I don't enjoy debates. Why? Well, because I don't like their confrontational, competitive nature. Nobody enters a debate in order to engage in a discussion on a specific topic; no, they enter a debate in order to win it.
'But, debate is healthy,' you may cry! I beg to differ. It is discussion that is healthy, not debate, and I will add a further caveat: In order for a discussion to be healthy and profitable, it needs to remain civilized. Too many people mistake nasty shit-hurling sessions for 'productive' discussions. Whether you like it or not, yelling and screaming at someone will not open their mind to your ideas. If anything, it will cause your victim's brain to go into full lock-down mode.
Debates can be interesting, I won't deny that. However, most people who listen to them are not doing so in order to add more material to their product-knowledge. No, they are there for one of two reasons: either to see (or hear) the 'other side' get creamed, or to make a decision as to which side they should support. It is very, very rare that debates are staged in order to reconcile one side with the other, and bridges are seldom built through them.
Discussion, on the other hand, seeks to build those bridges. When engaged in respectfully, a proper discussion is a mutual sharing of ideas in a non-hostile and/or non-competitive format. The point is to seek the best possible outcome for everyone involved. In other words, discussion is co-operative in nature.
The discussion of ideas should not take place in the same way a football game does, with the two sides battling it out while their supporters cheer them on from the sidelines. What point is there in that? Victory for the stronger candidate does not automatically equate with victory for the truth. Does presenting a laundry list of facts, complete with bibliography and assorted footnotes, present a better 'argument' than one that comes from a deep understanding of the subject matter? Can you judge truth, or settle a dispute, by rating the performance of the people participating in the discussion or debate with score-card? I don't think so.
Because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.
Matthew 7:29 (NIV)
Whether it be in a debate or a discussion, one of the most annoying things that I have come across are people who vomit up stacks of quotes and references in order to buttress their position. These sorts of people tend to focus on the words, without truly understanding the meaning of they are quoting and/or referencing. This way of learning, understanding, and arguing an idea is as old as recorded history. In biblical times, the scribes and pharisees taught in exactly this way. Everything they said, every idea that they presented, was wrapped in quotes, cross references and attributions. Not a single strand of original thought crept into their teaching.
There is an actual term for this type of arguing/thinking, but I just cannot remember what it is. If anyone has an idea, I'd like to know. In the meantime, I'll just use the term 'sophistry'. This type of sophistry is problematic, because, when an idea is not recognized as coming from source material, it is rejected, and oftentimes rejected with complete arrogance. Entering into a discussion with someone who has been trained in this style of thinking is extremely difficult. In such situations, something akin to the Dunning-Kruger effect seems to come into play; the person trained in this type of sophistry is so blissfully unaware of the circle his thinking is revolving in, that it is impossible for him to recognize the fact.
You cannot successfully present a new idea to someone who cannot understand the concept of a new idea. Nor can you convince them to drop their literalism, and focus on the actual meaning of they are quoting.
I have included a YouTube video below that I found quite interesting. It is a debate between David Wilber (Freedom Hill Community) and Tony Yu (HebrewRootsHeresy). Wilber is using the style I mentioned above, while Tony Yu is doing something extremely interesting - he is presenting his position freestyle. In fact, Yu is less interested in winning a debate, than in getting his idea across to his opponent. The proceedings are expertly chaired by Christian radio host Josh Tolley.
A person who is not deeply familiar with Christian scripture may find themselves quite impressed with Wilber's performance. The truth is, Yu put forth the stronger argument. He could have produced reams of biblical references in support of every word he spoke, but did not. Instead, he focuses his argument on getting across the meaning of the words that his opponent can only grasp in a very literal sense. In other words, he is engaged in discussion, while his opponent is interested only in emerging victorious from the debate - and that exemplifies the reason why I prefer discussion over debating.