Debates are useful and essential for a civilised society

1. I never disputed the fact that debates could be useful. I am arguing that debates are not essential to society. It is incumbent on my opponent to prove that debates are not only useful but also essential to society. Since my opponent has the burden of proof, if my opponent cannot prove that debates are essential to society, I win the debate. 2. I argued that debates are not essential because it is possible to gain and share knowledge through other means. Since my opponent clearly stated that the purpose of debates is to gain and share knowledge, it follows that debates are not essential to society if it can be shown that there are other options available to gain and share knowledge. It seems this point has been lost on my opponent, so let me provide an example to clarify the force of my argument. If sitting were essential to society, would we say that a chair is essential to society too? We would not because we would recognize that a chair is not required to sit; we can sit on a couch. Therefore, a chair is not essential to society. This example clarifies the logic underlying my argument. If we suppose that gaining and sharing knowledge is essential to society, does it follow that debate is essential to society? No. Since we can gain and share knowledge through other means, debate is not required to gain and share knowledge. Therefore, debate is not essential to society. 3. The definition of essential as "extremely important" can be applied to my argument without any loss of impact. What makes debates "extremely important" if everything they accomplish can be done through other means? I have implicitly asked this question multiple times throughout the debate, yet my opponent has not answered it once. Since my opponent has not provided any reason to believe debates are "extremely important," my opponent has not met his burden of proof. NOTE: saying debates are useful is not the equivalent of saying they are extremely important. There are many useful things in the world that are not extremely important. For example, contacts are useful, but they are not extremely important since a pair glasses do what contacts do just as well. 5. My opponent claims I am equivocating on the word "debate" because the definition of "debate" is not "exclusively formal. " This point is irrelevant to my argument, since I've been arguing that regardless of whether debate is formal or informal, there are other ways to accomplish what debates do. Therefore, debates are not essential. But my opponent's equivocation-argument is flawed for another reason as well: the definition of debate my opponent provides in Round 1 states that debate is "a formal discussion. " It does not say that debate is an "informal discussion," nor does it imply that debate can be informal. Instead, the definition clearly defines debate as something formal. I recommend readers take a look at the definition my opponent provided. 6. My opponent claims that a society without freedom of speech is not a civilized society. So what? What does freedom of speech have to do with debate? If debate were non-existent, would this somehow limit the freedom of speech? There is no reason that protecting the freedom of speech requires that people debate. In fact, requiring that people debate would limit free speech, since people would be required to speak and discuss ideas through debate instead of through their own freely chosen medium of communication. 7. My opponent summarizes his argument as follows: "I am simply arguing that debates are useful, in that they provide a service to people and essential, in that they are of extreme importance to a civilised society. " The problem with my opponent's argument is that it's an explicitly circular argument: saying debates are essential because they are extremely important is using one's conclusion as one's premise. My opponent has not provided a single reason to believe debates are extremely important. It is my opponent's burden of proof to show that debates are extremely important (supposing that is how essential is defined); my opponent has simply stated his conclusion as a premise, instead of providing a reason to believe his premise/conclusion. I clearly won this debate, since my opponent has only offered a circular argument in support of his claim that debates are essential. It was my opponent's burden to prove debates are essential, and stating that they are essential because they are extremely important does not meet that burden. The resolution is negated.