So you've heard about debates; spectacles where two people sit across from each other and take turns yelling at each other. For some reason, debating has become the established method of convincing someone of something. Which is funny, because they don't convince people at all.
First of all, if a person doesn't have their own opinion, they usually just agree with the person who spoke last. Ever read Animal Farm? Remember how the sheep would side with whoever spoke last? Not to imply everyone is a sheep, but that's a serious risk. And if you want people to really agree with your point on a higher level, why would you risk gaining support from such wishy washy supporters?
Next, the debate personalizes things. The debate isn't two abstract concepts going at each other; the debate is two people going at each other. This lets people associate an abstract concept with a person. Now, don't you think someone should agree with the concept itself, regardless of who is representing it? And on the flip side, the opposition is represented by someone else too. If you dislike that person, well, then I suppose you'll dislike the concept too. In a debate, one can gain and lose support based on who is debating. Does this seem like the way to convince someone of something?
Next, a debate is not just people slinging words at each other; it's a fight. It really is; people sometimes attack the opponent's credibility before they attack their points. Why is this? Can't a crazy person bring up a good point sometimes? If a person brings up a good point and instead the other person attacks their credibility, while they may win the debate, they're surely not going to convince anyone. Why? Because that point is still there. There's still that one thing that has never been considered.
Debates are not in the hands of people who can reason especially well, they're in the hands of people who can speak especially well. It's more a battle of public speaking than of bringing up convincing points. And personally, if I wanted to be convinced of something, I'd rather be convinced by hearing its relative merits and demerits, rather than be awed by the speaker.
Debates are timed. This is especially unconductive to logical thinking, because, well, logical thinking takes time. It takes time to counter a good point with good reasoning. Yet, debates frown on such reasonable thinking. Every minute spent thinking is a minute less of debating. So, debaters just keep on debating, rather than stop and think.
Now, I'm not saying we should abolish the debate. It makes for some good entertainment occasionally. In addition, there's a whole debating subculture they enjoys debating. They would be pretty let down were debating to ever disappear.
But really, isn't there a better way to convince people of things?
