At its core, philosophy seeks to find and outline the path to truth. Debate in contrast may at times be more concerned with disproving the opposition’s stance. Philosophy does not assume in good faith a complete understanding by exemplifying mere error in a given series of counter-arguments. It must take note the full essence of those very arguments in order to deepen collective understanding. To reach a universal unbroken logic and process. It’s not political, it is principle.
Let me take this opportunity to examine my own critique of debate. To ensure I’m not discounting the possibility that pure philosophical statement is not meant to use invalidation as its primary argument; let me ask the following question. Does disproving my claim that philosophy must not assume conclusive evidence to be found by contrasting the common practice in classical debate to debunk an opposite point of view or procedure in of itself contradict the very point I am attempting clarify?
Is this philosophy or debate?