Jean Scherz Huryn

“Our purpose in debating is to learn, not to win; or rather learning is the only way of winning that makes any sense.” Arnold Toynbee (Ehninger & Brockriede 1963, p. 301)

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY

Debating, when it consists of reasoned arguments for or against a proposition, becomes a means for decision making and enables people to make collective choices. Empirical research-facts, observations, and experiences-contribute to decision making but does not provide the answer to inferential questions which require interpretations, evaluations, and judgments. After confronting the flaws of research in sociology classes, the student is often perplexed as to how to seek knowledge and how society arrives at conclusions.

Debate experience gives the student some perception of how knowledge must be sought not only from empirical research but also from critical analysis in an argumentation format. Students learn not only how social scientists gather and analyze data, but how research can be used to support arguments and how to deal with the conflicting results often obtained.

Educational debating has a long history, starting with the Chou Dynasty (1122–255 B.C.), the Sophists (400 B.C.), and Aristotle (384–322 B.C.). Protagoras of Abdera (481–411 B.C.) is considered the “Father of Debate” for organizing debates among his students in Athens. Therefore, debating is not a new teaching technique, although the intellectual challenge of formal debating which was a part of historical centers of learning, has lost its appeal in the last few decades.

Sociology also has an excellent heritage of debating; many of the great theorists clarified their intellectual ideas in the process of informal debating. Weber’s lectures challenged his students to debate the political issues of the time. Marx, as a young man, debated the fine points of Hegelian doctrine in the beer cellars of Berlin (Coser 1971). Through the use of debates, the major theoretical paradigms in sociology become clarified to the student.

The emphasis of conflict found in the writings of Marx and Dahrendorf contrasted to the emphasis of consensus found in functionalism (Turner 1978) become exemplified in debating.

OBJECTIVES

A basic reason for debating is that it prepares students to take an effective part in a free society where our legal and judicial systems, as well as most organizations, are based on argumentation.

Debating generates insight into how government, courts of law, and organizations function. Therefore, learning to articulate one’s views clearly and concisely should be a part of any well-rounded education.

Getting the student involved in critical thinking is a second goal and one which transcends sociology according to Goldsmid and Wilson. “Differences-their discovery and explanation are fundamental for critical thinking. A prime trait of good teachers is their ability to help students confront ideas and data that differ from those of their familiar (and necessarily restricted) world” (1980, p. 84). Other reasons for debates are that students:

  1. learn to use rational arguments to support controversial issues,
  2. Recognize fallacious and shallow reasoning,
  3. Gain insight into the values of others,
  4. Become interested in national and international problems, and
  5. Integrate knowledge and purposeful inquiry (Klopf and Lehman 1973; Rieke & Sillars 1975).

FORMAT

The traditional format for debating begins with the statement of a formal proposition suggesting a change in the status quo (e.g., capital punishment should be abolished). Speeches in support of the proposition alternate with speeches against the proposition, followed by negative and affirmative rebuttal speeches; all these speeches together take about 30 minutes.

The affirmative side, which has the burden of proof, is usually expected to suggest a plan to implement the proposition and justification for this plan. In decision debating, judges rate each side’s performance on such criteria as delivery, evidence, analysis, argument, and refutation.

The format suggested here is fashioned after the problem-solving debate developed by Professors Orr and Franzke of the University of Washington (Klopf and Lehman 1973, p. 179), which reduces the competitive aspects of traditional debate and incorporates group discussion.

In this format, the issue can also be worded as a question (e.g., should capital punishment be abolished?). The instructor provides a handout at the start of the semester suggesting the following format. Each group selects a proposition or question on an issue within a topic.

The first speaker from each side presents historical, philosophical, and other back- Teaching Sociology, 1986, Vol. 14 (October:266–269)

The second speaker for each side is expected to point out why the changes are needed or why these changes are not justified, supporting each argument with relevant research and explaining why each is relevant (e.g., moral issues, legal issues, deterrence issues, economic issues such as cost of prisons). One of the most difficult tasks is getting students to establish their arguments by documented research and logic of their arguments rather than blind appeals to emotion or religious convictions.

