Debates seem to be centred on confirming a particular opinion and shunning another. In a debate one must have an opinion which is held til must fall through proof. The problem I have with debate is that it does not seem interested in finding the truth but in espousing an opinion over another, even if it is inherently wrong. There is also the consequence that a group who is for something may come up with an argument that is not properly disproven by the opposition, resulting in them rejoicing that it is true when there might be a flaw in it. If both sides were to act like the mathematicians who attempt to rigorously prove everything and work together towards the common aim of finding the truth then I believe there would be more rational behaviour in society if it adopted this method of looking at problems. Of course it must be the case that opinions are formulated at the start of all inquiry in the form of hypotheses, but they must not be held with a bias by the formulators of the idea and I think the idea of an opposition must not be agrressive, meaning that the opposition does not fight the one hypothesis because it wants its own to be true, but only is looking at another possible solution who's ideas are to be compared to others in the hope of seeing if there is something missing.