The Educational Benefits of Debate. claimed that "it is only by subjecting our preferences and projects to the test of debate

Transcription

1 The Educational 1 Michael Varone 3/10/08 Argument Based Writing The Educational Benefits of Debate Christopher Lasch (1990), author of "The Lost Art of Political Argument," claimed that "it is only by subjecting our preferences and projects to the test of debate that we come to understand what we know and what we still need to learn" (p. 293). Lasch's (1990) statement is correct; the collaborative analysis and criticism of opinions and ideas by peers vastly expands the overall comprehension of a topic. This is true for several reasons. Engaging in debates with peers can unveil valuable insight that might otherwise remain unheard. It would be naive to reject the thought that important input, which should not be ignored, may lie in the minds of peers. A single person cannot detail every fraction of a topic, and while it is equally impossible for a group of people to do just that, more of the puzzle can be put together by debating topics. The flood of information provided by a debate allows the debaters to explore and apply the knowledge they have, while discovering what is left to learn. Debate is a valuable learning tool because it presents multiple points of view of the same topic. Roger C. Schank (1990), author of "Story Skeletons and Story-Fitting," offered an interesting thesis that supports this argument. Schank presented the notion of "story skeletons," claiming that many different stories can be formulated from the same set of facts, depending on the story teller's relation to those facts. He supplied an example of such story skeletons in his essay, providing several statements regarding an international tragedy in which a United States Navy ship shot down an Iranian airliner

2 The Educational 2 filled with civilians. American politicians defended the Navy's decision to shoot down the airliner; they claimed that, although it was a tragedy, the decision to shoot down the plane was understandable, based on the circumstances. Other international officials, based on the same set of facts, described the incident as an act of terrorism by the United States. Schank (1990) claimed, "we choose to see the world according to a view that we find convenient, and we communicate by adopting standard points of view" (p. 311). According to Schank (1990), the way a person interprets information directly relates to his or her point of view of an event or topic. The example he provided clearly confirmed his thesis; one set of facts yielded two greatly dissenting responses. This truth is important to realize when discussing the benefits of debate, because the only way to accurately know the details of an event or a topic is to examine every point of view; without debate, only one point of view is examined. The presentation of multiple points of view has the capacity to drastically change the views of those involved. Arguments can be altered, for better or for worse, or changed entirely, in light of claims presented in opposition. Lasch (1990) concurs with this concept, claiming that the attempt to bring others around to our own point of view carries the risk, of course, that we may adopt their point of view instead (p. 293). He stated that an argument is an attempt to persuade an opponent; however, to achieve this goal, debaters must enter imaginatively into... opponents arguments (p. 293). By considering the arguments of opponents, debaters become educated about a different point of view and may even be convinced to accept that interpretation. However, convincing a debater to accept an opposing view is, by no means, a simple task. Aside from providing an outlet for multiple points of view, debate creates an

3 The Educational 3 opportunity to examine areas of an argument that may have originally been neglected. As previously stated, it is impossible for any single person to account for every fragment of a topic; people, in general, tend to overlook imperfections in their own opinions and ideas. By exposing arguments to the criticism of others, flaws can be revealed which the arguer may have otherwise ignored. This forces weaknesses in the argument to be addressed or clarified. If the presenter of the argument cannot account for these imperfections, criticism will certainly weaken the overall effectiveness of the argument. However, if the arguer can appropriately explain weaknesses that are identified, the argument becomes much stronger. The audience can observe that the debater possesses a deep understanding of the topic upon clarifications of misinterpretations or corrections of flaws within the argument, instilling a sense of credibility. Also, since originally excluded information is then presented, all those involved will acquire greater knowledge of the topic than if the thesis had been left uncontested. In addition, this new information can be used as a reference to reword the argument, making it more effective in the future. An argument becomes valid only after an opposing argument has arisen. This is so, because if a person presenting an argument, or the audience, is unaware of competing claims, then the argument does not need to be very convincing at all, simply because it is the only one available. In a sense, the argument loses the very thing that makes it an argument: its opponent. This renders it nothing more than a listing of uncontested statements. With the inclusion of an opponent, an argument holds much more weight than if left unchallenged, because it is no longer accepted, simply because of a lack of choice. Also, the presenter of the argument will always communicate views much more passionately when defending them against the criticism of others, or while competing

4 The Educational 4 against an opposing point, instead of simply stating them. This passion will undoubtedly create a greater understanding of the topic, because the person relaying the information is no longer simply attempting to present views to an audience. The person becomes a debater, with the purpose of convincing the audience and the opponent, a goal that would certainly motivate such a person to both gain further knowledge of the topic and relay that extensive knowledge to peers, thereby better educating all those involved. Lasch (1990) recognized this point in his essay, and offered his own input: It is the act of articulating and defending our views that lifts them out of the category of 'opinions,' gives them shape and definition, and makes it possible for others to recognize them as a description of their own experience as well (p. 293). Lasch clearly identified opposition as a crucial factor in an argument, indeed the very factor that makes an argument educational. Debating topics allows people to explore and expand their own knowledge, while considering and absorbing the knowledge of others, yielding countless educational benefits. The presentation of alternative theses provides an opportunity to strengthen, or even change an argument. Indeed, this essay would, by its own thesis, hold no weight if left uncontested; however, there are those who would reduce debates to nothing more than an attempt to crush an opponent. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1980), authors of Concepts We Live By, claimed, in their essay, that people live according to the metaphors of their society. They provided the example of argument is war (p. 315), claiming that in American culture, argument has become similar to a war, in which participants attempt to demolish the argument of their opponents. This view oversimplifies the concept of argument. Although it may be true that some Americans support

5 The Educational 5 it by attempting to win arguments at all costs, it is simply because they have lost sight of the actual purpose of an argument. While it is important to maintain theses passionately, a debate is not simply an overzealous argument to eliminate the opposing view; it is, in fact, the very opposite of that: a collaborative inquiry for knowledge. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) would likely disagree with this definition of debate. Their essay is devoted to the illustration of the varying definitions and metaphors that different societies apply to words. Therefore, it is probable that they would opt not to attach a specific definition to the word debate, but rather comment on the fact that different societies, and subcultures within those societies, would describe it differently. While this idea is possible, the alternate definitions maintain the same purpose. Whether one considers debate a collaborative inquiry for knowledge or an all out war, the goal is always the advancement of education. One who argues in the pursuit of knowledge may gleefully anticipate gaining a better understanding of an opposing view while attempting to convince an opponent to consider their own. On the other hand, one who argues with no intent of learning anything from his opponent still intends on convincing his opponent to adopt a different view by educating him or her about the positive aspects of that opinion. Such a person s opponent would also attempt to educate the former of his own views, resulting in a collective educational effort, whether the participants were aware of it or not. Varying definitions do not change the purpose, but merely the way that one debates. For people to debate with open minds instead of closed fists, as Lakoff and Johnson (1980) have observed, proves to be an enormous stride for the purposes of education and civility. As Lasch (1990) very appropriately described, arguments are not won by shouting down opponents. They are won by changing opponents minds (p.

6 The Educational 6 294). References Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). "Concepts we live by." In R. Norgaard (Ed.), Composing Knowledge: Readings for College Writers (pp ). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin s. Lasch, C. (1990). "The lost art of political argument." In R. Norgaard (Ed.), Composing Knowledge: Readings for College Writers (pp ). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin s. Schank, R. (1990). Story skeletons and story-fitting. In R. Norgaard (Ed.), Composing Knowledge: Readings for College Writers (pp ). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin s.