The last speaker from each side suggests a plan to implement the resolution or why such plans have not succeeded (e.g., why states resumed capital punishment, death by injection). If there are only six participants, these speakers also summarize the position of each team. The first four speakers are allotted approximately three minutes each and the last two (or four) speakers are given four minutes each so that the total presentation lasts about 20 minutes.

The exact order presentation-whether they speak alternately or which side speaks last-is decided by the group. Each student is expected to speak for approximately three or four minutes. The presentation is followed by challenges from either side and then the discussion is opened to the class. A member of the debate group acknowledges the class participants, and the instructor intervenes only if someone is being ignored or is monopolizing the time.

Students are warned in the assignment to thoroughly examine their positions so that challenges by classmates can be addressed adequately. At the end of the class period, either side may suggest a compromise position. In previous debates, students often asked for a poll of the class. I do not stress the formal judging of traditional debates so that students, especially those who are not good speakers, will not feel intimidated.

ORGANIZATION

Debates are scheduled on the course syllabus and students are asked to sign up under one topic. A listing of the members for each debate group is duplicated and distributed. The students are given time at the end of a class to meet the other students in their debate group to set up a meeting time. The handout outlines the group tasks: select an issue, choose sides, pick speaker positions, and decide the order of presentations. Each person is to do his/her research and prepare his/her position before the group meets again. Each side may meet separately if the members choose, and groups vary in their number of meetings.

Groups having problems picking a specific issue or relating sub issues may ask the instructor to meet with them for a brain-storming session. Each group is then expected to be prepared at the time the debate is scheduled. The first debate is closely monitored; I check on the sub issues to be discussed and the adequacy of preparation. The nine topics used in Introduction courses are: socialization, deviance, stratification, organizations, family/religion, education, economy, population, and urbanization. The eight topics used in Social Problems courses are: family, education, race, poverty, health care, crime, sexual deviation, and government.

The specific issue selected for each topic is usually a current national concern of interest to the students. Issues on which the students are relatively in agreement (e.g., population control) or which have been common topics in high school (e.g., drug or alcohol abuse) are ineffective for debating. However, abortion and the introduction of new minimum age laws for drinking would be relevant current issues for these topics. Under the broad topic of education, students have argued such issues as main streaming, discipline in schools, and the open classroom. Government, one of the most complex topics, has involved such issues as creeping socialism and the federal bureaucracy. Currently, the relationship of government and religion would make an excellent issue for debate.

Having students argue counter to their own beliefs has been a continuing problem for educational debating. However, students willingly took opposite sides of an issue even when this occurred. In a previous class, several students argued so effectively for the negative side on a resolution to abolish the Klu Klux Klan that only at the end of the class when classmates were still in a heated response did they admit that these were not their actual beliefs. (These students had looked up the original constitution of the Klu Klux Klan and were using this in their arguments.)

SOURCES

Students are required to use at least three different sources for information and one of these must be a journal article. Other possible sources include books, manuscripts, magazine and newspaper articles, and interviews with a person who could provide authoritative knowledge. For example, the local director of the food stamp program was interviewed for a debate on the abolition of food stamps. The handout suggests relevant indices and journals.

Several readers and two books on debating (Argumentation and Debate, by Freeley (1971); Decision by Debate, by Ehninger and Brockriede (1963)) are reserved at the library. The debate books suggest ways of obtaining and organizing information. Suggestions include being sure students understand their notes, writing out what they will say, and listing extra facts to substantiate arguments. Students having problems getting adequate information may set up an appointment for assistance; however, this is seldom needed.

PRESENTATION

The proposition or question is written on the board along with the words PRO and CON indicating the stance of each side seated at the front of the room. One team member introduces the format to be followed and the team members. The debaters present their arguments followed by challenges and then the entire class may raise questions or discuss issues. A successful first debate gives students a good example of the debating process and sets the standards for following debates. The presentation of both sides of the issue by the debate team encourages students to participate who otherwise might be afraid to voice an unpopular opinion.

