debate

—debater, n. —debatingly, adv.

/di bayt"/, n., v., debated, debating.

n.

1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.

2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

3. deliberation; consideration.

4. Archaic. strife; contention.

v.i.

5. to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.

6. to participate in a formal debate.

7. to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.

8. Obs. to fight; quarrel.

v.t.

9. to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.

10. to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.

11. to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton.

12. to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter.

13. Archaic. to contend for or over.

[1250-1300; (v.) ME debaten < OF debatre, equiv. to de- DE- + batre to beat < L battere, earlier battuere; (n.) ME debat < OF, deriv. of debatre]

Syn. 1. argument, controversy, disputation, contention. 5. dispute, contend. See argue.

* * *

▪ rhetoric

      formal, oral confrontation between two individuals, teams, or groups who present arguments (argument) to support opposing sides of a question, generally according to a set form or procedure.

      In the House of Commons (Commons, House of) each bill presented is given three readings, each of which provides the opportunity and the occasion for a debate of the principle involved or of specific clauses. In the U.S. Congress a similar procedure is followed with a specific time limit set in the House for debating legislation. The Senate has no time limit and the general practice is to debate a measure until everyone has expressed a view before a vote is taken.

      Formal debates, as held in schools, societies, or on radio or television, generally conform to the following procedures: the topic is stated as a positive resolution—for example, “Resolved: Strikes Should be Outlawed”; two teams, usually of two members each, argue for and against the resolution; each team receives equal time, a first period—usually 10 to 15 minutes for each speaker—to present its side and then a shorter period to rebut the opposing side; the order of speakers alternates by team, with the affirmative side initiating the argument and, as a rule, the negative side initiating the rebuttal; arguments take the form of contentions supported by evidence, and in the rebuttal, though new evidence may be introduced, no new contentions may be raised; a neutral moderator acts as chairman of the debate.

      Because of limited time, formal debate does not allow thorough exploration of complex problems; rather, it is conceived as an exercise that may serve to sharpen forensic abilities and, like a chess match, provide intellectual entertainment for nonparticipants. Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.

* * *