Debate pedagogy’s primary contribution
to the study of rhetoric and argumentation is in the realm of
invention – how do we come up with and produce argumentation that
both addresses the issue at hand and includes, invites, and engages
the audience to consider that argumentation?
to the study of rhetoric and argumentation is in the realm of
invention – how do we come up with and produce argumentation that
both addresses the issue at hand and includes, invites, and engages
the audience to consider that argumentation?
Sadly, this contribution is currently
ignored.
ignored.
I learned I have a lot of work ahead of
me if I want to continue this project of revitalizing debate-oriented
scholarship. I recently gave a paper considering debate on “other
terms” as a starting point for debate-oriented scholarship, only to
have it attended by the chair of the panel, the other panelists, and
a couple of my friends.
me if I want to continue this project of revitalizing debate-oriented
scholarship. I recently gave a paper considering debate on “other
terms” as a starting point for debate-oriented scholarship, only to
have it attended by the chair of the panel, the other panelists, and
a couple of my friends.
I believe the work is difficult as the
most receptive audience to discussing debate is the current debate
competition community. But they don’t really have a lot of motive to
go beyond reading or investigating issues that are perceived to have
a direct impact on the lived tournament experience. Recent articles
by current competitive debaters on gender are a great example of this
– how tournament success records indicate whether or not gender
inclusiveness is being handled.
most receptive audience to discussing debate is the current debate
competition community. But they don’t really have a lot of motive to
go beyond reading or investigating issues that are perceived to have
a direct impact on the lived tournament experience. Recent articles
by current competitive debaters on gender are a great example of this
– how tournament success records indicate whether or not gender
inclusiveness is being handled.
The other audience, that of scholars of
argumentation have the barrier of ignorance – many have no idea
that debate clubs exist or that tournaments are occurring on their
campuses. This is partially by design – tournament organizers don’t
really want a lot of “outsiders” attending debates that are
designed to be heard by judges trained to look for specific things in
speeches and celebrate the more esoteric arguments in a debate round
as opposed to the ones that cut to the heart of the matter as public
discourse would frame it. The other barrier is that once identified,
most scholars dismiss debate as a game best reserved for some of your
undergraduate time, but a pretty big waste of energy and resources,
especially for talented students. I’ve had several management and
business professors tell my students that they wish they had some
power over them to force them to stop debating and focus on something
meaningful. After suggesting debate events to a colleague as a way of
engaging the student body for a week-long pedagogy effort at my
university, she responded, “That’s great, but we should do some
real pedagogy as well.” This is primarily due to a lack of any
scholarly treatment of debating. The only remnants of debate
scholarship out there are aimed toward tournament competition, the
rules of such, and the nature of that competition. Within rhetorical
scholarship in the United States, debate-oriented scholarship is seen
as a good graduate student starting point, best abandoned for serious
work once one develops an orientation and some sea legs.
argumentation have the barrier of ignorance – many have no idea
that debate clubs exist or that tournaments are occurring on their
campuses. This is partially by design – tournament organizers don’t
really want a lot of “outsiders” attending debates that are
designed to be heard by judges trained to look for specific things in
speeches and celebrate the more esoteric arguments in a debate round
as opposed to the ones that cut to the heart of the matter as public
discourse would frame it. The other barrier is that once identified,
most scholars dismiss debate as a game best reserved for some of your
undergraduate time, but a pretty big waste of energy and resources,
especially for talented students. I’ve had several management and
business professors tell my students that they wish they had some
power over them to force them to stop debating and focus on something
meaningful. After suggesting debate events to a colleague as a way of
engaging the student body for a week-long pedagogy effort at my
university, she responded, “That’s great, but we should do some
real pedagogy as well.” This is primarily due to a lack of any
scholarly treatment of debating. The only remnants of debate
scholarship out there are aimed toward tournament competition, the
rules of such, and the nature of that competition. Within rhetorical
scholarship in the United States, debate-oriented scholarship is seen
as a good graduate student starting point, best abandoned for serious
work once one develops an orientation and some sea legs.
