Thread: The Purpose of Debate

Verbally flog me for asking a stupid question....

What is the purpose of debating?

I Wiki'd the term "Debate" and found a mess of descriptions. Types of debate, styles, procedures, rules and conventions. Yet, in the end, what is the goal? Is there one?

Some may reflexively say the goal of debating is "The Truth". Do you really believe that? The truth can be arrived at in many different ways. How is debating superior than, say, dispassionate scientific inquiry? Or sharing ideas in a non-confrontational manner?
Also, is the purpose of debating to "win", even at the expense of "The Truth"? Is debating simply an advanced form of mental masturbation? An attempt at some kind of external control in a chaotic world?

Why do we bother? Why do YOU bother?

A debate should be an intelligent controlled discussion between two or more people of differing opinions - It seldom is, it usually descends to the level of an argument or shouting match depending on the nature of the people involved - Viz. Jerry Springer or others of that ilk.

The purpose of a debate is to allow ideas be to formed, opinions to be made and agreements to be had.
It is a also a base to learning to communicate, to reinforce listening responding and comprehension skills.
It is hopefully the key to any successful society that bases its knowledge upon discussions and not just books or newspapers.

Originally Posted by Nacian

The purpose of a debate is to allow individual to iideas to formed , opinions to be made and agreements to be had.
It is a also a base to learning to communicate, to reinforce listening responding and comprehension skills.
It is hopefully the key to any successful society that bases its knowledge upon discussions and not just books or newspapers.

Thank you for the clarification. I will now correct the definition I was beginning to form:

(Street thug = bully)

Intellectual thug = debater


Intelligence ruled by honesty is fit for any throne.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

Thank you for the clarification. I will now correct the definition I was beginning to form:

(Street thug = bully)

Intellectual thug = debater


Intelligence ruled by honesty is fit for any throne.

Excellent.
I did correct the following:
''to allow ideas to be formed''. Sorry about this.

Originally Posted by Nacian

The purpose of a debate is to allow ideas be to formed, opinions to be made and agreements to be had.
It is a also a base to learning to communicate, to reinforce listening responding and comprehension skills.
It is hopefully the key to any successful society that bases its knowledge upon discussions and not just books or newspapers.

Nice definition. I think you have to allow for the idea that most any time two people come together they will already have ideas formed, so you will generally be moving on to the opinions being made and (hopefully) agreement stages.

I've always thought debate was like two people coming together, one with a jug of yellow idea, and one with a jug of blue. They mix their jugs, and hopefully walk away with a jug of something a shade more towards green each.

Unfortunately that's not always the case. I think many times it fails is because, as some have said, intelligence is a cornerstone, and some people come forward with ill-thought out or generally unprepared arguments. This messes up the whole intention of the debate, and instead of discussing ideas you get name calling, such a "thug", and ranting/shouting instead.

The best debates I've seen are the ones where the OP makes some effort to set things up and present both sides, just to get the ball rolling. That might include some facts or statistics -- something to give it a little backbone. I've also seen the the OP activity participate and act as a sort of debate moderator, to keep things on course. If you just post some vague question, it's going to go off the tracks -- probably sooner than later. Garbage in, garbage out.

I would say to debate is to bring to the table what you have learned, listen to what others have learned, and walk away with both a mind more opened and having learned something you mightn't have known before. To take what you know, and after hearing everyone's idea, see if it is still solid for you, or if you may have changed your mind some or all. That is why I come here.
I also come here to learn about people, as a writer, this is a golden place.

I have three goals when participating in a debate:

1. clearly articulate my point throughout the bredth of the debate, accounting for any clarifications or changes that may occur.
This is true for me regardles of if I'm arguing what I really believe, or if I've chosen a counterpoint position for the sake of debate.

2. clearly listen to and understand the position of the opposition.
I do not confuse this with agreeing with them. One can listen to what someone has to say without having to imply agreement, and is the least I can offer to someone I have asked the same of.

