Seeing discussions like this makes me wonder if it would be a good thing to develop a formal analytic debate forum. In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, analytic debates forms a core part of practice along with meditation. The goal is not to argue for arguments sake, but rather to defeat one’s own misconceptions, to establish one’s own understanding, and to clear away one’s own objections to that understanding and to develop confidence and faith.
To help prevent it turning into an ego-building exercise of attachment and aversion, the debates are held according to rules and rituals that go back to ancient India Buddhist centers of learning like Nalanda. Before one can even begin one has to study the formal logical system that is used and the debate takes place between two individuals: the challenger (who gets to ask all the questions) and the defender (who has to answer them and defend an understanding) … the challenger uses strategic questions to elicit contradictions in the defender by way of logic, common sense or sutta. The challenger is motivated not to try and defend their own position, but to help the defender establish their own with confidence.
Please note in the video the huge smiles on both of these monks faces as they debate with each other. The challenger is essentially asking the defender whether he has properly gone for refuge in the three jewels and using logic and sutta to argue that neither of them has. The purpose here isn’t to win the debate, but to help clarify the doubts that still exist in the mind so as to clear them up.
I wish there was such a system on discourse. 