Debates are useful and essential for a civilised society

1. The "sharing of different views about topics" is not a debate. It may be the case that acquiring knowledge of other people's "view and perspectives" is "useful" and "essential," but a debate is not the ONLY way to acquire knowledge of different people, ideas, art, or concepts. If I were interested in sharing my view, I could simply write an article or blog, make a film, or find some other medium of expression. A debate is not necessary to share different views about topics, and therefore it is not essential. 2. There is no reason to believe (as my opponent claims) that a person would become "isolated" or "ignorant" without debate. It is possible to read books, attend classes, go to museums, travel to other countries, observe different cultures, or pursue other forms of learning without the need for debate. A debate is therefore not essential, since there are other ways to acquire knowledge. 3. A debate is not necessary to "discuss ideas," since discussion happens all the time without debate. A debate implies two opposed sides competing to prove their side is the correct one. A discussion in which two sides share their view does not require that either side attempt to prove their side is correct. It is possible to accept that others will have different views without having to prove their views are wrong through debate. I'll repeat the main point yet again: debates are not essential, since everything my opponent says debates are useful for can be accomplished through other means. 4. The fact that "evolution" is taught instead of "intelligent design" has nothing to do with debate - it has to do with the fact that "evolution" is considered "science" by the particular group of scientists (NAS) who determine what is science and what isn't. The use of debate was not necessary to determine this, since the scientists simply applied a classificatory system (is it strictly empirical?) to "intelligent design" and determined through that classificatory system that it was not science. 5. The Emancipation Proclamation was not developed through debate. It was developed through a change in beliefs that was the result of personal experience and rational thought. The change ultimately required war (not debate) to establish it as a political reality. A debate played no part in the emancipation of slaves in the United States. 6. When the Supreme Court established that segregation was unconstitutional, it was not the result of debate. It was the result of the interpretation (not debate) by experts in the field of constitutional law. The decision was ultimately rendered as a result of the interpretation each Justice makes on an individual basis - not on the basis of a debate. 7. A debate is not "essential" because "profound questions" can be asked without it. We can ask what truth is, or what beauty and love are, without debate. We can ask what a good life entails without requiring debate. The search for truth and meaning does not require debate, since we can think, learn and acquire knowledge, without debate. Plato used a method in his dialogues known as the dialectic, in which contradictions were worked out through dialogue to arrive at the truth. The dialectic, as a method, is not equivalent to debate, since a debate is formal and requires a vote to establish a clear winner. The truth can be pursued without creating winners and losers. 8. It may be the case that debates can be used to discuss the "implications" of "proposed legislation," but this does not make debates an "essential" part of being human. We would remain human beings without debate, since we would still be able to share different views with each other while continuing to pursue the truth. The resolution is negated.