#ValueOfDebatingSeries
Thesis: The degree to which the debate program enhances the critical thinking ability of its participants is a crucial criteria against which to weigh the debate program. Across the United States, colleges and universities have placed increasing emphasis on the attainment of critical thinking skills. The issue has been the subject of nationally funded reports, university graduation requirements and the subject of countless scholarly and educational journals (McMillan). Shroeder and Shroeder report that:
Almost every institution of education has, as a part of its mission, the preparation of articulate and critical thinking individuals who are able to speak intelligently about the issues of the day. Forensics, or competitive speech activities, clearly fit within this mission of the institution, and, indeed, may have a more integral relationship with the educational mission than many other activities (p13).
One of the most renown professors of debate in the United States, concurs on page one of his treatise:
Competency in critical thinking is rightly viewed as a requisite intellectual skill for self-realization as an effective participant in human affairs, for the pursuit of higher education, and for successful participation in the highly competitive world of business and the professions. Debate is today, as it has been since classical times, one of the best methods of learning and applying the principles of critical thinking (Freely, 1990).
Many authors note that leadership in a changing world requires students to learn to critically analyze and evaluate ideas (Adler; Dressel & Mayhew; Young). Besides being an obvious and important goal of any institution of higher learning, forensics directors have rated developing critical thinking ability as the highest educational goal of the activity (Rieke).
Debaters themselves have suggested that it should be considered the most important goal (Matlon and Keele). Georgetown itself proclaims a commitment to “cultivate the faculties of reason and critical analysis…” (Third Century, p5). A healthy ability to think critically about information is especially critical in a world overflowing with data. An old debater research adage holds that “you can prove anything if you look long enough.” The shuddering growth in information and access to it has changed this sarcastic notion into a virtual truism. The ability and willingness to critically examine information is a highly prized skill among employees, managers and executives, lawyers, doctors and other professions. Society desperately needs training devices that can help people manage information in a trenchant fashion.
The empirical evidence demonstrating a connection between participation in debate and learning the skills of critical thinking is quite extensive. In a recent review of research on the subject, Colbert and Biggers noted that “50 years of research correlates debate training with critical thinking skills” (p212). Keefe, Harte and Norton reviewed the research and concluded that, “[m]any researchers over the past four decades have come to the same general conclusions. Critical thinking ability is significantly improved by courses in argumentation and debate and by debate experience” (p33–34).The most recent study concluded not only that participation in competitive debate enhances critical thinking skills, but that compared to academic pursuits of a similar time length, “competitive forensics demonstrates the largest gain in critical thinking skills” (Allen, p6).
The kind of oppositional thinking encouraged by debate clearly contributes to critical thinking skills for a variety of reasons. There is strong empirical evidence, for example, that utilizing devils advocacy helps improve the understanding of strategic problems. In fact, devils advocacy has been used successfully by a number of companies for this exact purpose (Schwenk, 1988).
Such research mirrors what debate coaches have known for decades. Debaters learn much more about critical thinking than the old adage “there are two sides to every coin.” They learn how to spot errors in reasoning and proof. They gain a greater respect for the complexity of ideas and they learn how to criticize in a productive way based on facts and logic. Many former debaters have testified that undergraduate participation in debate exposed them to complex ways of thinking which prepared them for what they would face in graduate school and their professional lives.
James Greenwood, Chairperson in Communications at the University of Findlay noted that “debate was more important to my career than any single course on the undergraduate and graduate level. Debate develops skills in organization, clarity and depth of analysis that most students do not encounter until the master’s thesis” (Shroeder and Shroeder, p16).
References
- Shroeder, A. and Shroeder, P. “Educational Objectives and Forensics: An Administrative Perspective.” The Forensic of Pi Kappa Delta 80 (Summer, 1995) 13–21.
- Matlon, R. J., and Keele, L.M. “A Survey of Participants in the National Debate Tournament, 1947–1980.” Journal of the American Forensic Association 20 (1984) 194–205.