3. defend my points when I think I am right with either sound logic, facts, precident, or all three. Challenge points in the same manner.
I hate "just cuz" as an argument, especially if someone has formulated a cogent response to a claim I have made. If someone challenges a point I have made in a lacklustre or with less-than-amazing enthusiasm, I have been known to get a little sarcastic or contemptuous. A fault? Probably. Generally, my rule is I try to put as much work into thinking about and replying to someone as I feel they have put in for me. Thus, results obviously vary, and you're likely seen times where I look like a douche, and others where I'm perfectly reasonable and friendly.

Formal debate in the west european tradition has it's roots in medievil scholasticism, where it's a method of homogenizing theological doctrine. Then it was also the major pedantic technique of higher education.

Originally Posted by Winston

Also, is the purpose of debating to "win", even at the expense of "The Truth"?

I think this cuts to the heart of what's wrong with many, for lack of a better term, low quality debates. Trying to "win" takes priority over genuinely seeking truth. I've been lucky enough to participate in a few truly awesome debates, free of egos clinging to untenable positions trying to put on a show, that I've genuinely learned from, that have made me re-evaluate past conclusions. It's hard to find that calibre of debate, hard to find people actually interested in debating rather than appearing "right" at the expense of truth.

Well, to begin with, if there is a debate, then there is no "truth" behind it. If there was any "truth" both parties could agree to, there would be no debate.

One has to enter a debate assuming that you are voicing your reasoning based on conjectures and experiences; by definition, neither side is wrong. Who wins a debate comes down to who has the most references and the best tongue, but what's important is what's attained by the act of debating: we become aware of other points of view. When we look at things through one eye, all we get is a flat image, but when we have two, it gains depth and dimension. It doesn't matter if we agree or disagree, or who's the most convincing, but that it allows us to refine our particular opinions even further by testing it against smart individuals.

That, and the obvious exercise of reasoning and coherence --not to mention the pure, raw and indiscriminate conflict without actual violence, and we all love conflict-- makes any debate, no matter how petty and insignificant, worthy of being held.

All good responses, thanks.

My biggest conflict is with the western "justice system". It uses the "adversarial system" to arrive at judicial truth: Proof of guilt or innocence. In America, the best "debaters" are very well paid to win at any cost. Truth be damned. If you can lie, and not get caught, your client walks. Meanwhile, the prosecution is limited in it's maneuvering, and justice for victims is often denied.

Am I off-base with this analogy? Or is that just an ugly corner of this noble debating that we'd rather not look at?

Of course, there is also the arena of political debating. There's another example of an ineffective clash of ideas where there are no winners, only survivors and wreckage. And WE clean up the mess.

Unfortunately on many Internet forums the purpose of debate is to test the limits; to see how far flaming will be allowed before someone is excommunicated and the thread closed. Debates often become feeding grounds for trolls.

Originally Posted by Winston

All good responses, thanks.

My biggest conflict is with the western "justice system". It uses the "adversarial system" to arrive at judicial truth: Proof of guilt or innocence. In America, the best "debaters" are very well paid to win at any cost. Truth be damned. If you can lie, and not get caught, your client walks. Meanwhile, the prosecution is limited in it's maneuvering, and justice for victims is often denied.

Am I off-base with this analogy? Or is that just an ugly corner of this noble debating that we'd rather not look at?

It's a tougher one to look at for sure. When debating in the justice system, you generally have the welfare of the accused hanging in the balance, and they generally have to rely on their own means to generate a defense. The state has the backing of law enforcement, the justice department, etc to call upon to prosecute the case. There are rules that help mitigate this difference, particularly around sharing evidence, etc.

I don't think the current system is balanced enough, and that too many people walk as well, but I'm always hesitant to back calls to tighten things up too much. It's a personal call, but I'd rather see some guilty people go free than innocent people falsely incarcerated. I'd also be sick to my stomach if I was the judge that let someone go free and they murdered a second person shortly thereafter, so no easy answers on that one.