[EdgarVerona]

On a related subject, I do feel like there's been real, tangible moral harm done to our society by reinforcing the idea of debate as a competition in children. When we reinforce certain behavior, we shouldn't be surprised when that reinforcement extends to the rest of their lives.

When we turn debates into something that is "won" rather than something that is seeking a refinement of what we know as truth, we encourage people to use deceptive tactics: to appeal to straw men if they can get away with it, to distract from the issue if they can get away with it, to do whatever they can do to win. That's how you end up with blowhards like Ben Shapiro: people who are more interested in winning a debate by any means necessary and reinforcing their existing belief systems then discovering truth. You get a thrill out of "victory," but it is less than hollow when it's won by appealing to fallacious arguments: it actively works against our ability as a society to understand the concept of truth. And it is so easily abused by people with malicious intent.

[ChefboyOG]

As someone who grew up in different debate-club-esque environments, I agree wholeheartedly. I had to unlearn quite a few patterns of thinking and behavior—patterns that had been positively reinforced by most adults in my life—when I grew up.

For me, the most damaging effect was the separation of debate and decision making. In real life, if I advocate for a position—be it where we eat dinner or where my child goes to school—and I'm convincing, things actually happen. We have to go to that restaurant and my kid has to attend that school. Debates happen to inform a decision all parties are trying to make together.

As a kid, the opposite was true. Debate was about proving my intelligence in exchange for praise from my teachers, parents, and peers. It was an athletic competition in which our positions were our jerseys, in that we took them off after and went home.

I was reflexively argumentative for a decent period of time as a young adult before I realized the damage it caused to my relationships and how unproductive and dishonest it was.

[MaxBarraclough]

I think it's Richard Dawkins who uses the word discussion to contrast with the word debate (used in the combative sense).

In a discussion, several parties with different perspectives work together to make progress toward truth, whatever that means in the given context. If one or more parties has their opinion changed, that's seen as productive.

In a debate, several parties plenty a points-based game (perhaps even literally), and if someone is seen to be changing their mind, they lose.

[brnt]

In my anglophile European country, it pains me that more and more politicians are copying this English-style two sided debating whereas our own tradition of less flashy but plural and when necessary detail oriented style is slowly being replaced.

A huge pity.

[incangold]

An obvious thing I’d barely noticed the full impact of. Thanks.

[justsmurfy]

I can see your point but I disagree with it. There is nothing wrong with having a "winner" in a debate competition so long as you have good judging standards towards what constitutes winning. Winning should be about having a well thought out and defended argument. It should be about being able to address the points someone makes with relevant counter points. It should be about being able to articulate your position well enough to convince someone else that it's the best choice. Competitive debate also serves to make you look at both sides of an issue and be able to understand them well enough to make arguments for either side. You have to argue successfully on both sides to win a competition. I think teaching children to be able to weigh both sides of an issue is something we could use more of, not less. I think a well structured debate competition can serve as an educational opportunity to steer kids away from the sort of behavior that you are advocating against.

[TwoNineFive]

I think the very fact that you want winners and losers is the problem. That shouldn't be the goal in having a discussion with another person.

Focusing on the mechanics and methods has left you blind to the outcome, as demonstrated:

> You have to argue successfully on both sides to win a competition

Who, in the real world, would use a skill like this? Lawyers who defend corporations who poison populations? Murderers? Sleazy politicians?

It might just be that you have demonstrated the very thing being discussed: Talking past the issue at hand. The OP isn't about the mechanics of debate. It's about talking past the issue.

[j45]

Being too argumentative can be as dangerous as being too agreeable, bother excess don’t cultivate an open mindedness to learning.

[twic]

Debate clubs barely exist in the UK. We still treat discussions as competitions here.