Debates are useful and essential for a civilised society

In this final round I will conclude and cite all my sources. Once again: I wholly accept a debate is not the only way to acquire knowledge: however this discussion was not whether debates were the only platform for doing this; but based on whether debates were useful and important in acquiring an understanding 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. This was never ever a discussion about whether debating was the only method for acquiring knowledge, it appears you have created another topic and developed a discussion around that. In the first round I established that essential meant "extremely important"; and you have continued to assert that it isn"t without justification; you seem to be transfixed that the discussion is centred around whether debates are the only way to gain knowledge. As you stated: you can write your opinion down in a blog and I could do the same; however without interaction it would simply be two people developing their opinions and it would be more than likely that our views would never cross and so we would both remain ignorant about other people"s views and opinions. Debates are not only useful in the sense that it creates a medium to share these opinions, but essential for raising awareness of other people"s opinions and views. Debates are an extremely important platform of making people aware of different views and once you can understand and appreciate other people have different views, then you can converse opening and honestly via a debate. I believe most of this argument stems from an equivocation: that you have used different definitions and centred the debate around that. Debates are not exclusively formal: they are essentially a method of interactive and representational argument between two opposing views. As I alluded 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. As for whether debates are sufficient or necessary to end slavery I never stated either: nor does the topic we are discussing require me to state either. However what I did state was that 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. That without this debate (of who would become president) it is more than likely that slavery would have remained legal as in the "Freeport Doctrine" of 1858, Douglas 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. It was not the debate which ended slavery per se, but that this was the debate in which saw Lincoln rise to fame and so the debate was useful and essentially in the ending of slavery. A debate is essentially an expression of freedom of speech and freedom of expression in that a frank and honest exchange of views we are able to converse and about matters of importance to us and others. We can replace this with a dictatorship in which people are no longer to discuss this and have rescinded their human right to converse about topics: however I don"t think that would be deemed as a civilised society. Essentially the question is this: are debates useful: are debates important, could we live in a society in which there are no debates, is this a civilised society? What I mean by this is: debates are useful; in that they serve a purpose in which they give people the chance to exchange opposing views. Debates are important in that many parliaments use debates to exchange views on issues regarding legislation. Could we live in a society in which there are no debates: yes of course we could, we could live in a society in which there was no freedom of speech or expression whereby no-one was allowed to discuss any issues. However this is not a civilised society. Essentially what your entire argument comprises of; is that debates are not the only way to gain information and I would wholly agree that there are countless mediums in which we can gain information. However this is and never was the purpose of this discussion: 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. 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. The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. Minow, Newton N. and LaMay, Craig L. (2008). Inside the Presidential Debates: Their Improbable Past and Promising Future. University of Chicago Press. Parliamentary Debate : Stanford National Forensic Institute". Snfi.org. Retrieved 11 October 2012. Thomson, Keith Stewart (2000). "Huxley, Wilberforce and the Oxford Museum", American Scientist, Lucas, JR (June 1979). "Wilberforce and Huxley: A Legendary Encounter". The Historical Journal 22 (2): 313"30 Jaffa, Harry V. (2009). Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln"Douglas Debates, 50th Anniversary Edition. University of Chicago Press.