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

Sorry again for that, I understand you will be going on vacay soon so I will go ASAP with my post.G "The Burden of ProofMy opponent has to prove three[sic] things:1. Debating is not useful2. Debating is corrupt"That's two but I will do so anyway. First to your arguments:"What is the purpose of debating and why is it useful?Debating develops awareness. When I first came here I was very ignorant and stupid(I must say I still am). After coming here and watching other peoples' opinions, I actually understand other positions now. You take a position and your opponent challenges it from many points of view. If you can defend the position and you find that it has no logical inconsistencies and there are no contradictions, you can focus on that position with totally decisive awareness that cannot be shaken. With a debate, you present arguments and try to prove your point. (1)"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"."you can focus on that position with totally decisive awareness that cannot be shaken."This sounds vague, what do you mean by "totally decisive awareness"."They are not supposed to do that and that is not what debating is."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]Also, I wasn't saying that is what debating IS, I was saying that is what it may tend to actuate.[2]"I showed the purpose of debate above. Even if it did separate people, that is not by definition what "corrupt" is."Sorry, but I believe you did not adequately do so. Also, when did I claim such a thing in the first place?"It is relevant because you were saying debating has no purpose because the definition of debating does not state its purpose."If I ever said debating never has a purpose, I take it back.Nevertheless, I'm quite sure of my self that I didn't say "debating has no purpose because the definition of debating does not state its purpose." I was however saying that debate (in reply to you) does not have a purpose as you were claiming. Maybe that was based on an equivocational error? See, debate doesn't have a [general] purpose, but a debate can and probably does is what I'm saying.Actually... Deja vu... I think I've actually already elaborated on this, in fact I remember telling you what I actually meant before. I guess it is originally my fault for not being specific in the first place."SERIOUSLY!? DISAGREEING IS CORRUPT AND IMMORAL?!?!"Haha, now you seem excited. :DNo, I think you may have misunderstood me, I was just saying (again) that I think debating is corrupt and immoral.I'll write more elaborately."They lose the debate. And people do notice, they are not idiots."This may be true sometimes, but not everyone notices.There is another factor too, just because they "are not idiots" doesn't mean they are fool proof.I would say this is especially true when you are in person and may not have the time to closely analyse both debtor's arguments and what have you."Irrelevant, does not prove the resolution."Well, it was relevant to responding to your rebutt, questions, and claims.That is a detour, but if you insist. Okay back to proving, or you saying I have to prove "1. Debating is not useful" and "2. Debating is corrupt" Also I want to apologize for not addressing this earlier as I was sidetracked.1. Debating is not usefulYou are over-generalizing my position, therefore I will not set out to prove this straw man concoction.2. Debating is corruptIt can easily be said that the main point in a debate is to win. Debate is making the most convincing argument to prove your point right and the other person's point wrong.[5][4]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]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.Which isSource: Eristische Dialektik: Die Kunst, Recht zu Behalten The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation, by Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder §§ 3-5 §§1-20 http://www.johntreed.com... http://homeworktips.about.com... http://www.literaryanddebating.com... http://www.learnquebec.ca... http://johnnydepp.soup.io... http://www.actdu.org.au... http://www.sodahead.com... http://newsok.com... http://loveablerogue.wordpress.com... http://www.debate.com... http://www.debatingsociety.ca... http://dictionary.reference.com...