Debating is basically about conflict, sometimes resolving it.
"The purpose of a debate is to find discrepancies between models of reality built in the brains of the debaters," I heard. And I agree. All reasoning of a debatory nature requires a question and arguments supporting and against it that show to what extent the statement is true! Little is black and white. I'm always welcome to it. (Or not, "always" is logically weird, hehehe...)
There is also competitive debating.
Why do some people debate not debating?
1. They simply don’t know how to do it respectfully, or do it at
all.
2. Most people are actually irrational. Schopenhauer simply stated that
there’s nothing that can save those people that is worth the individual
(Metalogic is
hard to teach) 3. Political and religious issues are often argued, and
people attach a strong sense of their identity to them, so attacking the
argument is seen as attacking them too, for some reason.
4. Arguing is a shock to the social hierarchy, for instance, a citizen
to a government official, or a student to a teacher in the education system, and people often find
friends in (almost) always agreeing, and since arguing is not agreeing,
it's unpleasant for the mind.
5. Most people have no interest in learning what people who disagree with them
think.
6. True argument seeks… the truth. But that requires not only using
strong analytical abilities (a part of the brain that is rarely trained and
energy-consuming to use) but also humility in case you realize what you
said is illogical halfway through. Few people have both traits.
Well, people told me that this causes communication difficulties, anger, and fewer relationships, so I’ll try to rewrite such a definition-based talking method for societal purposes.
E.g.
Me: I'm neutral.
Another: That's good.
Me: But neutral
is the absence of particular goodness or badness.