Page 291 - 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. 291
debate as an educational tool:
is polarization a debate side effect? 291
who consider debate just a way of making a prejudice more sound (Cf.
Bono de, 1985). This is also a challenge that future researchers should
face.
5. Conclusion
Debate is not detrimental. It is neither necessary nor likely that it
leads to polarization. Debaters who advocate a counter-attitudinal side
do not polarize but de-polarize, and debaters’ de-polarization could be
promoted by making debaters shift side many times, or by adopting
appropriate procedures as the 5’R model describes. Also among those
who polarize, debate does not necessarily lead to bias assimilation,
close-mindedness, dichotomization or escalating conflict attitudes.
Thus, polarization is not a necessary “side effect” of debate even if some
of the negative consequences mentioned so far could occur in some de-
baters when training or judging is inadequate.
Nonetheless, important suggestions on unpleasant features or con-
sequences such as eristic, exaggerate agonism, and issues simplification
must be kept in mind. As educators, it is always important to make
every effort to avoid such undesired consequences. Moreover, out-
comes that stress other types of dialogue having greater positive im-
pact than debate, as a more active search for information outside the
class (Johnson and Johnson, 1985) or more evidence quotation (Felton
et al., 2009), must be considered with open-mindedness and curiosi-
ty. They could suggest we consider debate from a wider and more com-
plex perspective, and to develop the appropriate training. Indeed, team
members preparing for competitive debate also engage in negotiation,
when they organize for effective cooperation, in information-seeking
dialogue, when they share information, in critical discussion, when they
develop and test cases, in deliberation, when they choose strategy for
the debate match, and finally in debate. From this perspective, debate
could be seen as a complete tool for argumentation education because
it provides a wide set of argumentative dialogues to work with and it
assures, at the same time, the fundamental ingredient of argumenta-
tion itself: disagreement and confrontation (Jackson, 2002; Marttu-
nen, 1992). As Willard (1988) suggests, disagreement is not a problem,
but a value in itself; if we let it flourish, if we tolerate it and if we cor-
rectly manage it, we avoid conformity, we do not compromise democ-
racy and we do not lose our liberty.
is polarization a debate side effect? 291
who consider debate just a way of making a prejudice more sound (Cf.
Bono de, 1985). This is also a challenge that future researchers should
face.
5. Conclusion
Debate is not detrimental. It is neither necessary nor likely that it
leads to polarization. Debaters who advocate a counter-attitudinal side
do not polarize but de-polarize, and debaters’ de-polarization could be
promoted by making debaters shift side many times, or by adopting
appropriate procedures as the 5’R model describes. Also among those
who polarize, debate does not necessarily lead to bias assimilation,
close-mindedness, dichotomization or escalating conflict attitudes.
Thus, polarization is not a necessary “side effect” of debate even if some
of the negative consequences mentioned so far could occur in some de-
baters when training or judging is inadequate.
Nonetheless, important suggestions on unpleasant features or con-
sequences such as eristic, exaggerate agonism, and issues simplification
must be kept in mind. As educators, it is always important to make
every effort to avoid such undesired consequences. Moreover, out-
comes that stress other types of dialogue having greater positive im-
pact than debate, as a more active search for information outside the
class (Johnson and Johnson, 1985) or more evidence quotation (Felton
et al., 2009), must be considered with open-mindedness and curiosi-
ty. They could suggest we consider debate from a wider and more com-
plex perspective, and to develop the appropriate training. Indeed, team
members preparing for competitive debate also engage in negotiation,
when they organize for effective cooperation, in information-seeking
dialogue, when they share information, in critical discussion, when they
develop and test cases, in deliberation, when they choose strategy for
the debate match, and finally in debate. From this perspective, debate
could be seen as a complete tool for argumentation education because
it provides a wide set of argumentative dialogues to work with and it
assures, at the same time, the fundamental ingredient of argumenta-
tion itself: disagreement and confrontation (Jackson, 2002; Marttu-
nen, 1992). As Willard (1988) suggests, disagreement is not a problem,
but a value in itself; if we let it flourish, if we tolerate it and if we cor-
rectly manage it, we avoid conformity, we do not compromise democ-
racy and we do not lose our liberty.
