Page 287 - 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. 287
debate as an educational tool:
is polarization a debate side effect? 287
what debate and debate preparation lead to, as the surveys on learning
attest.
In conclusion, Infante et al. (1984) showed that argumentative
people are less aggressive than non-argumentative ones. Swift and
Vourvoulias (2006) also pointed out that argumentative people have
more satisfying relationships and Mezuk (2009) proved that African
American male high school debaters were 70 % more likely to gradu-
ate and three times less likely to drop out of high school than those who
did not participate in debates. Such an outcome implies that, since com-
petitive debate leads to a diminishing school drop out rate, it diminishes
criminal behaviour because dropouts are more likely to engage in crim-
inal activities than students and educated people (Blomberg et al., 2012;
Kimberly et al. 2012; Moretti, 2005).
As a result, from what has been argued so far, it is only reasonable
to conclude that bias assimilation, close-mindedness, dichotomization
and conflict or disagreement escalating attitudes do not necessarily re-
sult from debate and polarization. Therefore, polarization is not a ne-
cessary “side effect” of debate even if some of the negative consequences
mentioned so far are likely to occur in some debaters when training or
judging are inadequate (Cox and Adam, 1993; Ehninger, 1952; Fried-
ley, 1983; Hinck, 2003; Stepp, 1990; Thomas and Hart, 1983; Wood and
Rowland-Morin, 1989).
4. Detractors Mistakes
As previously shown, polarization is neither a necessary nor a likely
consequence of competitive debating even if it sometimes occurs among
debaters. Nonetheless, we have also seen that, even if polarization oc-
curs, it does not necessarily lead to bias assimilation, close-mindedness,
dichotomization and disagreement and conflict escalating attitudes.
Therefore, if the reasoning and proof brought in favour of these proposi-
tions are compelling, debate detractors must have made mistakes in de-
termining that debate is detrimental.
One of these mistakes is hasty generalization. Hasty generalization
happens when a conclusion is drawn before enough evidence is found
(Groarke and Tindale, 2008: 282) or when we conclude too much on too
little evidence (Tindale, 2007: 150). Quite often competitive debate is
deemed detrimental just because other categories of debate have negative
features. For example, public debates or TV debates’ negative features
are transferred to competitive debate (Tannen, 1988, 2002), negative
is polarization a debate side effect? 287
what debate and debate preparation lead to, as the surveys on learning
attest.
In conclusion, Infante et al. (1984) showed that argumentative
people are less aggressive than non-argumentative ones. Swift and
Vourvoulias (2006) also pointed out that argumentative people have
more satisfying relationships and Mezuk (2009) proved that African
American male high school debaters were 70 % more likely to gradu-
ate and three times less likely to drop out of high school than those who
did not participate in debates. Such an outcome implies that, since com-
petitive debate leads to a diminishing school drop out rate, it diminishes
criminal behaviour because dropouts are more likely to engage in crim-
inal activities than students and educated people (Blomberg et al., 2012;
Kimberly et al. 2012; Moretti, 2005).
As a result, from what has been argued so far, it is only reasonable
to conclude that bias assimilation, close-mindedness, dichotomization
and conflict or disagreement escalating attitudes do not necessarily re-
sult from debate and polarization. Therefore, polarization is not a ne-
cessary “side effect” of debate even if some of the negative consequences
mentioned so far are likely to occur in some debaters when training or
judging are inadequate (Cox and Adam, 1993; Ehninger, 1952; Fried-
ley, 1983; Hinck, 2003; Stepp, 1990; Thomas and Hart, 1983; Wood and
Rowland-Morin, 1989).
4. Detractors Mistakes
As previously shown, polarization is neither a necessary nor a likely
consequence of competitive debating even if it sometimes occurs among
debaters. Nonetheless, we have also seen that, even if polarization oc-
curs, it does not necessarily lead to bias assimilation, close-mindedness,
dichotomization and disagreement and conflict escalating attitudes.
Therefore, if the reasoning and proof brought in favour of these proposi-
tions are compelling, debate detractors must have made mistakes in de-
termining that debate is detrimental.
One of these mistakes is hasty generalization. Hasty generalization
happens when a conclusion is drawn before enough evidence is found
(Groarke and Tindale, 2008: 282) or when we conclude too much on too
little evidence (Tindale, 2007: 150). Quite often competitive debate is
deemed detrimental just because other categories of debate have negative
features. For example, public debates or TV debates’ negative features
are transferred to competitive debate (Tannen, 1988, 2002), negative
