Student debate topics that are bad - what to do?

[RaulN]

There are times when a student debate imposes a topic for defense which is bad (doctrinally or morally, e.g. euthanasia is good, the Catholic church is against science).

What should a student or a teacher in charge do? Doesn’t taking part in such a thing make a student vulnerable to believe his own arguments?

 

[ljubim]

They can always refuse on moral grounds. Some little debate class means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Really, arguing something convincingly is as bad as believing it. They could always argue bad and easily tear their position down if they’re forced to… and if grades fail as a consequence then parents could appeal to the principle

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Is debate about truth or about finding out who is the best sophist? The Church has reasons for the truth is professes and some arguments are unable to be defended. It isn’t the Church’s opinion on the truth, it is the truth as it is based on the unchanging God that created time, space, and matter. One is not judged harshly for being fooled but for being foolish, don’t defend the indefensible.

 

[catherinette]

There are times when a student debate imposes a topic for defense which is bad (doctrinally or morally, e.g. euthanasia is good, the Catholic church is against science).

What should a student or a teacher in charge do? Doesn’t taking part in such a thing make a student vulnerable to believe his own arguments?

You mean the student has to defend the morally wrong position of the argument? I suppose if the student has a choice on which side to choose, it’s probably best that he chooses the side he agrees with; but I don’t think that as a school assignment, it’s necessarily a bad thing for the student to have to defend something he doesn’t actually agree with. The student can use the assignment as a chance to learn the arguments of the other side so he can more easily defend the right side. I suppose if the child is young, a parent should be involved to make sure that the child does understand why the position he is being asked to take is morally wrong. Look at the way Thomas Aquinas wrote; he understood both sides of the argument to the point that he actually presented objections to his own philosophy, to which he then responded.

 

[Bluegoat]

Debating, I think, is a very good exercise for children of the right age, usually about age 12 and up. It teaches critical thinking and logic in a way that is hard to do if you only let the kids take the positions they agree with. And it’s rather a cop-out to pick only topics that don’t have any real weight to them.

Debating in this way teaches kids a few things.

1. That to defend their position, they need to be able to think about both sides logically and rationally, and understand the other point of view.
2. To be respectful of the people on the other side of the issue, and not rely on defamation or emotionalism.
3. That other points of view do actually have reasons behind them much of the time.
4. It gives them practice in constructing logical arguments.

Kids that are only asked to argue positions that they actually agree with don’t learn these things well. I can’t tell you how many papers I’ve read by first year university students where their idea of arguing a position was totally devoid of any kind of reasoning, and where they could not present their reasons if they had them.

Debate is in many ways an artificial exercise, and it’s meant to be. Kids realize that other kids, like themselves, are not always arguing the position they believe.

As well, it’s at around this age kids begin to realize that the authorities that make claims to truth are not all equal, that parents can indeed be wrong, that they need to look for something more to find answers. The ability to reason clearly is one of the best protections they can have as teens and adults, but if they don’t get that, they will still question those authorities. What they will use to adjudicate those claims in the absence of the tools of reason is anyone’s guess.

 

[phoage]

If you do not understand the other persons reasons for their beliefs, you do not understand your own reasons.

To arrive at a set of beliefs, certain choices must be made and there are reasons for those choices based on background, experience, and previous beliefs. New information can change existing beliefs either because of changed circumstances or finding existing beliefs based on erronious data.

The best way to understand the choices you have made is to view them in the light of the choises available and to understand (not necissarily agree with) the choices others have made and why the made them. Debate is one method of doing this. In many cases it has (for moral purposes) all the significance of a high school or little league ball game. There is competition, and excitemenmt and learning but the fate of the free world is not balanced on the outcome.

I will undertake to debate any position on any issue under the correct circumstances, regardless of my beliefs. As long as all concerned understand it is just a debate and excercise for the mind, it matters not.

 

[neophyte]

Debating, I think, is a very good exercise for children of the right age, usually about age 12 and up. It teaches critical thinking and logic in a way that is hard to do if you only let the kids take the positions they agree with. And it’s rather a cop-out to pick only topics that don’t have any real weight to them.

Debating in this way teaches kids a few things.

1. That to defend their position, they need to be able to think about both sides logically and rationally, and understand the other point of view.
2. To be respectful of the people on the other side of the issue, and not rely on defamation or emotionalism.
3. That other points of view do actually have reasons behind them much of the time.
4. It gives them practice in constructing logical arguments.

