End debating now - it incites conflict.

First off I would like to express how satisfied I am with my oppositions response. A very carefully thought out rebuttal. This should be an exciting debate. Furthermore, I would like to point out that my opponent has vaguely gone into detail about his standing on why debating should stop. In this premise "Debating is an aggravating hobby/activity and it encourages those who engage in it to become hostile and arrogant in their views" he reiterates his view (while based strongly on opinion) on debating and that it should be stopped. Just because something is aggravating or annoying to you dose not mean it should be stopped by others. This can be considered controlling or an authoritative approach to anissue . This is what I believe is the bases of the oppositions entire argument. It"s based off of control of someone else. Now there is some truth to the aforementioned premise. Debates can very much so lead to hostility and a form of arrogance but not in the way my opponent has presented it. Debating in no way encourages these traits. Hostility and arrogance derives from competition. I will go more into this shortly but I would like to further break down my opposition"s argument. Additionally, the instigator has stated: "It forces any and all opinions of a person to suddnely become tools and game-changing factors so it pushes people to the edge and creates a very bad set of social skills for those who are good at it because unlike casual or abd debaters, those who are actually godo at ti and enjoy it are trapped in an addiction that ends up proving itself right becuase of thier ability to debate agianst those who say it's bad for them." This is a poorly structured premise with a lot of typos. I will attempt to summarize this premise to the best of my abilities and then attack the arguments conclusion if I can find it. (Debates force opinions of a person to become tools and outcome influencing factors to the point of pushing people to the edge. This creates bad social skills for those who are good at doing this. Unlike casual or abd debaters, those that are good at this and enjoy doing it are addicted to debating. They end up proving themselves to be right due to their ability to debate against those who claim debating is bad for them.)This is what I have gathered from my understanding of what my opposition is saying. If this is taken out of context or misunderstood in anyway please reiterate in the comments to not waste a round. I did not summarize this as to insult my opponent but merely to insure we are on the same page; hence, I will now attack the premise as I understand it. I will first say I disagree about opinions. I fail to see how they can be used as tools or "change the game" as earlier stated. Opinions are a product of thought. They are no more a threat then the act of liking or disliking cake. To be frank that is an opinion to like or dislike cake or any form of specificity used here. Opinion is defined by Merriam Webster "as a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone thinks about a particular thing". With that being cleared we can now avoid any semantics on the term or potential equivocation. If this definition is not adequate please go to comments for clarity. Furthermore, I see not how an opinion can "push someone to the edge. Moreover, I also fail to see how either having an opinion or debating an opinion will lead to bad or poor social skills. I have looked up abd debaters and have found nothing in support of what it is. If this was a typo please explain further. But casual debates or no different from competitive debates in the sense that you must prove your point. The main difference is that competitive debates lean on winning. This goes back to my first round post. "It shouldn"t be only about winning or being right but working to understand you opposition"s point of view and finding common ground eventually." I was speaking of debates in general here. True debates are about learning. Competition can cloud that, this is what I believe my opponent is trying to get at. Furthermore, my opponent stated "those that are good at this and enjoy doing it are addicted to debating.They end up proving themselves to be right due to their ability to debate against those who claim debating is bad for them." or along those lines. Debating is indeed a skill which is what I believe is being said here. It is a skill that derives from logic or reasoning. some people are indeed blessed with an ability to reason far easier then others, but this dose not mean that people can"t improve with practice. Sometime we can use our ability to reason in a hurtful way, even going as far as to manipulate the debate or disagreement with the use of logical fallacies. This is what I believe the opposition meant here and I find this to be a true premise. This is what I meant when I delivered my initial response, debates should not be used simply to be right or wrong but in competition this is sometimes the case. Individuals can and will use tricks to get a victory. However, this dose not mean that competition is wrong nor does it mean that debating is wrong in anyway. What this tells me is that people can be wrong or bad. Furthermore, I have not been entirely successful in locating the conclusion or thesis of my opponents argument only premises. I believe it to be,"In the end you can twist the truth well but it doesn't make the truth less true. Debating does nothing to help us find the truth, if anythign it helps people who are strayed far from it to justify their illegitimate views." this is another argument altogether. I can see how it may connect to earlier premises but it is ambiguous due in part to the weak structure of this complex argument. I will now break down and attack the conclusion. I agree with the first premise here, "In the end you can twist the truth well but it doesn't make the truth less true." if someone is twisting the truth then it is no longer true. So I find this premise to be true. "Debating does nothing to help us find the truth, if anythign it helps people who are strayed far from it to justify their illegitimate views." The final premise, (and I am assuming the conclusion as well) is not true and is the bases of the instigator starting this debate. This only rings true if there is twisting of the facts or fallacious arguments. (If A then B) This is the form of my responding argument and it is a valid form. Now to test the terms A= fallacious arguments B= unsound conclusion. If the argument is based on fallacious thoughts then the conclusion is not sound. As I have said in the initial round, not all truths are obvious truths. Some opinions can not be proven. Per example apple pie is only good with vanilla ice cream. This would be true to me and those who share that opinion. It would reign false to those that despise either apple pie, vanilla ice cream, or even both. Opinions are tough to debate because we all are different with different views and preferences. Same applies for politics and many other categories. Conclusively, I will now defend what my opponent so blatantly attacked in my initial post and finally I will conclude my argument and antitheses to my opponent. My opposition pointed out a logical fallacy which is good and he also presented it in a unique way. The problem with this is he is building it off of a fallacy of his own making it invalid. My Opponent has attempted a classic straw man argument. Almost as good as the United States" domestic media does all the time. Not saying that this was done intentionally, it could be due to the fact of him simply missing the point of my argument. This can further be accredited to my writing strategy and style. My argument was not on specifically how we learn but that debates help us learn. The begging of my argument was ambiguous and very weak. Attack this premise shows the building of a straw man argument. Not to mention he did not represent it correctly. When the instigator was building his presentation to point out my logical fallacy he completely ignores the fact that I never stated that it is right or wrong to naturally argue opposing views. To be precise The only thing I stated about something being natural is "As children we are naturally inquisitive." This is also apart of building a straw man argument. By ignoring my stronger points, my opposition can try and manipulate the debate and have me defend something that is not entirely relevant to my antitheses which is that, ending debates will leave us in a place were no one questions the status quo meaning no change for the better or worse. Since this was ignored it still stands. By stifling the voice of people (which is what happens if debates are done away with.) you kill all opposition to your own view or the view of the status quo. Change in any way becomes impossible. There would be no revolutions, no better ideas, what is right will stay right and what is wrong hence, will stay wrong. My opponent voiced in the initial round that conflict is derived from debates and I say that is true. Now my question is does he believe all conflict is bad? I think not. Conclusively, debates help us grow by juggling ideas and opinions around and checking them with sound logic. My opposition also has not presented the BOP. My opposition now has the chance to respond. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...