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

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: In conflict or competition with a specified or implied subject (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