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|5 years ago
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.