Page 285 - 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. 285
debate as an educational tool:
is polarization a debate side effect? 285
ter-attitudinal evidence, by people who hold strong opinions (Lord, et
al., 1979), showed that either direct instruction or indirectly making op-
posing possibilities more salient actions that could be taken by coaches
themselves, promotes impartiality (ibidem: 1239). Hence, close-minded-
ness does not necessary result from debate practice.
3.3. Discounting Dichotomization as a Debating Impact
The outcomes previously mentioned favour the case against di-
chotomization too. De-dichotomization means “showing that the op-
position between the poles can be constructed as less logically binding
than a contradiction, thus allowing for intermediate alternatives; actu-
ally developing or exemplifying such alternatives” (Dascal, 2008: 35).
Therefore, if competitive debate is considered also as a game (Snider,
1983;1984) and not the way in which people should relate with one an-
other all the time, and, as we noticed before, competitive debate leads
to understanding issues and people significantly deeper (Combs and
Bourne, 1994; Duffin, 2006; Rogers and Rennels, in press; Scott, 2008;
Vo and Morris, 1996), de-dichotomization, rather dichotomization, is
more likely to occur.
In addition, de-dichotomization is not only pointed out by reason-
ing and surveys. It can be also attained by specific guidelines. For exam-
ple, multisided debates were born due to the realization that some issues
are not clearly black and white. Indeed, most debate motions can be an-
swered by a spectrum of answers (Snider and Schnurer, 2002). To clarify
how this kind of debate works:
Consider a debate about what the United Nations stance should be con-
cerning the nation of Iraq. One side of the debate might represent a hard-line
stance that advocated strict sanctions and a vigorous bombing campaign to
get the Iraqi people to rebel against Saddam Hussein. A second side might
advocate humanitarian assistance to help rebuild the shattered infrastruc-
ture of Iraq and feed starving children. Yet, a third position might represent a
decided “hands-off” approach, arguing that the best thing that the UN could
do would be to leave Iraq alone (Snider and Schnurer, 2002: 75).
Another example could be choosing a motion such as “Who has the
most pride (or prejudice) in Austen’s novel?” rather than “Elizabeth Ben-
nett has more pride (or prejudice) than Darcy in Jane Austen’s Pride and
Prejudice”. Rephrasing the motion following this suggestion will split
up the classroom into more groups allowing a multisided debate (Mare-
li, 2011).
is polarization a debate side effect? 285
ter-attitudinal evidence, by people who hold strong opinions (Lord, et
al., 1979), showed that either direct instruction or indirectly making op-
posing possibilities more salient actions that could be taken by coaches
themselves, promotes impartiality (ibidem: 1239). Hence, close-minded-
ness does not necessary result from debate practice.
3.3. Discounting Dichotomization as a Debating Impact
The outcomes previously mentioned favour the case against di-
chotomization too. De-dichotomization means “showing that the op-
position between the poles can be constructed as less logically binding
than a contradiction, thus allowing for intermediate alternatives; actu-
ally developing or exemplifying such alternatives” (Dascal, 2008: 35).
Therefore, if competitive debate is considered also as a game (Snider,
1983;1984) and not the way in which people should relate with one an-
other all the time, and, as we noticed before, competitive debate leads
to understanding issues and people significantly deeper (Combs and
Bourne, 1994; Duffin, 2006; Rogers and Rennels, in press; Scott, 2008;
Vo and Morris, 1996), de-dichotomization, rather dichotomization, is
more likely to occur.
In addition, de-dichotomization is not only pointed out by reason-
ing and surveys. It can be also attained by specific guidelines. For exam-
ple, multisided debates were born due to the realization that some issues
are not clearly black and white. Indeed, most debate motions can be an-
swered by a spectrum of answers (Snider and Schnurer, 2002). To clarify
how this kind of debate works:
Consider a debate about what the United Nations stance should be con-
cerning the nation of Iraq. One side of the debate might represent a hard-line
stance that advocated strict sanctions and a vigorous bombing campaign to
get the Iraqi people to rebel against Saddam Hussein. A second side might
advocate humanitarian assistance to help rebuild the shattered infrastruc-
ture of Iraq and feed starving children. Yet, a third position might represent a
decided “hands-off” approach, arguing that the best thing that the UN could
do would be to leave Iraq alone (Snider and Schnurer, 2002: 75).
Another example could be choosing a motion such as “Who has the
most pride (or prejudice) in Austen’s novel?” rather than “Elizabeth Ben-
nett has more pride (or prejudice) than Darcy in Jane Austen’s Pride and
Prejudice”. Rephrasing the motion following this suggestion will split
up the classroom into more groups allowing a multisided debate (Mare-
li, 2011).
