Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
When I think of a debate, I think of a conversation to where each party makes a claim or statement of fact or opinion and the hallmark of debate is to support what they say whether for or against the argument at hand. When someone counters a claim, there should be support their counterclaim just as the person whom makes the claim.
That is different than doing so to convince. When you convince, you're trying to sway someone to fall into your line of thinking or opinion. Debates do not do this. Instead, you present an argument, you establish why you are an expert in that argument, and the point is whose argument (not the person making it) is much more logical than the other. The other problem is finding an agreed on criteria to judge whether either person made a sound argument. However, the intentions is not to convince the other person that your views are correct but its to convince by support that you know what you're talking about because the support is credible regardless how odd the claim may be.
That is different than doing so to convince. When you convince, you're trying to sway someone to fall into your line of thinking or opinion. Debates do not do this. Instead, you present an argument, you establish why you are an expert in that argument, and the point is whose argument (not the person making it) is much more logical than the other. The other problem is finding an agreed on criteria to judge whether either person made a sound argument. However, the intentions is not to convince the other person that your views are correct but its to convince by support that you know what you're talking about because the support is credible regardless how odd the claim may be.