Trading off debate’s attention to
tournament schedules, national championships, and more toward debate
as the pedagogy of rhetorical invention might legitimize
debate-oriented scholarship’s value within both audiences. The
question of “how do I come up with something to say?” is a
constant one for those involved in debating as well as those involved
in teaching. I am not saying just the teaching of
performance-oriented rhetoric courses, but the teaching of any course
– for most courses require a paper or presentation of some kind.
tournament schedules, national championships, and more toward debate
as the pedagogy of rhetorical invention might legitimize
debate-oriented scholarship’s value within both audiences. The
question of “how do I come up with something to say?” is a
constant one for those involved in debating as well as those involved
in teaching. I am not saying just the teaching of
performance-oriented rhetoric courses, but the teaching of any course
– for most courses require a paper or presentation of some kind.
This is one of the few universal
pedagogical questions, and debate could offer a wonderful service to
pedagogy at all levels by being the venue that rigorously develops
methods to answer such questions. Composition departments, usually
housed in writing programs or in English departments, address this
question as well, but it is within a basket of additional questions
such as style and voice. Debate can provide more intense scrutiny on
the question of coming up with what to say, and also unique method on
the question of coming up with what to say when time is limited, and
preparation is restricted – the trope of “thinking on your feet.”
pedagogical questions, and debate could offer a wonderful service to
pedagogy at all levels by being the venue that rigorously develops
methods to answer such questions. Composition departments, usually
housed in writing programs or in English departments, address this
question as well, but it is within a basket of additional questions
such as style and voice. Debate can provide more intense scrutiny on
the question of coming up with what to say, and also unique method on
the question of coming up with what to say when time is limited, and
preparation is restricted – the trope of “thinking on your feet.”
Debate teaches invention when the
resources are limited and the time to speak is upon us. This is the
situation of reaction, the pub conversation, the interview, the
impromptu debate about policy among friends or at work. When one has
time and resources, one can rely on the methods of composition for
the generation of arguments – although often students don’t,
preferring to wait till the last minute to begin work on a paper. It
seems the more we teach students to take advantage of the time they
have to prepare and generate a range of argumentation from which to
write, the less they do it.
resources are limited and the time to speak is upon us. This is the
situation of reaction, the pub conversation, the interview, the
impromptu debate about policy among friends or at work. When one has
time and resources, one can rely on the methods of composition for
the generation of arguments – although often students don’t,
preferring to wait till the last minute to begin work on a paper. It
seems the more we teach students to take advantage of the time they
have to prepare and generate a range of argumentation from which to
write, the less they do it.
Debate is often criticized for being
response oriented – a critique that reaches back to Plato’s
criticism of Sophistry for being about nothing but technique, and
having no substance. Over the centuries, this has cast doubt upon
Sophistic philosophy and work, to the point where many distrust the
acts of debating and speaking themselves, often contrasting them with
“finding the facts” or “the simple truth.”
response oriented – a critique that reaches back to Plato’s
criticism of Sophistry for being about nothing but technique, and
having no substance. Over the centuries, this has cast doubt upon
Sophistic philosophy and work, to the point where many distrust the
acts of debating and speaking themselves, often contrasting them with
“finding the facts” or “the simple truth.”
The Sophistic approach is necessarily
reactive, since the Sophists, for the most part, viewed the world as
contingent and ever-changing. Opinions and views change, which change
the standards by which facts and reasons are judged. The Sophist must
be ready to react – to invent arguments on the fly that both
address the controversy and appeal to the audience in the same
movement. On top of that, humans really don’t like to be pandered to
– or realize that they are being pandered to, more accurately. So
good rhetorical invention must appear to be universal, addressed to
all reasonable people, not just the ears and feelings of the present
group.
reactive, since the Sophists, for the most part, viewed the world as
contingent and ever-changing. Opinions and views change, which change
the standards by which facts and reasons are judged. The Sophist must
be ready to react – to invent arguments on the fly that both
address the controversy and appeal to the audience in the same
movement. On top of that, humans really don’t like to be pandered to
– or realize that they are being pandered to, more accurately. So
good rhetorical invention must appear to be universal, addressed to
all reasonable people, not just the ears and feelings of the present
group.
