Page 136 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 136
šolsko polje, letnik xxx, številka 5–6
Then, at the second phase, the cognitive framework created in the
critical preparation should be embedded into the dynamic and interactive
process of communication, of speaking up.
Connecting and debating
The third phase in rhetoric education is teaching debate as an encoun-
ter. In accordance with the suggestion by Ankersmit (2003, p. 20), disa-
greement is a creative source for all human relations and communication.
There can be a strong sense of security in a relationship or community
where parties are governed by identical opinions or the fear of debate, but
their ability to change is bound to be weak. Although they may seem to be
ideal, debate-free relations and societies are more vulnerable and exposed
than communities that are ready for debate. Debate generates knowl-
edge, shapes experience, facilitates inquiring, critical thinking and atten-
tion techniques, and may foster a participatory culture of engagement. It
is a communication genre which allows the parties to match, counterpose,
and (in the agreement phase) reconcile their stances in order to reach a
decision. Indeed, a debate is a conflict by nature, but as such it shall not
be necessarily threatening, coercive or destructive. Disagreement, thus, in
debate is not impoliteness or harshness, but an opportunity to seek new
perspectives — it is the most efficient way of making decisions. In this
way, debate can be considered an intellectual struggle that has a stake but
enables preparation through an all-round approach, allows us to prepare
thoughtfully, gaining experience in argumentation and having a responsi-
ble attitude towards the other. The parties to a debate represent disparate
stances. Therefore, on the one hand, both parties are forced — by the very
presence of the other — to scrutinize their own stances in order to filter
out inconsistencies. So, they encourage each other to behave in a self-con-
trolled and attentive way. On the other hand, a debate between these par-
ties does not mean that they disagree. Accepting the other’s point may
also lead to the extension of our own beliefs, without giving up our con-
viction. Thus, debaters are not petty squabblers, but observant, restrained
and responsible communicators. A decision made during the debate usu-
ally derives from the community which provides the context for the de-
bate. Consideration in good decision-making is based on the effectiveness
of the parties in exploring and analysing the subject matter, in reasoning
and recounting proofs, in constructing their argument and in refuting the
points proposed by the other party.
There are several models for debating competitions which are fruit-
fully applicable in secondary school classroom-based instruction with ap-
propriate preparation, among them the US Public Forum Debate or the
134
Then, at the second phase, the cognitive framework created in the
critical preparation should be embedded into the dynamic and interactive
process of communication, of speaking up.
Connecting and debating
The third phase in rhetoric education is teaching debate as an encoun-
ter. In accordance with the suggestion by Ankersmit (2003, p. 20), disa-
greement is a creative source for all human relations and communication.
There can be a strong sense of security in a relationship or community
where parties are governed by identical opinions or the fear of debate, but
their ability to change is bound to be weak. Although they may seem to be
ideal, debate-free relations and societies are more vulnerable and exposed
than communities that are ready for debate. Debate generates knowl-
edge, shapes experience, facilitates inquiring, critical thinking and atten-
tion techniques, and may foster a participatory culture of engagement. It
is a communication genre which allows the parties to match, counterpose,
and (in the agreement phase) reconcile their stances in order to reach a
decision. Indeed, a debate is a conflict by nature, but as such it shall not
be necessarily threatening, coercive or destructive. Disagreement, thus, in
debate is not impoliteness or harshness, but an opportunity to seek new
perspectives — it is the most efficient way of making decisions. In this
way, debate can be considered an intellectual struggle that has a stake but
enables preparation through an all-round approach, allows us to prepare
thoughtfully, gaining experience in argumentation and having a responsi-
ble attitude towards the other. The parties to a debate represent disparate
stances. Therefore, on the one hand, both parties are forced — by the very
presence of the other — to scrutinize their own stances in order to filter
out inconsistencies. So, they encourage each other to behave in a self-con-
trolled and attentive way. On the other hand, a debate between these par-
ties does not mean that they disagree. Accepting the other’s point may
also lead to the extension of our own beliefs, without giving up our con-
viction. Thus, debaters are not petty squabblers, but observant, restrained
and responsible communicators. A decision made during the debate usu-
ally derives from the community which provides the context for the de-
bate. Consideration in good decision-making is based on the effectiveness
of the parties in exploring and analysing the subject matter, in reasoning
and recounting proofs, in constructing their argument and in refuting the
points proposed by the other party.
There are several models for debating competitions which are fruit-
fully applicable in secondary school classroom-based instruction with ap-
propriate preparation, among them the US Public Forum Debate or the
134
