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

Firstly I'd like to apologize for my slowness-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------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?My initial point was debating does not have this one "goal" or "purpose"."Disagreeing does not mean lack of harmony. My opponent makes debating seem like a shouting match."Oh touché!Well actually, that is contradictory to the definition of harmony, in at least this context."Okay, so people are not allowed to disagree with each other? Anything involving opposing viewpoints is bad? "No, just not in the form of debating. And I never said "not allowed" I said it was corrupt and immoral though."Then they lose points."Not if nobody notices... but what exactly do you even mean by that? They lose points, for what exactly?"Yes there is resolving. You can use a debate to resolve issues."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. "Because different people have different arguments."Well then its not adequately settled if not everyone's argument is heard, it's not very efficient either."Non violent Communication""Okay, speaking issues, then leaving.No point."Not necessarily."If you are talking about discussing, then that would be self-refuting because you said above that anything with opposing viewpoints is bad."I do not recall saying 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."Arguments are not the same as debates, debates simply involve arguments.They could still present evidence and proof without arguing anyway."'facilitation'Defined as "Making an action or process easier".I do not see how that is relevant."Have you not heard of a facilitator involved in a conflict or disagreement?"'Conciliation"To obtain or gain. Isn't that what debates do?"Conciliation is the action of mediating between two disputing people or groups, that is definitely not 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."Not necessarily."'Active listening'You listen to someone. No arguing, evidence, or proof. No point."According to wikipedia (the all-knowing) Active listening is,"a communication technique. Active listening requires the listener to understand, interpret, and evaluate what they hear. The ability to listen actively can improve personal relationships through reducing conflicts, strengthening cooperation, and fostering understanding."What makes it have, "No arguing, evidence, or proof" as you say?And have you ever actually seen your nose running? Also, what exactly would a fly be down about?