<<< Back

Ahead >>>

"The Senate is often referred to as the world's greatest deliberative body, and it is home to some of the most important debates in the world ... Yet in its shadow has been a school system that is deficient in academic debate -- the training ground that has taught many senators their craft and has prepared countless Americans for their professions. As recently as five years ago, there was no organized debate in the District's public schools. Since then, the District of Columbia Urban Debate League has had success, but it faces enormous barriers ... Like athletics, debate teaches the value of teamwork and healthy competition. Unlike athletics, debate channels the competitive spirit of students into rigorous academic work ... Preparation for debate requires extensive research, including critical thinking to formulate arguments and anticipate responses, as well reading comprehension and writing skills. Debate also teaches presentation skills and builds confidence. It teaches listening and note-taking skills. Competition drives these benefits in a virtuous cycle. Students continually improve their skills not because they are told to but because they want to win ... National studies have found that participation in debate can substantially and quickly increase reading scores, reduce disciplinary referrals and increase critical-thinking ability." -- Read the Full Article

Commentary
by Hunter Finch

Academic debate showcases scholarship and logicial constructs for comparison among and between competitors. Its emphasis places a premium on rhetorical delivery to defend and win arguments by convincing a third party -- the audience -- that your team's argument is the "best" solution, even when it's not.  It is indeed a team sport that emphasizes the selling of arguments as opposed to the viability and integrity of the arguments themselves.  Today's political rhetoric in media fosters a culture of using debate fomats to defend positions for sport and entertainment. We put on a red shirt or a blue shirt, define our platforms in left or right party affiliations with cookie cutter platitudes and senseless propaganda digging in to shout party line polemics at each other making the mistake of thinking we are defending our beliefs when, in fact, we really haven't "independently" thought critically about those beliefs. The net result is that debating is becoming less and less about critical and creative thought that serves visionary solutions and leadership and more and more about rhetorical delivery. Political debate today is not about well-examined solutions that serve the public interests. It's about researching the visceral "sweet spots" and "hot buttons' of audiences you can manipulate to get elected or re elected. The politician with the best "zingers" and "sound bytes" usually wins the audience, the debate, the vote, and the election. In contrast, dialectic argument — where participants of "good faith" walk down a path "peripatetically" openly discussing the ins and outs of issues from multilateral perspectives and creating hypothetical insights for examination without defending prior positions on those issues not knowing where the collective argument-in-progress is taking them —  the intellect is served without pretense or prejudice. By sharing independent insights, by asking essential questions, by critically examining other points of view, and by creating the full range of hypothetical solutions, the best argument for resolving a problem tends to construct itself. And when the best argument wins, everyone who participates in constructing it wins.