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

Thanks for posting."This mostly sounds post hoc and cherry picked from confirmation bias. This doesn't sound like its stating the purpose of debating either, it sounds more like an anecdote trying to promote debating. Even if this anecdote was true for most cases this simply gives a resultant of debating not an actual purpose.Also I'm sure there are many other ways to "develop awareness"."At least I showed how it is useful. I do not have to show the "purpose" because that is not in the resolution."Maybe they aren't "supposed" to do such things, but many do; both intentionally and out of belief it actually proves their points. This means its up to the opposing side to point this out, but they aren't always aware of this and/or do it themselves. Also, what makes it sure they will lose the debate for this? They may win according to the votes, and they can, will, and have.[1]"Well good debaters don't do that and voters will catch them."Also, when did I claim such a thing in the first place?"In round 1. "Debating has no purpose, it does not aim to improve society. In fact, I would say it corrupts society and human beings by specifically separating humanity into "sides of the debate" and characterizes people based on what opinion they hold." Remember now?1. Debating is not usefulWhen did I overgeneralize? use·ful   [yoos-fuhl] Show IPA adjective 1. being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect: a useful member of society. 2. of practical use, as for doing work; producing material results; supplying common needs: the useful arts; useful work.You have to prove debating is not since I already proved it is. 2. Debating is corrupt"This is quite obviously not intended for the pursuit of truth.It is not an attempt to understand and explore each point of view with an open mind, it is trying to prove the other person wrong.[10][5][11][6][9]"I do not agree. If so, why is it that I have changed several views because of debate? Even if it is, that is not the definition of corrupt."People deceive themselves and others in order to win.[1] Because of the nature of debating, it causes people to act dishonestly for personal gain, that is, superiority over the competition. It's common in political, religious, commercial, and other types of debates.Debating leads to false conclusions.[11][5][4]Debating deceives people in this way. It comes to conclusions based solely on winner/loser rather than truth.Just because the argument was "superior" doesn't mean the proposition is true.This does not adequately resolve issues."My opponent's argument goes like this:P1. The purpose of debate is to win.P2. People will decieve and do dishonest practices in order to win.C. Debating is corrupt.P1. I agree, I will not argue that.P2. Really? Out of all the debates I have read on DDO I have only found 3-4 debates like that. In which the dishonest person lost every one. The thing is people are not that stupid. Most people do not do that, if they do, voters notice. My opponent's only source is some German book who knows what it says.C: Without P2, C is useless."Debating leads to false conclusions.[11][5][4]"Seriously? Looking at your sources you specified, only one, a biased blog, says that. Stop trying to squeeze in extra sources!Debating deceives people in this way. It comes to conclusions based solely on winner/loser rather than truth.Just because the argument was "superior" doesn't mean the proposition is true.This does not adequately resolve issues."Truth" as you call it is subjective. What is "true" is subjective. My opponent's dropped arguments-Debating is not useful-Debating has no purpose-Definition of debate is conflict and discordMy opponent's sources?My opponent has been squeezing in random sources. Voters please notice this. Half of the sources she did not use. If she is going to do that I might as well do that too.Debate.com does not exist.There is a biased blog.Half of those were not used.She had Dictionary and there were no definitions.Basically my opponent went on Google and searched "debate" and cited everything she could find.Sources.http://dictionary.reference.com...http://www.literaryanddebating.com...http://www.johntreed.com...http://newsok.com...http://www.sodahead.com...http://www.debate.org...