Page 283 - 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. 283
debate as an educational tool:
is polarization a debate side effect? 283
by other studies on debate (ibidem; cf. Landrum, 1991). Therefore, after
having reviewed some research it can be concluded that debating is nei-
ther necessarily nor likely to leads to polarization.
The question arises whether, whenever polarization occurs, it is nec-
essary that bias assimilation, close-mindedness, dichotomization and
disagreement, and conflict escalating attitudes will follow. The answer
to this question is negative: it is not necessary.
3.1. Against Bias Assimilation as a Debating Consequence
Walton (1992) and Blair (1988) argue that not all bias is harmful;
there is nothing inherently wrong about partisan argumentation “which
takes up only one side of an issue in contentious dialogue with an op-
posed advocate of a differing point of view” (Walton, 1992: 155). Indeed,
having a position on an issue is different from having a censurable bias
which means that the argument is never really open to the risk of loss.
Censurable bias or “bad” bias, i.e. bias that is open to criticism (Blair,
1988), is a fault called hardened bias (Walton, 1992: 157). Therefore, ad-
vocating a position does not necessarily mean being biased in a harmful
way. Even more relevant to this point is that, as Nickerson (1998) argues,
there is a huge difference in building a case deliberately and conscious-
ly instead of engaging in case-building without being aware of doing so.
The first type of case-building is illustrated by what attorneys and de-
baters do, namely to confirm a particular position. Otherwise, the sec-
ond type of case-building is a less explicit and a less conscious process.
This is what psychologists refer to as the confirmation bias (Nickerson,
1998: 175–176). What seems really important for education is that the
difference between case-building and evidence-weighing must be explic-
it (Narveson, 1980).
Accordingly, even dogmatism if moderate can play an important
role and not to be considered harmful. Popper himself regarded a lit-
tle dogmatism, even a little obstinacy, to be useful in avoiding the pre-
mature rejection of a hypothesis (Popper, 1972): “a degree of conserva-
tism plays a stabilizing role in science and guards the field against un-
critical acceptance of so-called discoveries that fail to stand the test of
time” (Nickerson, 1998: 207). For this reason and in the light of the rules
(Wood and Goodnight, 1994) and game (Snider, 1983; 1984) features
of competitive debate, that require for actively and consciously building
a case (Nickerson, 1998), and in the light of the previous empirical re-
search that attests to the improvements of debaters in critical thinking
skills (Allen et al., 1999; Colbert, 1995; Korcok, 1997) for example, lead-
is polarization a debate side effect? 283
by other studies on debate (ibidem; cf. Landrum, 1991). Therefore, after
having reviewed some research it can be concluded that debating is nei-
ther necessarily nor likely to leads to polarization.
The question arises whether, whenever polarization occurs, it is nec-
essary that bias assimilation, close-mindedness, dichotomization and
disagreement, and conflict escalating attitudes will follow. The answer
to this question is negative: it is not necessary.
3.1. Against Bias Assimilation as a Debating Consequence
Walton (1992) and Blair (1988) argue that not all bias is harmful;
there is nothing inherently wrong about partisan argumentation “which
takes up only one side of an issue in contentious dialogue with an op-
posed advocate of a differing point of view” (Walton, 1992: 155). Indeed,
having a position on an issue is different from having a censurable bias
which means that the argument is never really open to the risk of loss.
Censurable bias or “bad” bias, i.e. bias that is open to criticism (Blair,
1988), is a fault called hardened bias (Walton, 1992: 157). Therefore, ad-
vocating a position does not necessarily mean being biased in a harmful
way. Even more relevant to this point is that, as Nickerson (1998) argues,
there is a huge difference in building a case deliberately and conscious-
ly instead of engaging in case-building without being aware of doing so.
The first type of case-building is illustrated by what attorneys and de-
baters do, namely to confirm a particular position. Otherwise, the sec-
ond type of case-building is a less explicit and a less conscious process.
This is what psychologists refer to as the confirmation bias (Nickerson,
1998: 175–176). What seems really important for education is that the
difference between case-building and evidence-weighing must be explic-
it (Narveson, 1980).
Accordingly, even dogmatism if moderate can play an important
role and not to be considered harmful. Popper himself regarded a lit-
tle dogmatism, even a little obstinacy, to be useful in avoiding the pre-
mature rejection of a hypothesis (Popper, 1972): “a degree of conserva-
tism plays a stabilizing role in science and guards the field against un-
critical acceptance of so-called discoveries that fail to stand the test of
time” (Nickerson, 1998: 207). For this reason and in the light of the rules
(Wood and Goodnight, 1994) and game (Snider, 1983; 1984) features
of competitive debate, that require for actively and consciously building
a case (Nickerson, 1998), and in the light of the previous empirical re-
search that attests to the improvements of debaters in critical thinking
skills (Allen et al., 1999; Colbert, 1995; Korcok, 1997) for example, lead-
