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

Sorry, I barely have any time, I will rush."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, puffery, straw man arguments, and various other tactics are intentionally (and sometimes unintentionally) utilized in order to persuade the audience."My opponent gives no proof that debating is lying and misrepresentation of fact. If you do, you lose points for that."According to you, a debate is: A discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints Nowhere in your definition is the purpose of a debate given."The definition of eating is also: eating present participle of eat (Verb) Verb: Put (food) into the mouth and chew and swallow it: "he was eating a hot dog"; "she watched as he ate". Have (a meal): "we ate dinner in a noisy café". Nowhere in there is a purpose either."Your point? People can also have opinions and not be characterized or put in a group for it without debates."So you are saying that people should remain silent or just say it? Debating is just saying your opinions and arguing in an organized fashion."conflict: -Be incompatible or at variance; clash Discord: -Lack of agreement or harmony between things"Disagreeing does not mean lack of harmony. My opponent makes debating seem like a shouting match."Debating - A discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports." -Very Awesome Person"Okay, so people are not allowed to disagree with each other? Anything involving opposing viewpoints is bad? "I feel like this is kind of a hasty generalization, there are many cases when people convince people using ill mannered tactics and evidence that is not sufficient."Then they lose points. "How I would define conflict resolution: "seeks to resolve the incompatibilities of interests and behaviours that constitute the conflict by recognizing and addressing the underlying issues, finding a mutually acceptable process and establishing relatively harmonious relationships and outcomes." This does not happen in debating, there is no resolving, just competition. In this sort of discourse you find harmony with both sides, which is the total opposite of debating. Mediation and negotiation are very similar so I'll skip them."Yes there is resolving. You can use a debate to resolve issues."Meetings: Unlike a debate, in a meeting you communicate with others as a whole to discuss the issue at hand. There is no voting for the "superior" opinion, all opinions are heard. It is not a competition."So what is the point? All opinions heard, now lets leave. "Speeches: In a speech, you are simply stating your opinion and maybe getting questions at the end."Yes and then people disagree and make opposing speeches."I would mostly say that’s untrue. If debating settles issues, then why have things been debated multiple times where both sides have won at least once and the issues still persist."Because different people have different arguments."If you accept a perspective solely because someone defending it won a debate is frankly, not faced with the high scrutiny need to settle an issue. Why? Because that same person who won could lose in another debate, because debating is a competition and is voted on base on how persuasive they are. An analogy I would use to portray this is that -just because a sport team wins one game, doesn't mean they are suddenly the best team."Yes, so there are multiple debates."Non violent Communication"Okay, speaking issues, then leaving. No point. If you are talking about discussing, then that would be self-refuting because you said above that anything with opposing viewpoints is bad. Say debates where banned and there is a presidential meeting instead of debate. The candidates say their ideas and leave. No arguing. The audience is left with empty choices with no evidence or proof. "facilitation"Defined as "Making an action or process easier".I do not see how that is relevant. "Conciliation"To obtain or gain. Isn't that what debates do?"Consensus decision-making"Okay so people come and vote and agree. No arguing. No evidence or proof is presented, people are just voting strictly on their opinions."Active listening" You listen to someone. No arguing, evidence, or proof. No point.http://www.merriam-webster.com...