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

Since I can't respond to you after round 5, good bye.This for you, from my heart <3:"At least I showed how it is useful. I do not have to show the "purpose" because that is not in the resolution."Yes, you "showed" how "useful" it is in a quite frankly unsubstantial and fallacious manner. And since the purpose of debate is "not in the resolution" then why were you bring it up?"Well good debaters don't do that and voters will catch them."Maybe "good" debaters don't do this, but are all debaters "good"? And you may have good intentions in the debate, but that doesn't mean you won't voluntary or involuntary do it.There are "good", honest intentions for/humane methods to kill others also, does that make it right?"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?You confirmed it, I never did actually say corrupt equals by definition separation. I simply stated a way in which I believe debate corrupts human beings."1. Debating is not usefulWhen did I overgeneralize? " Because I'm not simply saying "debating is not useful" which has no context for the way I'm using the word "useful" and what I'm applying it to."You have to prove debating is not since I already proved it is."You have not "proved" debating is a useful(1.advantageous, helpful, or of good effect) tool for society, you proved it was useful for you. I have explained multiple ways in which it does not have beneficial effects on society."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."You are making a hasty generalization by applying your experience to all the debates in the form of a fairly begging question. Also definition of corrupt =/= grounds for corrupt. "My opponent's argument goes like this:P1. The purpose of debate is to win.P2. People will deceive 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."This, quite frankly, is a straw man argument, my argument has been over-simplified to only 2 premises.My argument has much more premises then this and can not accurately be summarized like this. I also didn't say "The purpose of debate is to win" in any manner, I said this:"Debate is making the most convincing argument to prove your point right and the other person's point wrong."Where do I imply debatings purpose? It again, does not have a general purpose, saying it does doesn't help your argument either.Your response to p2 is based solely on anecdotal evidence, from yourself. This is dubious due to cherry-picked nature of the anecdote and the non-representative nature of the anecdote for typical cases. "My opponent's only source is some German book who knows what it says."Sorry about that, the hyperlink was removed."Seriously? Looking at your sources you specified, only one, a biased blog, says that. Stop trying to squeeze in extra sources!"Actually [4] and [5] support this by explaining/describing debate as an art of persuasion, to convince the crowd your opponent is wrong. Due to the fact that winning a debate doesn't make the proposition true, it leads to a false conclusion."Truth" as you call it is subjective. What is "true" is subjective."My opponent digresses into something completely irrelevant."My opponent's dropped arguments-Debating is not useful-Debating has no purpose-Definition of debate is conflict and discord"I did not have argument 1 (above) in the first place, the rest were addressed as far as I was concerned."My 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."Well honestly, I didn't refer some of them because I forgot :(But I still legitimately used them as a source of information. That is a really weird ad hominem/Tu Quoque fallacy by the way... Usually you try to discredit your opponent instead of 'you did it so it must be okay'.I'm also happy you used some of my sources, it shows you actually looked through them."Debate.com does not exist.There is a biased blog.Half of those were not used.She had Dictionary and there were no definitions."Debate.com was supposed to be debate.org...The blog is not necessarily biased (and what about anyway?), and the article supported its claims. This just serves to discredit my position with an ad hominem attack directed toward one of my sources. Also: Bias =/= unreliable.Since when do you have to refer every source in order to have used them all? I used dictionary to make sure my words were right. If it really bugged you then sorry."Basically my opponent went on Google and searched "debate" and cited everything she could find."When I search debate on Google, I find none of those sites on the first or second page.That is a very presumptuous claim.This attack of my sourcing mannerism seems like a desperate attempt to discredit me, under what grounds does my method of sourcing falsify my argument?And one biased blog? What makes the blog biased, and towards what? It definitely doesn't have a reputation as an anti-debate blog.-----------------------------------------Conclusion:-1So far my opponent has used many deceptive debating tactics which I have pointed out throughout the debate (whether intentionally or unintentionally is not known), this is counter productive for their arguments because, although this may not represent all debates, they are still, in part, activily demonstrating one of my points.My opponent has used multiple hasty generalizations, anecdotal arguments, inconsistency, false dichotomys, appeal to hypocrisy, misquotes, post hoc, detours and avoiding questions, exaggerated my position/over-simplified/straw man, ignored the proposition, and dimissed questions and arguments as "does not prove the resolution" when they themselves incited them.This according to my opponent, would mean they should lose a debate.I will dismiss the above, because athough it may be effective against my arguments to use these tactics, I've stopped caring.-2 Debating is not a useful tool for society and corrupt in context under my opponents definitions:"use·ful1. being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect: a useful member of society."Corrupt:1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity;crooked: a corrupt judge. 2. debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: acorrupt society.My opponent has not adequately counter meHowever, I have explained the ways debate is capable of causing harm and why it is not beneficial.As what I said before in round 4our remains, as I do not think is was substantially debunkled. Debating is not healthy for society because it seperates people into factions, this is not good for society as it does not affect social trust positively and .The goal of a debate is to win, not truth. This means it has the consequential effect of deceiving people by persuading them to believe based on win/lose. This is obviously not a good effect on society.Debating does not adequately reslove issues because of the above.Debating encourages deception.What does this mean?In short, "debate" is like when a bunch of old dudes in a room talking about "important" things yip-yappering about stuff except one of them gets a prize for it. No semantics about that bull-chip.I rest my case, on my opponents shoulders.