Does Formal Debate Really Belong in Classical Education?
I don’t know what happened to her in the end, but I know that by the middle of the school year my 9th grade debate teacher was more than ready to quit her job. Between the threats, standoffs, and the downright contentiousness that turned every discussion into a competition, teaching all of us was probably the educational equivalent of handling a dog sled pulled by a group of unbroken African hyenas.
Formal debate is certainly not unique to classical schools, and I’d question whether formal debate belongs in classical schools at all.
When I was younger, I loved formal debate. I found the experience so exhilarating that in my eighth-grade year I successfully pestered for a debate club at my online school and was appointed discussion board moderator of the same. The thrill of argument and refutation had certainly gone to my head.
The idea that it can be dangerous to expose youth to the stimulus of debate is not new. Plato speaks of it in the Republic saying that “there is a danger lest (students) they should taste the dear delight (of debate) too early; for youngsters… argue for amusement, and are always contradicting and refuting others in imitation of those who refute them; like puppy-dogs, they rejoice in pulling and tearing at all who come near… and hence, not only they, but philosophy and all that relates to it is apt to have a bad name with the rest of the world.”
There’s no denying it, debate gives pleasure and–like all pleasure–there are times when it should be indulged and times when it should not be. Additionally, all pleasures have purpose and should be ordered toward good ends. I think it’s a fair assumption to say that the pleasure of the dialectic should be ordered toward finding and defending truth. If you look at formal debates though, are students being stimulated to search for truth or are they instructed to knuckle down and defend things that they may not even agree with? As a debate student it never bothered me to “play devil’s advocate” and spend hours researching and formulating arguments to defend things that I disagreed with–even when I ended up tricking myself into believing the resolutions I originally thought were wrong. Is teaching students the habit of trying to make bad things seem good and good things seem bad part of “classical education,” or is that the definition of sophistry?
When we teach children to handle BB guns, we teach them where these weapons should be directed–tin cans and imaginary bad guys–but when we teach children rhetoric, we teach them by letting them direct their verbal fire at good or bad alike in the interest of having “even teams.”
Speaking of teams, it should be pointed out that debate teams are nothing like sports teams. If I play football for the local Trojans or Royals, I’m not being asked to potentially redefine my worldview. Debate is not an innocent, amoral activity like athletics. Debate deals with right and wrong. Treating it like sports inevitably leads to debaters being treated like athletes, valued not on account of their goodness, virtue, and honesty but rather on their ability to make something they disagree with sound appealing.
What kind of people are we trying to raise through classical education, saints or advertisers? If the goal is to make saints, why are we training our children to be sophists? If the goal is to make advertisers, then why do we bother with telling our children all that nonsense about “objective reality?”
Plato is absolutely right when he talks about young debaters “pulling and tearing at all who come near them.” Debate tends to make kids downright nasty. It gives them an obsession with winning, even if they’re actually convincing their classmates of ideas that are abhorrent to them. The only thing that they hate more than losing is being told that winning or losing isn’t important and that they should focus on their personal development. Trust me, I know, I’ve only recently grown out of that puppy dog phase myself.
So, what’s the solution to all this? I hope you don’t think I’m going to tell parents and teachers to banish all contentious conversation from their household dinner tables and classrooms–far from it. Composing arguments is an excellent skill that anyone can benefit from. There is a major difference, though, between arguing for the cause of truth and for the betterment of your listeners, and debating for pleasure, amusement, and personal aggrandizement. Intellect is a great gift, but even the best gift can have its purpose thwarted. Classical education isn’t just about learning skills, it’s about learning virtue. If we find ourselves separating the two, we should start questioning our motivations.
Michael James Thomas Hoffman
Michael Hoffman is a high school Junior and Roman Catholic from Erie Pennsylvania. He enjoys playing and composing music, redrafting his incomplete novels, running, and Taekwondo sparring.
6 thoughts on “Does Formal Debate Really Belong in Classical Education?”
Salve Sir Thomas.
Bene scriptum! Crescens quinque fratres habui. Semper pugnandum, pugnandum, pugnandum! Omnia verba, parvam rationem. Et multam iram. Mei parentes nesciverunt quid agerent. Nunc tres filias mei habeo. Omnes conjuncte in saecula saeculorum olloquuntur ridentque, nonnunquam joculentur. Adhuc multa verba, sed eadem multam rationem et parvam contentionem. Parentes eorum multum beati sunt. Fortasse cum amicos bonos habeant, sed etiam Atticam doctrinam.
Vale, me amice,
Pater Louisae, Christinae Rosamariaeque
Gratias tibi ago pater Turnorum!
