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

I will try to make it quick.Clarifications and DefinitionsThe Burden of ProofMy opponent has to prove three things:1. Debating is not useful2. Debating is corruptWhat 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)The Definition of Corrupt Guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge. (2) Analysis of my Opponent's ArgumentLet us deeply analyze my opponent's points. I will restate my opponent's points from round 1.-Debating leads to misrepresentation of facts and lying for the sake of winning/proving your point. This is not good for a healthy society.My opponent goes on to say that, "That is why when debating you must use subtle techniques like: citing biased/irrelevant/or unreliable sources, lie by omission, minimisation, use of fallacious arguments, fabrications, propaganda, exaggerate truth, use of half-truths, puffer, straw man arguments, and various other tactics are intentionally (and sometimes unintentionally) utilized in order to persuade the audience."But the point is, if they do that, they lose the debate. They are not supposed to do that and that is not what debating is.-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.I showed the purpose of debate above. Even if it did separate people, that is not by definition what "corrupt" is.-Think about it, by definition debating is conflict and discord.Its own definition shows it is a lack of harmony and only serves to deter peaceful encounters between human beings.Dropped argument after I provided the definition.-Debating is a competition between two groups of people to make the best argument. It doesn't solve problems it picks a side and then favors it, it does not help everyone come to terms it just attempts to convince the undecided.Does not prove anything in the resolution.Rebuttals"On the note that the definition of eating states no purpose.Eating can be for simply pleasure or to make yourself full.Why is that relevant?"It is relevant because you were saying debating has no purpose because the definition of debating does not state its purpose."Well actually, that is contradictory to the definition of harmony, in at least this context."I will drop the lack harmony argument, but in no way would that help you because lack of harmony =/= corrupt."No, just not in the form of debating. And I never said "not allowed" I said it was corrupt and immoral though."SERIOUSLY!? DISAGREEING IS CORRUPT AND IMMORAL?!?!corrupt: Guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.immoral: violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics. How is disagreeing corrupt and immoral? Besides, it is impossible for humans to all agree on everything. Is it immoral for me to disagree on which movies is the best?"Not if nobody notices... but what exactly do you even mean by that? They lose points, for what exactly?"They lose the debate. And people do notice, they are not idiots."Okay... How is there finding a solution in debating? I guess it might be possible to do that... but would it be part of the debate? I'm not sure I can see that.Debating is practically arguing with each other and seeing who has the best arguments. That's why you can "Win" a debate. How exactly is that finding a solution or settling a dispute? And if it really is resolving anything, its definitely not a good way to."Irrelevant, does not prove the resolution."Well then its not adequately settled if not everyone argument is heard, it's not very efficient either."Is it possible for everyone's argument to be heard? No. Again, irrelevant, does not prove the resolution.I will not negate Pro's list because that is not in the resolution and not being argued.Sources1. http://www.berzinarchives.com...2. http://dictionary.reference.com...3. http://dictionary.reference.com...