[pnmahoney]

Debate is good at teaching you that truth-seeking is not exclusively or primarily the outcome of a speech act. Not even the ones which make truth some kind of goal (as a stellar example, you might consider that this is not even what publishing as an academic accomplishes, either). From a pitch meeting to even, say, a presidential debate: it's usually about getting someone or some group to an understanding. Probably one that could be said to have a desired impact on your audience -- it is, in other words, strategic.

Even then the funny thing about this article is that, in indicting what it considers a decay in critical thinking, the article misses a lot. Spot the error:

> in recent years its speed has increased markedly, as have the mountains of evidence. The emphasis on logic and critical thinking has waned.

Disclosure: did this activity, was ranked #1 for my class year, etc etc. (Note that doesn't mean I think the activity's perfect, either.) One of the coolest outcomes is that - since it attracts people who want to become lawyers - you end up building a really, really deep legal bench:, fed and appellate clerks, m&a/whiteshoe types, litigators, etc.