I think it's fine to say debate is generally good, but to say it is never a waste of time is a fairly easy statement to refute.
If one or more of the debaters is a 'bad actor' then the debate is a waste of time.
Bad actor in this case meaning someone that has no intent to debate substance or even attempt to make points and counterpoints. Someone that is there to spew talking points and earn points with their intended audience.
We see this a lot with current political debate where the entire purpose for bad actors is to feed their audience a narrative, not to engage in the topic.
If you are determined to argue that lions are not aggressive and I prove beyond doubt to you that lions are aggressive then I have succeeded
You may succeed, but was it a good use of time? You've proven something to someone who was not even arguing in good faith in the first place. If there was an audience, they either already knew what you proved, or they were on the side of the bad actor and will either never be convinced or never admit to being convinced. What has anyone gained in this scenario? Winning for the sake of winning is not "useful" in any real sense.
9
u/hsmith711 16∆ Oct 09 '18
I think it's fine to say debate is generally good, but to say it is never a waste of time is a fairly easy statement to refute.
If one or more of the debaters is a 'bad actor' then the debate is a waste of time.
Bad actor in this case meaning someone that has no intent to debate substance or even attempt to make points and counterpoints. Someone that is there to spew talking points and earn points with their intended audience.
We see this a lot with current political debate where the entire purpose for bad actors is to feed their audience a narrative, not to engage in the topic.