The first time I saw US-style collegiate debate, it seemed like a great mind-game.
Over time I've come to consider it though as the sign of a bullshitting culture, where the truth is irrelevant, and winning the argument is all that matters.
Professional debating and the article both feel wrong since they're missing the key element to me: synthesis of opposing ideas into something more than each individual side. It might happen that at times this synthesis means that one side is completely discarded, but the goal of any debate to me should be to achieve the sum of all truths that are held by all parties.
Most places from from schools to success stories seem to fail in describing the purpose of debating to me because of that.
Professional debating and the article both feel wrong since they're missing the key element to me: synthesis of opposing ideas into something more than each individual side. It might happen that at times this synthesis means that one side is completely discarded, but the goal of any debate to me should be to achieve the sum of all truths that are held by all parties.
Most places from from schools to success stories seem to fail in describing the purpose of debating to me because of that.