Motivating all of this is the concept
of opportunity, or kairos in
ancient Greek. Rhetors must be able to recognize the key moment in
which to deploy their arguments. An argument that is not timed well
could fail, or worse, could fail to be recognized as an argument by
the audience – they could have moved on past that topos
by the time you speak. Debate teaches this painful art of time
management in the well known scenario of having to ditch the argument
you love in order to remain relevant and engaged in the debate as it
is happening.
of opportunity, or kairos in
ancient Greek. Rhetors must be able to recognize the key moment in
which to deploy their arguments. An argument that is not timed well
could fail, or worse, could fail to be recognized as an argument by
the audience – they could have moved on past that topos
by the time you speak. Debate teaches this painful art of time
management in the well known scenario of having to ditch the argument
you love in order to remain relevant and engaged in the debate as it
is happening.
It’s a tall order, but a return to
Sophistic thought – a recovery effort that has long been underway
in the field of rhetorical studies here in the U.S. – can help root
debate’s uniqueness as the pedagogy of reactive rhetorical invention,
when time and situation hamper our ability to conduct a full and
complete investigation of the situation to determine the certainty of
truth. When “best guess” is what we have to work with, what are
our methods for coming up with arguments that seize the tri-partite
moment that speakers face?
Sophistic thought – a recovery effort that has long been underway
in the field of rhetorical studies here in the U.S. – can help root
debate’s uniqueness as the pedagogy of reactive rhetorical invention,
when time and situation hamper our ability to conduct a full and
complete investigation of the situation to determine the certainty of
truth. When “best guess” is what we have to work with, what are
our methods for coming up with arguments that seize the tri-partite
moment that speakers face?
Returning to the Sophists is one way to
root the scholarship, but another is in contemporary theories of
argumentation. Debate offers the missing element of invention from a
field that is obsessed with critique, measurement, and evaluation. It
is rare to hear or read a piece from a contemporary argumentation
scholar that discusses how to generate arguments within a
controversy. Instead, they discuss old controversies, evaluating the
arguments of the participants using the theoretical meter sticks they
have developed.
root the scholarship, but another is in contemporary theories of
argumentation. Debate offers the missing element of invention from a
field that is obsessed with critique, measurement, and evaluation. It
is rare to hear or read a piece from a contemporary argumentation
scholar that discusses how to generate arguments within a
controversy. Instead, they discuss old controversies, evaluating the
arguments of the participants using the theoretical meter sticks they
have developed.
Valuable work to be sure, but
where’s the space for someone who wants to intervene? Debate-oriented
scholarship can take the best of argumentation theory work and
generate some ways to develop arguments that fit the best
argumentation theory has to offer, while also answering the
three-part question of invention that faces anyone who rises to
debate.
Finally, the anchor point with the
biggest pay-off is for debate as rhetorical invention to get involved
deeply in the recent reflexive scholarship about what the university
experience should be for undergraduates. Facing a world where a
rigid, disciplinary major might be a career and intellectual hang-up
for students, debate training as training for the rhetorical
invention of the situational self could be invaluable if implemented
across the curriculum. The ports-of-call are already established:
Biology courses teach people to think like a biologist, history
courses like a historian. All that is missing is the complex question
– such as Roman declamation might offer – that when faced with a
couple of these challenging audiences, how do you speak the terms of
one audience into the other? This question, if practiced via debating
at the university, can be as valuable as an undergraduate research
symposium, but unrestricted by disciplinary identity. The only
identity at question here is the sophistic one: What am I, what can I
be, for this audience, given this question, if I want them to believe
me?
biggest pay-off is for debate as rhetorical invention to get involved
deeply in the recent reflexive scholarship about what the university
experience should be for undergraduates. Facing a world where a
rigid, disciplinary major might be a career and intellectual hang-up
for students, debate training as training for the rhetorical
invention of the situational self could be invaluable if implemented
across the curriculum. The ports-of-call are already established:
Biology courses teach people to think like a biologist, history
courses like a historian. All that is missing is the complex question
– such as Roman declamation might offer – that when faced with a
couple of these challenging audiences, how do you speak the terms of
one audience into the other? This question, if practiced via debating
at the university, can be as valuable as an undergraduate research
symposium, but unrestricted by disciplinary identity. The only
identity at question here is the sophistic one: What am I, what can I
be, for this audience, given this question, if I want them to believe
me?