Numquam pugno cum frater et soror mei (sine dubio, sine dubio :D ), sed saepe cum filiae tuae pugno!
Vere, contentionem malus est et ad peccattae ducet!
Bomum diam habes!
Iacobus Porcius
Great essay, Michael! The sophists are doing the very things that Socrates was accused of doing by “making the weaker arguments [appear] stronger [than they really are].” The only concern I would have is that in avoiding sophistry we might too quickly think we know the truth without listening to those on the “other side.” I see it all the time that people I happen to agree with on issues misrepresent the other side and take complicated issues and make them simple. Just because we think we have the truth does not me we have it. There is sometimes a tension between humility and stalwartness. :) Furthermore, as Mr. Turner said in his response above, we should pursue conversation that is not “fighting, fighting, fighting” rather discussion that is full of reason, joy, laughter … and a little contention.
Gratias tibi ago magister και χά̆ρῐν ἔχειν διδασκολε!
People tend to get emotional when faced with an argument that’s clearly sophistic. Also, it’s one thing to know someone’s wrong and quite another thing to prove them wrong in a moment. That’s why it’s good when teachers demand that students defend their true conclusions, even if everyone in the class already considers the conclusion to be self evident.
Best regards!
Thank you for this post! I have recently taken over responsibility of teaching Lincoln Douglas value debate at our classical Christian co-op. Teaching debate is new to me. We are using the NCFCA curriculum and I am watching many videos on how to build our case and debate. We are halfway through the semester and I am dismayed by my feelings that I am not teaching these students to seek the truth, but teaching them to manipulate their mind into finding criterion and contentions to defend a value or position that may be completely unbiblical. We also we worldly philosophers and studies as examples and support for those views. Since we are not allowed to use the bible as evidence or measure of a value or for the value themselves, aren’t we doing a disservice by showing the students that values and morals are relative? As a Christian co-op we believe all values and morals come from God, and we are teaching our students in all other subjects that there is no moral relativism, so why are we teaching that during debate. We also seem to be teaching them to use words to manipulate the opponent during cross examination.
I’m also questioning the real life applications and implications of teaching students to cross examine with a forced time limit, which makes them stop. In a real life discussion of values or truth seeking, it is not limited to time, and you must stop to listen and consider. In debate you are not stopping to consider if the opposing team is right. Your “job” is to convince the audience your position is right. Is that really what we are supposed to be doing with our minds? Aren’t we supposed to be seeking truth in discourse with each other, listening and considering and loving?
I am not saying that all debate structure is bad. I quite enjoyed teaching the students to research both sides, how to do deep research, and how to reason what would be the underlying values behind a decision. Those I think are important. So how can we teach those things to our students, with out formal debate? Is Socratic Dialogue enough?
Again thank you for your timely post. I am considering bringing this to our co-op as I am deeply concerned.
Thank you for your comment,
I think it’s important for students and teachers to remember that formal debate is more like a sport or a game than actual productive real world interaction. In the sport of debate you often have to lie and manipulate your opponents to win. Students should be taught that debate is a double edged sword. It can sometimes help you research and understand a topic while honing rhetorical skills, but it often creates unvirtuous habits that students take off of the debate stage and into their every day interactions.
A habit of relativistic thinking is not the least of the patterns of behavior formal debate can instill. When you have to argue for a side you disagree with, you are forced to reprogram your thinking in order to train yourself to say–with conviction–what you believe to be false. This mental reprogramming leaves a mark, and can lead students to question their initial conviction. If you repeat a lie to yourself enough times, even for the sake of a game, you’re more likely to be infected by that lie.
A debator can turn into a rhetorical mad scientist, slaving to cook up the strongest possible argument for something he doesn’t even believe in. In essence, attempting to create the strongest weapon possible with which to attack the truth. How could that possibly be good for a student’s soul?
You brought up the really good point of real life applications. Cross examination, in my experience, was always about tricking the opponent and trying to make them look as dumb as possible in front of the judges. If you question someone in that way in a real discussion you may make yourself feel really smart, but you will alienate your opponent and make them even less likely to agree with you in the end.
In conclusion, I encourage you to warn your students of the dangers of debate and remind them that, while formal debate can be a fun game, it’s methods and activities should not be taken into real life. It’s ok for an defensive lineman to bowl over a quarterback in football, it’s not ok for me to do the same thing to someone I disagree with in public.
I wish you the best of luck in teaching debate, it’s certainly not an easy subject to teach. I hope God blesses you with humble and attentive students who will use the skills they acquire for the sake of truth, goodness, and beauty.