Debate should be considered a recreational activity, rather than educational

The resolution is "Debate should be considered a recreational activity, rather than educational" I have made two arguments in negation of the resolution. They are: (1) Debate is both a recreational activity and an educational activity, therefore is incorrect to assert that it only a recreational activity. (2) Whether something is considered "educational" ought to be judged by how much education it provides, and debate provides a substantial amount of education. Therefore debate should be considered educational. The resolution offered is comparable to "Tennis should be considered a recreational activity rather than a form of exercise." Turning to Pro's specific arguments: 1. Pro gives a single example of a topic upon which a fairly large body of facts are agreed to by the two sides in the debate. That's true for some debates, but I asserted that for many debates there was no such agreement. For example, in a recent debate on health insurance http://www.debate.org... the facts related to insurance company profits were not known by the opponent accepting the debate. In debating a 9/11 truther, http://www.debate.org... the proponent did not know the official explanation of the WTC 7 collapse. In a debate on investment banking http://www.debate.org..., the proponent did not know the definition of investment banking nor the status of public financing. My experience is that at least two-thirds of debates have important facts in dispute. Even though the debater will often deny the presented facts or claim them unimportant for the sake of the debate, any reasonable person will use the learned facts in the future. Pro argues that the study done before a debate as not part of "debate." This is like arguing that competitive weightlifting is not an athletic pursuit, because most of the exercise is obtained in training. We are considering the whole of the debate activity, not just the time when the debate is held. Note that most debate is done in academic environments, where preparation is coached and reviewed as a requirement for participation. That's clearly educational. 2. I compared the educational process in a debate to a tutorial. Pro argues, "In the student's scenario, there questions that are brought forth are not for the purpose of debate, but for the purpose of understanding the issue at hand." It doesn't matter what the purpose of the questioning activity is, it is nonetheless educational. In fact, in a debate motivation is likely to be higher because the student wants to win the debate. It's comparable to a person who is lost being more likely to learn about reading his map than a student having an abstract lesson on map reading. The situations are different, by the motivation and focus needed for education are greater in a debate than in a class. Pro asked some questions. I'm not sure why, because there is no guarantee I am a typical debater, but I will respond. "When you accepted this debate, did you intend to learn anything?" Yes. For example, I looked up information on the variety, extent, and value of high school and college debate programs. I didn't know that stuff. I expect to learn something from every debate. "Do you feel there is anything on this topic, that you don't already know?" Yes, certainly. For example, I still have not found the numbers of individual participants in academic debate programs. "If so, what about debate do you find so fun?" I am learning about the subject, improving my ability to reason and explain things, and teaching young whippersnappers things they need to know in order to take over society. "Would you yourself, enter into a debate that you felt you only were half read-up on?" Yes, certainly. I expect to read up on the other half. "Is it true, that no matter what argument I bring up, you will try to your best ability make an counter-argument?" No. Not ever. I agreed with you that debate is fun, but am arguing that it being fun doesn't imply that it should not be considered educational. In general, denying the obvious is a poor debate practice, because it undermines the credibility of your other arguments. Apparently, Pro meant to argue that people are dogmatic, not ignorant. That's sometimes true -- the previously cited debate on health insurance company profits showed that as a clear example. Belief was proclaimed even though all the facts were contrary. It's also true that if a person is convinced they are wrong in a debate, they are not likely to admit it. The the person is likely to have learned something he won't admit. However debates with dogmatists educates reasonable people observing the debate both as to what the facts are and the tactics of presenting the arguments to people who cannot be convinced. 3. A1. Pro agrees, "And even more, some even think that learning IS fun." So some activity made be purely educational for everyone in a class, then one guy gets to like it. At that point are we supposed to reclassify the activity as recreational, even though the activity itself didn't change? No, because we ought to judge activities as educational or not based on how much they educate, not what people feel about the activity in terms of enjoyment. Note that the Army commissioned a PC game for the purpose of educating soldiers. It is sold commercially and bought by people who presumably play it for fun. So does that make it no longer educational? It is nonetheless used to teach. A2. Pro argues, "Whether they are getting educated or not is irrelevant now, due to the fact that they are actually having fun, thus recreational." Whether something is educational can be measured objectively through tests. Fun is subjective. We ought to care whether something is educational or not, because many tasks require education. Therefore whether it is fun or not is irrelevant to the legitimate purposes of education. A3. I seems to me Pro is agreeing activities such as debate can be both educational and recreational. Where we differ is that if any fun is involved then he insists it "should be considered a recreational, rather than educational." Why, exactly, cannot it be considered both? If one insists that anything with fun ought not be considered educational, then educational activities that are fun ought to be eliminated from school curricula. The school's objective is to educate, so it ought not foster activities that are not considered educational. Pro claims, "But the point is, that in studying the topic of debate, you are becoming knowledgeable, which leads to the educational content of the person, rather than the debate itself. The debate is merely an argument of opinions already made on the facts that have been established." If that were true, then debaters would always give the same speeches, regardless of what their opponents said. That's not true. Debate teaches participants to think on their feet. They must analyze opposing arguments and point out logical flaws. That develops reasoning ability. Also, new facts presented may provoke additional research. Pro claims that the people observing a debate "Except for in a judge's position, they are merely looking at the speaking skills of a debater, and seeing if they are knowledgeable on the subject." Pro offers no evidence in support of that claim, and the claim defies common sense. Why would someone bother watching or reading a debate solely to judge debate skills? To judge knowledge, an observer would have to know more about the subject than either participant, which is generally not true. Observers learn facts, learn lines of reasoning, and learn logical errors exposed during the debate. We should all encourage activities like debate that are both educational and fun. The resolution would discourage any fun learning by dismissing it as merely recreational.