Debates are useful and essential for a civilised society

I would wholly agree that a debate is not the only way to acquire knowledge of different people, ideas, art, or concepts: however this discussion was not whether debates were the only platform for doing this; but based on whether debates were useful and important methods in acquiring knowledge of other perspectives. The discussion was based around whether debating served a purpose (useful) and was of paramount importance (essential) in that debating is a form in which opposing perspectives can come together as discuss them. As you eluded to in your reply: if you wished to share your opinion you have ample opportunity: however as you are a finite being with your own opinions it is useful and essential to discuss these matters whereby you state your perspective and the antagonist states theirs. Perhaps I should be clear: the discussion is not based on knowledge per se, but based around the sharing of views. Debates are primarily based on opinion and not based on knowledge: and so although it is possible to read books, attend classes, go to museums, travel to other countries, observe different cultures, or pursue other forms of learning in order to gain a broader arrangement of knowledge; the primary goal in a debate is for the exchange of ideas and concepts and not necessarily knowledge. By its nature: a debate is discussion of ideas, and there are huge arrays of debates which can be used. There are competitive debates in which teams square off against each other in order to "win", but there are also Parliamentary debates in which two sides discuss the latest piece of proposed legislation in order to convince those that the piece is worthy of being passed into law. There are also Public debates in which can have a competitive edge, or can be developed as an educational exercise. Simply: a debate does not necessarily have to be about trying to "win" it as such: but to make people aware of both sides in order to make a well-informed decision. As for the 1860 Oxford evolution debate between Huxley and Wilberforce, this was due primarily because it was an incredibly controversial topic in the first half of the nineteenth century, seen as contrary to religious orthodoxy and a threat to the social order. The debate has been called "one of the great stories of the history of science" and it is often regarded as a key moment in the acceptance of evolution. The reason being that in 1859 when Darwin published his work he got little acceptance and the Linnean Society"s President reported no remarkable discoveries that year. The reason why evolution has been accepted is because of this awareness which stemmed from the 1860 Oxford evolution debate. Many of the opponents of Darwin's theory were respected men of science: Owen was one of the most influential British biologists of his generation; Adam Sedgwick was a leading geologist; Wilberforce was a Fellow of the Royal Society; it was only because of the debate in which majority opinion represented a major victory for the Darwinians. This was the catalyst needed in order to develop evolution into the respected field it is today. I didn"t claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was developed due to the debate: I was simply referencing that it was during the Lincoln-Douglas debate in which at the time, U.S. senators were elected by state legislatures; thus Lincoln and Douglas were trying for their respective parties to win control of the Illinois legislature. The debates previewed the issues that Lincoln would face in the aftermath of his victory in the 1860 presidential election. The main issue discussed in all seven debates was slavery. In his "Freeport Doctrine" of 1858, he repeatedly said that he did not care whether slavery was voted up or down: thus meaning that had he become president slavery may still have been legal. I did not claim that it was solely due to this debate: but that the outcome led to the Emancipation Proclamation thus making the debate essential in this transition. As I eluded to: the wonderful thing about debates is that they can be both informal and formal: intellectual or recreational; that no topic is too big or too small to discuss. That we can ask profound questions but it is through the sharing and debate of what these answers might be that is where we develop an understanding. A debate does not always have to end with a vote of the winner; as informal debates and are a method of interactive and representational argument. Essentially what your entire argument comprises of; is that debates are not the only way to gain and share information and I would wholly agree. However I didn"t claim debates were the only platform for this: 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.