This reminds me of No Game No Life, if any of you have watched that anime, except with debate instead of games. If everything was decided through logical, reasoned argument then we wouldn't have to resort to violence to resolve conflicts. We wouldn't have war if national boundaries were drawn based upon the strength of the debaters' contentions. It would also encourage people to be more informed about issues and develop the ability to argue clearly and persuasively.
War and violence is arguably human nature. It doesn't justify the horrendous things countries, organizations, and people have done over the course of human history, but it's natural. I sometimes like to think that we could just resolve problems through a sports game or political debate, but let's think about why we have war in the first place: strength. Intimidation. To scare our enemies. Who would want to go against someone they would 9/10 lose against? Would you go up to your much-stronger bully? Maybe if you were being brave and courageous, but I imagine you wouldn't... That is, until you become stronger! Then there is more war. And it goes on and on and on. I think we have definitely progressed in world peace, at least compared to 20th centuries and before, but it is still a problem.
Theoretically, a political debate would be the best way to solve our disputes, almost like a court case. Even a sports game would be better than war, but a political debate is by far the best way to go. However, the loser would still be pissed, and could easily turn to violence. While this would be much better and I do hope we can achieve this one day, we are picturing utopia in this peaceful scenario.
The debates over the question, "Does God exist" have proven nothing. Have we solved this problem? Have people switched sides or changed their minds because there was a debate?
Which language will you debate in?
I posit that the world leaders should have a boxing match to decide the winner of a war so that the casualties of war are reduced to 1.
An initial reason government intervened into the decision is simple: the collision of different opinions. As everyone has different opinions, no opinion could fulfill the need of another, in another word, there isn't such opinion that can satisfy everyone. That is why a government system was implemented; to reflect on majority's opinion through election so that it could satisfy at least the majority.
But if a decision merely depends on a person's opinion, it would be really vulnerable and time-consuming.
The reason is that the method of 'debating' is basically saying that we will have to listen to every person's opinion in order to select out the best and most convincing. That would be ridiculous(excuse my language). And how would someone win the debate, when there is not even a judge-everyone will say they are right, and we will have to convince them in order to win. But that is ENDLESS.
By the way, the method of debating was found in ancient Greek culture where they tried to realize the true definition of democracy- but they failed. And as a development, the election method was implemented, which are found to be working at least better than the old democracy(in which everyone contributes to decision.