I'll take this side since Nichole took the other. I'm not at all certain on-line debate is the thing but she makes some good points. Years ago on every Saturday afternoon, TV had schools debating one another on any variety of topics and they seemed to be well mannered and civil not to mention that everyone allowed each debater to make their point without interruption! That was the best but today, on TV you watch the talking heads speaking over each other, each trying to outdo the other. If it was all like that I wouldn't like it very much and opt into the other side quickly! I liked the Presidential debates and thought they were fairly well handled by the moderators in charge. I thought they were very fairly done.

The big advantage of in-person debates is that they're fast. A full week of back and forth with somebody here on CD could often be condensed into one five minute conversation in person.

Plus, non-verbal communication can make it easier to get a point across.

Debates are better in Real Life.

I refer to public speaking debates as being real, and to online as not being real.

Similar to the sense of justice in the one time right of the accused to confront his accuser in the trial system,

the opportunity to confront ones opponent in person in the battle of words of a debate is refreshing.

Online, you never meet the little punks, and they feel free to state any frivolous, inflammatory, or caustic remark confidant that they will never be called to task over their statements.

Also the real life debate has a sense of finality about it, in that once the debate is concluded, it is over. You have either won or lost.

Whereas an online debate one feels compelled to constantly defend your position against every new post attempting to discredit your efforts.

A printed argument can be considered part of a debate in a more general sense, and is also real. But being generally vetted by the publisher, the content usually reflects their timid attitudes.

While online debate forums have (thus far) shown their inferiority in meeting the same level of quality as public speaking debates, the online debate forums offer much more opportunity for access to debate both as observer and participant. And for these reasons online debate is a very valuable forum for debate, as our society is enriched by having them. However, the quality of public forum in person speaking debates is superior. Therefore the speaker posits that debate is better in real life.

It's a lot easier to take things point by point and force the other to go over each point in real life.

the main problem i find hear is that Specific points have to be repeated again and again because people keep on ignoring them. not on purpose, but when you read an argument and then have to rebut it, you sometimes miss a few details.

I try to avoid this by numbering my debates when rebutting. But stuff always gets lost, and as Jessald said, IRL is so much faster.

Better in real life as, for one, it is on what you ACTUALLY know. When debating online if you get cornered you can always Google some facts etc. to try and make yourself seem smarter. If you got cornered in real life you have to rely on your own knowledge. Furthermore, real life debates are a lot more adrenaline pumping and intense; sure online debates can get intense but nothing beats a person battling off their own wits in order to try and prove a point. Real life debates also bring emotion into play which can bring in a whole new spectrum of game play (though it can also reduce some debates to rubble truth be told). I also think real life debates sort out 'the men from the boys' so to speak as it is a lot about who is confident to support their point to the end - anybody can support a various claim online but it takes gutso to do so in person.