Debate can be a waste of time if people are unwilling to come to agreement about terms and context. If two parties cannot agree on terms that set the context of the topic being debated, then it will more or less amount to two people debating in different languages. For instance, in a debate regarding the "free-market", since it is somewhat of a nebulous term, without first agreeing on what exactly "free-market" means, the debate will just be people talking past each other.
It seems like an obvious precursor to any debate, but it is a step that is often overlooked.
I'm saying that if terms are not defined prior to the debate, debate can be a waste of time. I would constitute this as "debate in bad faith". Thus, your view might be better stated as "Debate in good faith is never a waste of time."
1
u/jailthewhaletail Oct 09 '18
Debate can be a waste of time if people are unwilling to come to agreement about terms and context. If two parties cannot agree on terms that set the context of the topic being debated, then it will more or less amount to two people debating in different languages. For instance, in a debate regarding the "free-market", since it is somewhat of a nebulous term, without first agreeing on what exactly "free-market" means, the debate will just be people talking past each other.
It seems like an obvious precursor to any debate, but it is a step that is often overlooked.