Page 281 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 281
debate as an educational tool:
is polarization a debate side effect? 281
dem: 261). Furthermore, Westbrook (2002) although he conceded that
some debaters in nineteenth-century colleges and debate societies could
have re-examined their position on dominant values, concluded that de-
bating did not influence debaters to resist hegemonic ideologies because
they were arguing for victory, instead of inquiring for the truth.
In addition, Andrews (1995) considered the Hegelian dialectic
structuring the debate as a simplification for the mind and of the mind
and Tumposky (2004) argued that “Debate can oversimplify and mis-
represent the nature of knowledge. By setting up issues as dichotomies,
debate reinforces a Western bias toward dualism and ignores the multi-
plicity of perspectives inherent in many issues” (ibidem: 53–54). More-
over, Barnard (1937) considered debate as developing in an over-aggres-
sive and combative manner that results in a bellicose attitude, and again,
Tannen sees debate as agonistic in nature where agonism means “an au-
tomatic warlike stance” and “agonistic response” means “a kind of pro-
grammed contentiousness – a prepatterned, unthinking use of fighting
to accomplish goals that do not necessarily require it” (Tannen, 1999:
10). Therefore, these conclusions, influenced these scholars to consider
debate an unsuitable tool for education in a multilingual, multicultur-
al, and economically diverse society (ibid.), as Hyde and Bineham (2000)
also argue.
All these features played a significant role in making competitive de-
bate appear like a disdained tool belonging to the so often rejected and
considered harmful adversary paradigm (Cf. Menkel-Meadow, 1996;
Moulton, 1983; Tannen, 1999; 2002).
3. Is Polarization a “Side Effect”?
The purpose of this paper is not to rebut the arguments against the
adversary paradigm, which has been done by some scholars already, who
effectively argued in favour of the adversary paradigm with a special fo-
cus on competitive debate (Cattani, 2005; Foster, 2004). We simply wish
to say that substituting debating with role playing so as to avoid antago-
nism, for example, will lead to too much focus on perspective taking at
the expense of argumentation and its associated benefits.
Indeed, Mitchell (2000) himself, after praising role-playing over de-
bating, recognized that “since arguments advanced in role-play simula-
tions involve highly subjective identity interpretations, it would be dif-
ficult indeed for teachers to develop evaluative criteria that would judge
radically different student performances fairly” (ibidem: 136). Oth-
erwise, debate “adversaries present arguments in the voice of omnisci-
is polarization a debate side effect? 281
dem: 261). Furthermore, Westbrook (2002) although he conceded that
some debaters in nineteenth-century colleges and debate societies could
have re-examined their position on dominant values, concluded that de-
bating did not influence debaters to resist hegemonic ideologies because
they were arguing for victory, instead of inquiring for the truth.
In addition, Andrews (1995) considered the Hegelian dialectic
structuring the debate as a simplification for the mind and of the mind
and Tumposky (2004) argued that “Debate can oversimplify and mis-
represent the nature of knowledge. By setting up issues as dichotomies,
debate reinforces a Western bias toward dualism and ignores the multi-
plicity of perspectives inherent in many issues” (ibidem: 53–54). More-
over, Barnard (1937) considered debate as developing in an over-aggres-
sive and combative manner that results in a bellicose attitude, and again,
Tannen sees debate as agonistic in nature where agonism means “an au-
tomatic warlike stance” and “agonistic response” means “a kind of pro-
grammed contentiousness – a prepatterned, unthinking use of fighting
to accomplish goals that do not necessarily require it” (Tannen, 1999:
10). Therefore, these conclusions, influenced these scholars to consider
debate an unsuitable tool for education in a multilingual, multicultur-
al, and economically diverse society (ibid.), as Hyde and Bineham (2000)
also argue.
All these features played a significant role in making competitive de-
bate appear like a disdained tool belonging to the so often rejected and
considered harmful adversary paradigm (Cf. Menkel-Meadow, 1996;
Moulton, 1983; Tannen, 1999; 2002).
3. Is Polarization a “Side Effect”?
The purpose of this paper is not to rebut the arguments against the
adversary paradigm, which has been done by some scholars already, who
effectively argued in favour of the adversary paradigm with a special fo-
cus on competitive debate (Cattani, 2005; Foster, 2004). We simply wish
to say that substituting debating with role playing so as to avoid antago-
nism, for example, will lead to too much focus on perspective taking at
the expense of argumentation and its associated benefits.
Indeed, Mitchell (2000) himself, after praising role-playing over de-
bating, recognized that “since arguments advanced in role-play simula-
tions involve highly subjective identity interpretations, it would be dif-
ficult indeed for teachers to develop evaluative criteria that would judge
radically different student performances fairly” (ibidem: 136). Oth-
erwise, debate “adversaries present arguments in the voice of omnisci-
