Page 282 - 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. 282
What Do We Know about the World?
ent commentators, delivering [an] overarching assessment of issues that
‘clash’ directly with positions staked out by opponents” (ibidem: 148).
In addition, even if not directly, psychological and educational sci-
ence research supports the benefits of the adversary paradigm too. For
example, Sears (1966) proved that in a mock trial setting subjects famil-
iar with neither side’s arguments seek a nonpartisan two-sided presenta-
tion. Although this choice was made as an economical way of compar-
ing the virtues of the two alternatives and arriving at a reasonable pref-
erence, it was preferred over one-sided partisan argument. Furthermore,
Turner et al., (2010) showed that people seek out counter-attitudinal in-
formation mostly when they are confident in their arguments and fore-
warned to interact with someone with opposite views. Therefore, on the
contrary, the purpose of this paper is to show that polarization is not a
debate “side effect”, to reject the reasoning concluding that debate is a
detrimental tool because it leads to polarization.
Nonetheless, it is of the most importance to stress that debating is
neither necessarily nor likely to lead to polarization. As previously seen,
when debaters advocate for an opposite position than their personal be-
liefs, the confidence in such opinions weakens significantly (De Con-
ti, in press; cf. Budesheim and Lundquist, 1999; Green and Klug, 1990).
This means that debaters de-polarize, implying that they move in the op-
posite direction rather than the initial view or attitude (Petty and We-
gener, 1998). Therefore, after considering the above arguments it can be
concluded that some debaters polarize. However this is neither neces-
sary nor likely in a long period. Many debate formats, such as the Lin-
coln-Douglas and more generally all Switch-Side Debates require stu-
dents to debate several times, both for and against, about the same issue
(Lewis and Wiese, 2000; Muir, 1993). In such instances, a tendency to
moderate radicalization occurs because people have to support positions
opposite to their opinion (Hocked et al., 2004). Moreover, it is always
possible to adopt procedures specifically developed to prevent polariza-
tion. For example, the 5’R model (Williams, 2010) suggests Reading re-
search articles representing different points of view on each issue, Rap-
ping the articles with the debate group and with the instructor, writing
an essay on the core disagreement across the two opposing arguments
recognizing bias and persuasive strategies and evaluating the empirical
merit of the data, Reporting or having a debate and finally, Repeating or
having another debate on the same motion, some months later. In con-
clusion, as William proved, the 5’R model helped nearly 33 % of the stu-
dents to change their attitude, a greater outcome than that documented
ent commentators, delivering [an] overarching assessment of issues that
‘clash’ directly with positions staked out by opponents” (ibidem: 148).
In addition, even if not directly, psychological and educational sci-
ence research supports the benefits of the adversary paradigm too. For
example, Sears (1966) proved that in a mock trial setting subjects famil-
iar with neither side’s arguments seek a nonpartisan two-sided presenta-
tion. Although this choice was made as an economical way of compar-
ing the virtues of the two alternatives and arriving at a reasonable pref-
erence, it was preferred over one-sided partisan argument. Furthermore,
Turner et al., (2010) showed that people seek out counter-attitudinal in-
formation mostly when they are confident in their arguments and fore-
warned to interact with someone with opposite views. Therefore, on the
contrary, the purpose of this paper is to show that polarization is not a
debate “side effect”, to reject the reasoning concluding that debate is a
detrimental tool because it leads to polarization.
Nonetheless, it is of the most importance to stress that debating is
neither necessarily nor likely to lead to polarization. As previously seen,
when debaters advocate for an opposite position than their personal be-
liefs, the confidence in such opinions weakens significantly (De Con-
ti, in press; cf. Budesheim and Lundquist, 1999; Green and Klug, 1990).
This means that debaters de-polarize, implying that they move in the op-
posite direction rather than the initial view or attitude (Petty and We-
gener, 1998). Therefore, after considering the above arguments it can be
concluded that some debaters polarize. However this is neither neces-
sary nor likely in a long period. Many debate formats, such as the Lin-
coln-Douglas and more generally all Switch-Side Debates require stu-
dents to debate several times, both for and against, about the same issue
(Lewis and Wiese, 2000; Muir, 1993). In such instances, a tendency to
moderate radicalization occurs because people have to support positions
opposite to their opinion (Hocked et al., 2004). Moreover, it is always
possible to adopt procedures specifically developed to prevent polariza-
tion. For example, the 5’R model (Williams, 2010) suggests Reading re-
search articles representing different points of view on each issue, Rap-
ping the articles with the debate group and with the instructor, writing
an essay on the core disagreement across the two opposing arguments
recognizing bias and persuasive strategies and evaluating the empirical
merit of the data, Reporting or having a debate and finally, Repeating or
having another debate on the same motion, some months later. In con-
clusion, as William proved, the 5’R model helped nearly 33 % of the stu-
dents to change their attitude, a greater outcome than that documented