After the first few debates, students become involved in the issues and realize how these issues affect their lives. Hence, they become an enthusiastic audience. Often the instructor must assure adequate time for the debate group to present their arguments and challenges, because classmates often want to ask questions or comment after the first few minutes.

Classmates in the audience brought books to class or raised issues from other courses to question and challenge the arguments made by the debaters. This exchange often led to new arguments, and sometimes new information that the debaters had stored in their notes. In previous debates, students became so involved that some stood to make a point or counter argument. One debate on the rights of homosexuals became so heated that the instructor had to moderate to allow all students a chance to participate.

GRADING

The debate comprises 20 percent of the total grade. The handout gives the basis for this grade as follows: 20 percent on the overall presentation of the debate by the group; 30 percent on the student’s individual presentation, and 50 percent on the student’s notes which are submitted for grading after the debates. Therefore, students who are not verbally skilled in debating or not at ease in front of a class can still obtain a good debate grade by preparing excellent notes.

A student may also increase his/her debate grade up to 10 points by taking’an active part in other debate discussions. Materials presented in the debates are included in essay questions on tests. The following criteria guided the grading: (overall) the issues and subissues were adequately covered; (individual) requirements of that position were met; and (note cards) organization, amount of relevant research, and three references were properly cited.

These criteria are discussed with the students when the assignment is given. The first two debates are usually graded more leniently and serve as teaching models. The instructor intervenes during these presentations if the debate reduces to emotional appeals. Inadequate arguments, illogical reasoning, and myopic views of the world are often pointed out by classmates. The instructor briefly states any unmentioned subissues or other major flaws at the end of the debates.

BENEFITS

Once students become involved with the idea of debating, attendance is no longer a problem. One debate, scheduled for a date when the instructor was away, went on as scheduled. Class attendance was excellent and a heated debate ensued with the graduate student replacing the instructor. Debates did not deteriorate into emotional appeals, but were a combination of research, personal opinions, experiences, news events, and applications of theory. The instructor’s role was limited to a few summary remarks when time allowed. The debate group and classmates would agree on several points or solutions after some debates. Often they did not. However, the goal was not to reach agreement, but to realize the importance of these issues for their lives.

These issues affect how they vote and. how their government operates. Introductory courses can involve students in critical thinking, discussing, and debating. The results are better understanding of the course material and enthusiastic involvement of the students in the learning process. Favorable formal evaluations were always received in courses using this debate technique. Students also commented informally on the value of debating in making these issues come alive for them. They now felt like they had a stake in these issues. The students in the class always provided a vast array of opinions on the issues. One student commented at the end of the semester that he always thought others felt as he did concerning these topics and he was surprised at all the different attitudes held by other students.

The conflict and consensus perspectives quickly be- come real to students as they find that much conflict of information, research, and opinions exist for these issues. They also learn how difficult consensus is to obtain. Perhaps the best reason for debating is summed up in Joseph Joubert’s statement, “It is better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle it without debate” (Burton 1948, p. 528).

REFERENCES

Burton, Stevenson (ed.). 1948. The Home Book of Proverbs, Maxims and Familiar Phrases. New York: Macmillan. Coser, Lewis A. 1971. Masters of Sociological Thought. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Decision By Debate. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. Freeley,

Austin J. 1971. Argumentation and Debate: Rational Decision Making. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Goldsmid, C.A. and E.K. Wilson. 1980. Passing on Sociology: The Teaching of a Discipline. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Klopf, Donald W. and Carroll P. Lehman. 1973.

Coaching and Directing Forensics. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Co. Rieke, R.D. and Malcolm O. Sillars. 1975. Argumenta- tion and the Decision Making Process. New York: Wiley. Turner, Jonathan H. 1978. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

Jean Scherz Huryn is Assistant Professor of Sociology at East Carolina University. Her research focus is the socialization of youth to deviant roles. She has published articles on giftedness and on the court processing of delinquents. Address correspondence to Jean Scherz Huryn, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Economics, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC

Tags:
Categories: