4 ms·

Along those lines, I think formal debate should be required in secondary education, and students should be required to defend the position they disagree with.

bsenftner 11y ago
That would be nice, but is "formal debate" taught anymore? What I've seen lately (finished grad school 5 years ago) that is called "debate" at a university is far from what I remember when I did undergrad in the '80's.
- aswanson 11y ago
  Not sure...never had any debate as a part of my education (through grad school). I think they should start in high school though because if you're going to be a participant in an informed electorate you need to be able to process and articulate both sides of an argument. A casual glance at a few facebook timelines and twitter feeds suggest this is a horribly rare skill these days.
wfo 11y ago
In my experience "formal debate" (in the vein of forensics competitions, etc) is essentially heavy "research" in which you cherry pick any study or paper or blog you can find that supports your position and then spit out all those citiations as quickly as possible in an 8 minute 'speech' -- there's very little debating or discussion going on, just a war of citations which quickly shows all the participants that citations mean nothing -- no matter your view you can find plenty of "evidence" for it, it's an even playing field whether you're affirmative or negative after all. So all in all like the real debate we see on television I suppose.
potatolicious 11y ago
I did formal debate in high school and university, and agree with wfo - formal debate is possibly one of the worst things to teach if your goal is understanding and critical thinking about topics. Keep in mind that in a typical formal debate you don't get to pick your sides - you are assigned a position on an issue and must successfully argue in favor of that position. Formal debate is about the art of rhetoric, and explicitly part of the expectation - and the skill taught - is the deliberate distortion/reframing of fact in order to support your case. Anyone who's done formal debates will have learned this, since you're frequently asked to argue positions you personally disagree with. Formal debate is a craft of being convincing, not of being right. Not to mention the structure of formal debates means there is a winner and a loser, and so compromise is impossible. The goal isn't to reach an understanding or middle ground, but to completely obliterate your opponent rhetorically. This fits poorly with real life.
- aswanson 11y ago
  Sad, it would be better if the emphasis was on pure logical rigor.

bsenftner 11y ago

That would be nice, but is "formal debate" taught anymore? What I've seen lately (finished grad school 5 years ago) that is called "debate" at a university is far from what I remember when I did undergrad in the '80's.

aswanson 11y ago
Not sure...never had any debate as a part of my education (through grad school). I think they should start in high school though because if you're going to be a participant in an informed electorate you need to be able to process and articulate both sides of an argument. A casual glance at a few facebook timelines and twitter feeds suggest this is a horribly rare skill these days.

wfo 11y ago

In my experience "formal debate" (in the vein of forensics competitions, etc) is essentially heavy "research" in which you cherry pick any study or paper or blog you can find that supports your position and then spit out all those citiations as quickly as possible in an 8 minute 'speech' -- there's very little debating or discussion going on, just a war of citations which quickly shows all the participants that citations mean nothing -- no matter your view you can find plenty of "evidence" for it, it's an even playing field whether you're affirmative or negative after all. So all in all like the real debate we see on television I suppose.

potatolicious 11y ago

I did formal debate in high school and university, and agree with wfo - formal debate is possibly one of the worst things to teach if your goal is understanding and critical thinking about topics. Keep in mind that in a typical formal debate you don't get to pick your sides - you are assigned a position on an issue and must successfully argue in favor of that position. Formal debate is about the art of rhetoric, and explicitly part of the expectation - and the skill taught - is the deliberate distortion/reframing of fact in order to support your case. Anyone who's done formal debates will have learned this, since you're frequently asked to argue positions you personally disagree with. Formal debate is a craft of being convincing, not of being right. Not to mention the structure of formal debates means there is a winner and a loser, and so compromise is impossible. The goal isn't to reach an understanding or middle ground, but to completely obliterate your opponent rhetorically. This fits poorly with real life.

aswanson 11y ago
Sad, it would be better if the emphasis was on pure logical rigor.