


To begin my argument I would like to present a few definitions

Debate: a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

Contest: 1. a race, conflict, or other competition between rivals, as for a prize.

2. struggle for victory or superiority.

Competition: the act of competing; rivalry for supremacy, a prize, etc.:

Competing: to strive to outdo another for acknowledgment, a prize,supremacy, profit, etc.; engage in a contest
All definitions were taken from

A reoccurring definition here is that there is a "battle or struggle" if you will for a prize (in this case winning a debate). So to give a good wholesome definition of debate I would use this; a debate is a competition in which debaters argue contrasting points in order to have the views scored and a winner emerge. Since debating is a form of competition (from which the definition above says is a rivalry for supremacy) debating was obviously made for winning.

To say debating is not made to win is much like saying a court case is not meant to have a winner. Lawyers argue with facts (regardless of whether their facts are absolutely, 100% true or not) not in order to present truth, but to do whatever it takes to make their client win.

I leave with a final question for you to think about. That I will answer in the next round. If debates were not made to win then why is it in many debate competitions people often have to argue for a side they don't even believe is true themselves?

I again wish CON the best of luck in this debate and offer thanks for accepting this debate


Then how about when Martin Luther king jr. came and spoke out against segregation. he knew he probably wouldn't. Yet he spread the truth about African American people being equal to Caucasian people. That is the biggest reason why he spoke to show others instead of trying beat Caucasian people he wanted to peacefully show the error in the way the society was built.
Debate Round No. 2


Your point, although correct, is irrelevant. That was a speech not a debate. And let's say for example that was a debate, MLK was trying to win civil rights for colored skin.

Back to my last argument. The reason people are sometimes forced to be on a side of a debate they don't agree with at a competition is because the point of debating is to win. It is a competition thus a winner and loser emerges unless there is a tie.


Dragonclaw forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Hakoda forfeited this round.


Sorry for missing the last debating period. I was attempting to survive AP world history. Back to the topic at hand Something that should be considered is can you win the debate if there really wasn't any proof or truthfulness to what is being presented. As for the earlier argument I meant that Martin Luther king Jr. was trying to get a point across rather trying win one tiny argument or debate he spread the word. Sometimes debates can be used to spread the to those who don't know about the way you see things. Thank you for debating with me and I hope that you prosper in future debates.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
religious debating defined
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by warren42 1 year ago
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's Round 3 arguments won argumentation. Everything else was tied.