Kids that are only asked to argue positions that they actually agree with don’t learn these things well…

It seems to me that there’s a problem when someone’s required to construct logical argument to support a false position. “The Church is against science”, for example. It’s absolute rubbish, and while someone could win a debate while supporting that position they’d be relying on poor reasoning and debate skills that serve to confuse rather than illumine. That sure won’t give them practice in constructing logical arguments.Then again, part of the learning curve needs to be recognising such tactics in the heat of battle, and responding to them appropriately. If I were a teacher I’d probably give extra credit to student who recognised that he was placed in such a false position and who told me about it.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

It seems to me that there’s a problem when someone’s required to construct logical argument to support a false position. “The Church is against science”, for example. It’s absolute rubbish, and while someone could win a debate while supporting that position they’d be relying on poor reasoning and debate skills that serve to confuse rather than illumine. That sure won’t give them practice in constructing logical arguments.Then again, part of the learning curve needs to be recognising such tactics in the heat of battle, and responding to them appropriately. If I were a teacher I’d probably give extra credit to student who recognised that he was placed in such a false position and who told me about it.

This was the job of the sophists in the day of Plato. We see the similarities with the relativists today, in fact, they are one in the same:

1. The sophists taught people how to** “make the weaker argument appear the stronger.” They were more interested in winning an argument than in discovering truth.**

1. At least one of the sophists entertained radical skepticism. Gorgias wrote (I include only the headlines of the sections of his two-page argument): Nothing exists. If anything exists, it is incomprehensible. If it is comprehensible, it is incommunicable. (See Kathleen Freeman, Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962.)

1. The sophists were, in many cases, atheists or agnostics. Protagoras: “About the gods, I am not able to know whether they exist or do not exist, nor what they are like in form; for the factors preventing knowledge are many: the obscurity of the subject, and the shortness of human life.”

1. At least one of the sophists proposed a cynical idea of justice. Thrasymachus, whom we meet in Book I of the Republic, asserted,** “Justice is the interest of the stronger.”**

1. The sophists tended to believe that values are not real, but merely a matter of the opinion of the individual or the culture, as expressed in the famous line of Protagoras, “Man is the measure . . . .” Socrates and Plato sought for higher standards than simply human opinion. It must be possible to raise questions, to criticize the opinion of any person or culture. If human opinion is the highest standard, then such criticism is impossible. Therefore philosophy—for Socrates and Plato—calls for inquiry in search of meanings and values (such as beauty and goodness) that are real.

1. Some sophists (and most pre-Socratic philosophers) **centered their thinking on speculations about nature or other subjects rather than on cultivating the mind in ways that would help develop an excellent character. **

personal.kent.edu/~jwattles/sophists.htm

It is important to always stand up for the truth and what is right. To listen to the other side of an argument is different than arguing falsely for it. That isn’t dialogue, it is the beginning of sophistry.

 

[catherinette]

It seems to me that there’s a problem when someone’s required to construct logical argument to support a false position. “The Church is against science”, for example. It’s absolute rubbish, and while someone could win a debate while supporting that position they’d be relying on poor reasoning and debate skills that serve to confuse rather than illumine.

The student could always just deliberately misunderstand the position and argue that, yes, the Church is against the idea that science is the be-all and end-all of all existence.
I guess the main problem with a democratic society is that it puts all opinions on the same level simply because they are opinions, even when they are stupid opinions!

 

[Bluegoat]

It seems to me that there’s a problem when someone’s required to construct logical argument to support a false position. “The Church is against science”, for example. It’s absolute rubbish, and while someone could win a debate while supporting that position they’d be relying on poor reasoning and debate skills that serve to confuse rather than illumine. That sure won’t give them practice in constructing logical arguments.Then again, part of the learning curve needs to be recognising such tactics in the heat of battle, and responding to them appropriately. If I were a teacher I’d probably give extra credit to student who recognized that he was placed in such a false position and who told me about it.

But of course there is not only one student in the debate - there is another student who is defending the other point of view. A debate is not a “One or the Other” proposition - both sides are required for it to work. It is a kind of beginning to learning dialectic.

Consider this as a question, rather than as an assigned position. “Is the Church against science?” A good and reasonable question. Well, to debate it, there needs to be one person on each side. And although the “yes” student has some work to do, there is some very interesting material available, that can be used honestly, that the student could present in her favour. She could suggest that although the Church sees all truth as connected, religious truth will win when the two seem to conflict, because it sees revealed truth as more sure than human knowledge. Or she could just say that although officially the church supports science, there are examples (Galileo always comes up at these student debates) which suggest that the church might be less than sincere. Is that true? Well, I don’t think so, but now the other debater must address that accusation, which surely is fair.

In the end, of the debate is well done, there will be more truth revealed than if only one side had been presented.

This is what happens is a court trial, in order to make sure each side gets a fair chance to present. I believe that the Church uses this technique in creating Saints, for similar reasons.