Page 104 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 104
šolsko polje, letnik xxx, številka 5–6
the ‘truth’ of its position regarding the topic in an attempt to persuade
the audience. Simultaneously, each group adopts a critical stance towards
the ‘truth’ of the opposite team through the formulation of counterargu-
ments, which refute the oppositional thesis before a reasonable audience.
It becomes obvious that debate consists of a dynamic, demanding
and agonistic process or “intellectual agon” (Daqing, 2010, p. 6806) as
well as of a particular form of public dialogue. As such, debate requires
participants to develop and to perform complex intellectual and commu-
nication skills, which are interwoven with the privilege of free speech. For
example, we will refer to skills such as:
a) the active listening of opposite arguments,
b) the direct critical analysis, deconstruction and the rebuttal of the
provided argumentation through critical questions and counterar-
guments,
c) the efficient linguistic support of the subjective interpretation that
each team ascribes to the topic through the use of the appropriate ar-
guments, and
d) the dialogic communication skills, which are required during the ex-
change of arguments.
An initial hypothesis relative to the examination of the topic might
be that debate, both as a process of inquiry and as a thesis defense through
the invention of reasonable arguments and counterarguments (Freeley
and Steinberg, 2009, p. 2), could easily be accepted, at the same time, by
rhetorical and critical pedagogy as a teaching strategy. This is due to the
fact that the two latter pedagogical approaches seem to share common
ground, as it will be extensively shown in the following parts of our paper.
In particular, we could support the idea that rhetorical pedagogy, through
debate, offers the possibility of ‘new voices’ to be heard in contrast to dom-
inant, conservative ideas. For example, we might refer to the voices of op-
pressed social classes, such as oppressed women or other social minority
teams (e.g. refugees) due to the generation of sound arguments. In oth-
er words, we could support the idea that debate provides students with
the possibility to underline social injustices and to liberate their mode of
thinking from conventional, trivial and/or dominant ideas.
The participants’ thoughts, released from commonly accepted pat-
terns, create the necessary conditions for further activation and action
that will ensure the intended social changes. Under this perspective, de-
bate might be connected to the principles forming the general spirit of
critical pedagogy. It might become an approach of teaching and learn-
ing language, which aims to reform the asymmetries in power and domi-
102
the ‘truth’ of its position regarding the topic in an attempt to persuade
the audience. Simultaneously, each group adopts a critical stance towards
the ‘truth’ of the opposite team through the formulation of counterargu-
ments, which refute the oppositional thesis before a reasonable audience.
It becomes obvious that debate consists of a dynamic, demanding
and agonistic process or “intellectual agon” (Daqing, 2010, p. 6806) as
well as of a particular form of public dialogue. As such, debate requires
participants to develop and to perform complex intellectual and commu-
nication skills, which are interwoven with the privilege of free speech. For
example, we will refer to skills such as:
a) the active listening of opposite arguments,
b) the direct critical analysis, deconstruction and the rebuttal of the
provided argumentation through critical questions and counterar-
guments,
c) the efficient linguistic support of the subjective interpretation that
each team ascribes to the topic through the use of the appropriate ar-
guments, and
d) the dialogic communication skills, which are required during the ex-
change of arguments.
An initial hypothesis relative to the examination of the topic might
be that debate, both as a process of inquiry and as a thesis defense through
the invention of reasonable arguments and counterarguments (Freeley
and Steinberg, 2009, p. 2), could easily be accepted, at the same time, by
rhetorical and critical pedagogy as a teaching strategy. This is due to the
fact that the two latter pedagogical approaches seem to share common
ground, as it will be extensively shown in the following parts of our paper.
In particular, we could support the idea that rhetorical pedagogy, through
debate, offers the possibility of ‘new voices’ to be heard in contrast to dom-
inant, conservative ideas. For example, we might refer to the voices of op-
pressed social classes, such as oppressed women or other social minority
teams (e.g. refugees) due to the generation of sound arguments. In oth-
er words, we could support the idea that debate provides students with
the possibility to underline social injustices and to liberate their mode of
thinking from conventional, trivial and/or dominant ideas.
The participants’ thoughts, released from commonly accepted pat-
terns, create the necessary conditions for further activation and action
that will ensure the intended social changes. Under this perspective, de-
bate might be connected to the principles forming the general spirit of
critical pedagogy. It might become an approach of teaching and learn-
ing language, which aims to reform the asymmetries in power and domi-
102
