I can imagine other possibilities (maybe we each privately write essays, then a group of our peers reads them, then they discuss, find consensus, and "resolve" the dispute) - is oral argument and direct engagement good?
I think the question has to be, is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism preferable for the conditions that give rise to debating: irreconciliability, urgency, importance, undesirability of violence. Hard to imagine important questions being resolved via other mechanisms much of the time, debating has the effect of allowing the disputants to engage as aggressively as they see fit, compels formats that are structured/normed to survive defectors/bad-faith participants. Probably if the contestants could manually reduce the starting variables (take it less seriously, be less irreconciliable), other modes would open up as preferable.
Is debate a good dispute resolutions mechanism?
I can imagine other possibilities (maybe we each privately write essays, then a group of our peers reads them, then they discuss, find consensus, and "resolve" the dispute) - is oral argument and direct engagement good?
I think the question has to be, is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism preferable for the conditions that give rise to debating: irreconciliability, urgency, importance, undesirability of violence. Hard to imagine important questions being resolved via other mechanisms much of the time, debating has the effect of allowing the disputants to engage as aggressively as they see fit, compels formats that are structured/normed to survive defectors/bad-faith participants. Probably if the contestants could manually reduce the starting variables (take it less seriously, be less irreconciliable), other modes would open up as preferable.