Page 286 - 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. 286
What Do We Know about the World?
Furthermore, it is always possible to refrain from choosing and reward-
ing a “winning” team by leaving the debate open to structural altera-
tion, such as open dialogue or to adopt debate formats that allow direct
questioning among debaters, as the cross examination format allows. Un-
doubtedly, these debate formats can allow students to perceive, address
and work with the contingency and relativity of their arguments (Mare-
li, 2011) avoiding dichotomization.
3.4. Dismissing Disagreement and Conflict Escalating Attitudes
as Necessary Debating Results
The cases against bias assimilation, close-mindedness and dichot-
omization lead us directly to our last point; escalating disagreement
and conflict attitudes. To escalate means to increase rapidly or to make
something more intense and serious; although, sometimes, this can be
interpreted as using heavier tactics than before or putting more pressure
on the participants (Pruitt and Kim, 2004). As Glasl (1982; 1997) de-
clares, debate and polemic involve polarization in thinking, feelings and
will, and they lead to the use of verbal violence and gain recognition by
speaking to an audience, namely addressing a third party rather than the
other party. Indeed, Kennedy and Pronin (2008) proved that the more
we disagree with someone the more we tend to have the perception that
those who disagree with us are biased. This undesirable outcome has,
among its consequences, become more and more aggressive.
However, competing activities are not necessarily linked to aggres-
siveness. As Pruitt and Kim (2004) pointed out, competing activities
sometimes inhibit aggression. Moderate heat could provoke aggression,
but severe heat could result in flight, if the situation allows it. Similarly,
the best way to stop angry children from crying is to divert their atten-
tion to a pleasurable competing activity. Nonetheless, and most import-
antly, it is always possible to avoid using verbal aggression or not to allow
the conflict to escalate to a more dangerous behaviour.
Glasl gives some tested suggestions on avoiding harsh debate or con-
flict escalation, which are: concentrating on the disputed core issues,
avoiding violence in communication, recognizing unfair debating tac-
tics. Hence, as it clearly appears, these suggestions require fundamen-
tal skills in debating, as every complete debate book proves (Huber and
Snider, 2005; Trapp et al., 2005; Wood and Goodnight, 1994). More-
over, Kennedy and Pronin (2008) argue that increasing efforts to achieve
an accurate understanding of the world is a promising intervention to
avoid disagreement and conflict escalation. But again, this is exactly
Furthermore, it is always possible to refrain from choosing and reward-
ing a “winning” team by leaving the debate open to structural altera-
tion, such as open dialogue or to adopt debate formats that allow direct
questioning among debaters, as the cross examination format allows. Un-
doubtedly, these debate formats can allow students to perceive, address
and work with the contingency and relativity of their arguments (Mare-
li, 2011) avoiding dichotomization.
3.4. Dismissing Disagreement and Conflict Escalating Attitudes
as Necessary Debating Results
The cases against bias assimilation, close-mindedness and dichot-
omization lead us directly to our last point; escalating disagreement
and conflict attitudes. To escalate means to increase rapidly or to make
something more intense and serious; although, sometimes, this can be
interpreted as using heavier tactics than before or putting more pressure
on the participants (Pruitt and Kim, 2004). As Glasl (1982; 1997) de-
clares, debate and polemic involve polarization in thinking, feelings and
will, and they lead to the use of verbal violence and gain recognition by
speaking to an audience, namely addressing a third party rather than the
other party. Indeed, Kennedy and Pronin (2008) proved that the more
we disagree with someone the more we tend to have the perception that
those who disagree with us are biased. This undesirable outcome has,
among its consequences, become more and more aggressive.
However, competing activities are not necessarily linked to aggres-
siveness. As Pruitt and Kim (2004) pointed out, competing activities
sometimes inhibit aggression. Moderate heat could provoke aggression,
but severe heat could result in flight, if the situation allows it. Similarly,
the best way to stop angry children from crying is to divert their atten-
tion to a pleasurable competing activity. Nonetheless, and most import-
antly, it is always possible to avoid using verbal aggression or not to allow
the conflict to escalate to a more dangerous behaviour.
Glasl gives some tested suggestions on avoiding harsh debate or con-
flict escalation, which are: concentrating on the disputed core issues,
avoiding violence in communication, recognizing unfair debating tac-
tics. Hence, as it clearly appears, these suggestions require fundamen-
tal skills in debating, as every complete debate book proves (Huber and
Snider, 2005; Trapp et al., 2005; Wood and Goodnight, 1994). More-
over, Kennedy and Pronin (2008) argue that increasing efforts to achieve
an accurate understanding of the world is a promising intervention to
avoid disagreement and conflict escalation. But again, this is exactly
