I duuno if it can be called a 'debate' but there is a lively back and forth, quoting of primary and secondary texts and cross questioning of domain experts (!), appeals to the judges to intervene etc. during what are called 'Fiqhi Seminars' that take place annually here in India. So far as I know, most of the times a consensus is reached during the same seminar but sometimes the matter is deferred until next year. I cannot guarantee that there are no temporary hard feelings but generally the seminars end quite amicably with a public event during which the questions discussed (debated?) and the answers that were agreed upon are made known. The fact that the participants (senior ones at-least) discuss the issues passionately and with a sense of responsibility will be evident to anyone who witnesses the event or listens to the recordings (all the sessions are always recorded) which is natural since many of them spend a great deal of time and energy (I have heard that Mufti Nizamuddin sahib spends a greater part of six months in preparation for every seminar) in doing ground work and gathering opinions from experts in the respective fields that bear on the topics to be discussed in order to themselves reach some definite conclusion or to zero-in on the points that are worth discussing before having to defend their point of views in front of the gathering of scholars. I believe that these should be broadcast live via the internet or at-least the recordings should be made public which, by the way, is not disallowed although few are interested in knowing who-said-what. Yet, I think that the two disadvantages of live broadcasts would be: a. Some of the participants might become self-conscious and not put forth their points of view as boldly as they might do in a private event whereas some would fall prey to ostentation and kibr and other things that sidi mentioned above. b. This is as funny as it is true and inevitable: "Abe*, dekha wo maulana log kaisa jhagda karte hai? Hum ko bolte hai aapas me milke raho aur khud ka haal dekho.... Sub aise hi hai..... Aur unko dekha? Kuchh bol hi nahi rahe the.......isiliye to hamaari qaum itni peechhe hai". *excuse that word but it is a favorite sentence starter on the streets, especially with those folks who think nothing about 'gracing' their gatherings with such mindlessly critical remarks in regards to the ulema as above. wassalaam.
unless people have gone through a reflection process, debate is nothing but another door to kibr, ujb, show-off and associated diseases. unless one has developed a self-control and maturity to acknowledge the truth wherever it issues from, the courage to accept one's mistake, the humility to retract from a position in front of a multitude, when the truth is apparent; the magnanimity to forgive little slips of your opponent, and particular kindness (muru'ah) to overlook personal flaws; the determination to be just (munSif) irrespective of the consequences - and the sincere intention to debate only to ascertain, validate or investigate the truth... until then, debates are ego-trips; who can talk better or is quicker to retort. but still we engage in them, even though our weak hearts are almost as lifeless limbs - may Allah ta'ala forgive us.
you can use quotes to differentiate between your talk and citation thus; highlight the text you want to quote, select quote as shown:
In this work he mentions how and why the debaters mustn't shout or speak over each other and present their arguments in a calm manner. I know the urf in indo Pak is shouting in speeches, but debates ought to still be calmer. As for the Arab world- since the decline in azhar sharif, among other major institutes of learning-things seem to be diluted a great deal in terms of munazara and firm reliance on Sunni creed. I'm probably wrong though, because I haven't really been there for long enough, so I won't know much about it. Debating is an excellent intellectual pursuit in that it motivates the listeners to find out more, if its orchestrated in an organised manner. I don't know from where many of us believe that debates are troublesome and anti adab/Islamic?! It is mainly due to the lack of debating that we have lost a great chunk of our intellectual heritage. All the major ulama of the past took part in this zealous endeavour. Even Sunnis must debate among themselves. But not wage war against each other in the process! Minor issues, such as eid and moonsighting, to the beard and injections breaking the fast, all must be debated over. But with the proviso that both parties must be seen eating and socialising together before and after; not allowing the qawm differences to enter religious dialogue (such as I'm jatt and he's a raja) As for debating innovators that's a different story altogether. But if they offer us out we must'nt shy away. In fact we must offer them challenges if they openly speak against the companions (Allah be pleased with them all!) or slander the sanctity (hurma) Allah most high has granted the coolness of our eyes (peace and blessings be upon him!) I don't know how to upload pics otherwise I would've presented the quote from the book directly.
If you're asking then it's jaunpuri in Urdu but jaunfuri in Arabic as Arabic has the letter 'faa' not 'paa'.
Sayyid Sharif Jurjani wrote a small book on the science of debating called Sharifiyya. Allamah Abdul Rashid alJawnfuri wrote a commentary on it called Rashidiyya. This book is a famous text taught in madaris: https://ia600308.us.archive.org/13/items/SharhAlsharefea/SharhAlsharefea.pdf A link to an audio explanation of the same book:
