Page 116 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 116
šolsko polje, letnik xxx, številka 5–6
courage of a person who will raise their voice in order to be heard by the
hegemonic system.
Conclusions
To conclude, debate consists of a multi-dynamic pedagogical practice. It
seems that within the process of the argumentative exchange of ideas it-
self, huge amounts of energy are stored, capable either to reproduce or to
deconstruct relations of power that are appearing in the public socio-po-
litical sphere. Under this perspective we could accept the idea that debate,
as the hard core of rhetorical paideia has not only the character of an “in-
tellectual game” (jeu d’esprit) (Huizinga, 1949, p. 51). Simultaneously, it
consists of a political praxis, which may be implemented within critical
pedagogy and political education, in general, since it provides students
with the possibility to get out of the classroom due to the force of their
speech and to be conducted, as citizens, to active action for the formation
of a different and desirable reality. In other words, we support the idea of
a direct relationship between debate and critical citizenry that contrib-
utes to the formation of citizens who – among others – have the capacity
to evaluate reasons for and against various alternative practices regarding
issues, which demand public deliberation and reasonable decisions (Siegel,
2010, p. 9).
As a consequence, the awareness of the power of debate in the politi-
cal education of young students leads us to the conclusion that the educa-
tional community should be extremely attentive with regards to the terms
of involvement in it, either as educators who use it as a pedagogical tool,
or as students who participate in the process of assuming the role of the
speaker or the audience. Also, it is important to notice that involvement
in a debate does not equate to the correct language use during its process.
It consists of a life stance. It presupposes the comprehension that debate is
not the only form of exchanging arguments within the context of delib-
erative community fora. It is important for students to realize that there
may be more than two sides with regards to the dialogic examination of
a topic. In other words, debate must not be equated to the students’ per-
ception of argumentation as eristic. Its consideration must not be limited
to the invention of the appropriate arguments independent of ethical pa-
rameters and rules of reason for the accomplishment of power, fame and
authority. During their participation in a debate, students are not oppo-
nents, but co-operators to the agonistic examination of the reality that
they share through their experiences. Also, we support the idea that par-
ticipation in a debate presupposes the prior familiarization of students
and educators with a whole argumentative culture in the context of dia-
114
courage of a person who will raise their voice in order to be heard by the
hegemonic system.
Conclusions
To conclude, debate consists of a multi-dynamic pedagogical practice. It
seems that within the process of the argumentative exchange of ideas it-
self, huge amounts of energy are stored, capable either to reproduce or to
deconstruct relations of power that are appearing in the public socio-po-
litical sphere. Under this perspective we could accept the idea that debate,
as the hard core of rhetorical paideia has not only the character of an “in-
tellectual game” (jeu d’esprit) (Huizinga, 1949, p. 51). Simultaneously, it
consists of a political praxis, which may be implemented within critical
pedagogy and political education, in general, since it provides students
with the possibility to get out of the classroom due to the force of their
speech and to be conducted, as citizens, to active action for the formation
of a different and desirable reality. In other words, we support the idea of
a direct relationship between debate and critical citizenry that contrib-
utes to the formation of citizens who – among others – have the capacity
to evaluate reasons for and against various alternative practices regarding
issues, which demand public deliberation and reasonable decisions (Siegel,
2010, p. 9).
As a consequence, the awareness of the power of debate in the politi-
cal education of young students leads us to the conclusion that the educa-
tional community should be extremely attentive with regards to the terms
of involvement in it, either as educators who use it as a pedagogical tool,
or as students who participate in the process of assuming the role of the
speaker or the audience. Also, it is important to notice that involvement
in a debate does not equate to the correct language use during its process.
It consists of a life stance. It presupposes the comprehension that debate is
not the only form of exchanging arguments within the context of delib-
erative community fora. It is important for students to realize that there
may be more than two sides with regards to the dialogic examination of
a topic. In other words, debate must not be equated to the students’ per-
ception of argumentation as eristic. Its consideration must not be limited
to the invention of the appropriate arguments independent of ethical pa-
rameters and rules of reason for the accomplishment of power, fame and
authority. During their participation in a debate, students are not oppo-
nents, but co-operators to the agonistic examination of the reality that
they share through their experiences. Also, we support the idea that par-
ticipation in a debate presupposes the prior familiarization of students
and educators with a whole argumentative culture in the context of dia-
114
