The ambiguous nature of debate and argumentation was on full display at the Doha ICDD. People used the terms debate and argument as if they were synonyms. The connection is unclear but also crystal clear for most of us. You’d think scholars would be more careful.

The primary reason they are not careful is the sloppiness of American rhetoricians in slurring “argumentation&debate” as if it were one word (spacing intentional). We’ve had every opportunity to distinguish the terms with thoughtful writing. We just haven’t. We are happy to leave debate to the basement of the communication building on Tuesday nights, some sort of game for intelligent undergraduates to play.

American rhetorical scholars could powerfully contribute to global research on this issue by disambiguating “argument” from “debate.” The reason why is that the U.S. has had an incredibly long history in the formalization of debate as an educational practice at all levels. The practice of debating in schools with the rhetorical tradition of criticism, theory, and the like is fertile ground for praxis. But instead, we get an equivocal fallacy.

Here are some of the scholarly understandings of argumentation that come to mind offhand. Let me know if you can think of others in the comments:

• Argumentation is quasi-logical, that is, it takes a form similar to logical proof without the strictness of validity. (Perelman & Olbrects-Tyteca).

• Argumentation is field dependent, meaning good arguments are not simply good arguments but are only good in the contexts of the audience they are deployed. (Toulmin)

• Argumentation has three forms: Process, product, and procedure, not exclusive of one another but possibilities of argument’s appearance in the world. (Wenzel)

• Most importantly, arguments can be interpersonal, public, or conducted over long periods of time, longer than many human lives (Arguments about Hamlet, for example).

How would debate differ? Some of the things here might be the idea that debate is time-bound, where it happens at a fixed point in space time and has an ending (usually when the last person speaks, or the judge gives a critique of the debate). The topic is fixed and cannot move, and the speakers are often representing positions that are not theirs. A “good argument” in debate is one that is difficult to respond to, not one that is “true” as we would find in argumentation. Also, there is no place or opportunity for people to change positions or “agree” with the other side upon hearing a good argument.

Here are some of the understandings of debate in the extant scholarship. Keep in mind that when I say “scholarship” what I really mean are “textbooks” in the United States (and elsewhere) because debate is primarily seen as a school activity. Nevertheless, here’s what I came up with. What am I missing:

• Debate is a tool for problem solving (Ehninger & Brockriede)

• Debate is a political pedagogy (Branham)

• An essential educational part of a democratically oriented political system (Lemay, Minow, Kraus, et. Al. – the presidential debate writers)

• The pre-eminent skill to learn to become a critical thinker, leader, and successful person (choose a debate program website, I picked the NYC UDL).

Aside from these there are these confusing understandings of debate that we can glean from popular usage and the media:

• An argument that has become much more formalized and intense

• A conversation or disagreement that has gone “off the rails”

• A site where people are unmovable in their opinions and just yell at one another

• A long running disagreement that exists and will continue to exist, one must choose a side

• Intensive personal disagreements that have no clear resolution

• Arguments are “trivial” Debates are “important”

I think that list could go on forever.

Theorizing what debate is – apart from argumentation, apart from rhetorical studies, apart from dialogue – is what I want to focus on for a bit in these posts. There isn’t a lot out there on this so I will be trying to work through some unmapped terrain. I think that if I can get a little space opened up it would be fantastic. Most American rhetoric profs say “argumentation and debate” so quickly as if it were one word. These two things deserve different approaches and different understandings. Argumentation does not always inform or improve debate; and debate might not inform argumentation theory.

Debate on its own as a scholarly site of inquiry would bring together people who equivocate the teaching of debate with the teaching of critical thinking/political awareness and those who study political debates such as party-leader debates (the U.S. Commission on Presidential Debates model). This would be an incredibly fruitful and valuable direction for scholarship.

Not sure where to start but you are in the right place, stay tuned.