Should students be able to use computer games at school?

n formal debating contest, there are rules enabling people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact. Informal debate is a common occurrence, but the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. The outcome of a debate may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two.
==================================================================
<a href="http://www.wow-gold-price-list.com... Gold</a>
Patrick

n formal debating contest, there are rules enabling people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact. Informal debate is a common occurrence, but the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. The outcome of a debate may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two.
==================================================================
<a href="http://www.wow-gold-price-list.com... Gold</a>
Patrick

I'm not denying the fact that people have biases, nor am I denying the idea that debaters should attempt to work in favor of those biases. I am stating that judges should attempt to remove themselves as much from their bias as possible. Their bias is an argument that neither debater put forth in round, therefor it is unfair to both debaters.

And the other aspect of debate is taking into account the ever present emotional and principled aspects of debate and crafting arguements to bridge those aprehensions. My point is that asking people to divorce their principles is wrong, in stead, we should be prepared for those select few that have those feelings and prepare to be able to counter those with concrete facts and appeals.

And I agree with you, real world attorneys do use debate. But it is simply one of their tools. Debate in itself is a game. Getting good at debate requires covering the arguments presented and knowing how to manage them. You are still advocating a poll.com instead of debate.com. The nice thing about debate is that you can literally advocate anything providing you have better points than the other person. As far as debates that do not involve emotions go I'm going to have to say professional debate, coupled with high school debate.

The main point though is this. Debate is an intelligent game between two people. If one pro argues sharks are the coolest animal and then the con argues that its not true because dolphins are that is what you need to vote on. Voting con because you feel jaguars are the best animal instead simply ignores both debaters. This defeats the point of the entire intelligent game. Your own opinion has nowhere in a debate round.

I never said that debate was based on an attorney, I said that an example of real world debating is an attorney. And that attorneys must make emotional appeals in most cases for them to win. Meaning that they must beidge emotional gaps and understand that people have feelings because they are human and that is a fundamental part of human nature. So what defines real world debate? Politics? AAttorneys? Name 1 real world debate that does not involve emotions or does not take into account emotions when crafting an arguement.

No, thats not what I am saying at all! Look at it this way.

1. Debate does exist.
2. Attorneys do debate.
3. But debate is not defined by how an attorney does it.
4. Debate came before the attorney not the other way around.
5. Therefor debate should not be dictated by how an attorney does it.

So basically you are saying that being an attorney doesnt mean you argue? Thats not true, completely false. You are ignoring the points I am bringing out, maybe you have a pesonal bias in this arguement?

Being an attorney focuses on revealing the truth and fairly representing everyone. While debate is a tool of an attorney an attorney also has evidence and occasionally what really happened.

However you falsely assume that debate and attorney are intertwined. Debate in itself is simply a game of argumentation, it focuses on the arguments brought up by the debaters. This is not attorney.com or poll.com, it is debate.com!

You cant be a good debater if you cant bridge personal opinions. Ask any attorney. They'll tell you. No matter how much you want people to be objective, it just wont happen.