Competitive debates aren't (in my opinion) debates at all. They're rhetorical competitions where you need to know how to talk convincingly/manipulatively, but don't necessarily need to know anything about debating.

Political debates come in all shapes and forms, but of course the ones that will be focused on and remembered are there worst examples that seem the most silly.

You're kind of right about internet debates. Especially the "scoring system" can be very biased depending on the community, but if you ignore the scores there can still be valid points to be found in some debates. Of course, being the internet, there will also be overwhelming amounts of spam/trolls that can be hard to ignore.

Conversation is a broader term that includes debates. Debates are conversations, but not all conversations are debates. The issue with the word debate is that it sometimes gets misused (like competitive debate) which makes its meaning a bit unclear. Although all of this is just my opinion, so take it with a huge scoop of salt.

[–] mmaramara@sopuli.xyz 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So what you're basically suggesting is that political debates are wholesome friendly conversations, right. And please don't get any more hysterical, I'm just asking questions

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 11 months ago

No. They clearly said there isn't one type of political debate. I love how in this conversation about arguments there's still strawman arguments like this.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

know how to talk convincingly/manipulatively, but don’t necessarily need to know anything about debating.

I don't know how you can say this with a straight face. Im guessing you've heard or seen a debate competition?