tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post1806087187656027777..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Boys Debating NicelyRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-48404914932879904622007-04-01T22:18:00.000-04:002007-04-01T22:18:00.000-04:00I am a high school debater myself, hopefully a "bo...I am a high school debater myself, hopefully a "boy debating nicely." I do not know how helpful this will be, but I can give you an account of what's happening on the high school debate circuit, as it relates to your post. <BR/><BR/>First of all, the style of debating that I compete in is called "Lincoln-Douglas (LD)." It focuses on philosophy and values. LD is also primarily a boy's event (of course, anyone can compete). <BR/><BR/>While debate is not meant to be a purely educational event, it has certainly deviated quite a bit from its intended educational value. Especially on the national circuit, certain techniques have come into practice that are far from rhetorically excellent. <BR/><BR/>"Spreading" is popular, in which the debater will respond to a contention (or argument) with blippy, often one-line responses. His/her opponent will not have a legitimate chance to respond in the time alloted, and thus the arguments will become "dropped," or unadressed. If an argument is dropped, then its assumed that it was agreed upon, which can ultimately decide the round. To put this into perspective, imagine trying to answer anywhere from 20 to 50 one-line arguments in about four minutes. And then losing the round because you missed something, which was "extended" later (or used to attack your other arguments).<BR/><BR/>What I hope to illustrate is an example of the degeneration of philosophical discussion when its dominated by young men. To quote the recent state champion (and a friend for about two years now) "I've yet to hear anything substantial in an LD round." Essentially a large (and ever growing) group of debaters refrain from explaining clear, logical arguments because they're too easy to refute.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure if the cause of this trend is the fact that so many of debaters are boys, or if debate- being a competitive event- simply lends itself to such tactics. It is clear, however, that communal discussion has lost value.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04962352165124907271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-87514295703130026642007-03-26T21:19:00.000-04:002007-03-26T21:19:00.000-04:00Firstly, nice posts Michael.If this matter is look...Firstly, nice posts Michael.<BR/><BR/><BR/>If this matter is looked at from a theoretical point of view of what education should focus on and how this is best achieved, i have some sypathy with this view that male combativeness may be counter-producative. This is if one assumes that critical thinking and the abilty to rationally debate concepts and 'argue nicely' as you put it, should be the focus of education. <BR/><BR/>However from a practical point of view, there is very little room or focus in high school for this. The focus is clearly on learning facts - dates, historical occurances, reasons for processes, how things came to be as they are ie Geograpghal structures etc etc.<BR/><BR/>It is unnecessary, one could argue, to hold group discussion while learning the process of photosynthesis or plate techtonics. However this is the complaint that is voiced in the feminised school system. It is communal learning, and it is generally by female teachers (81% of NZ primary school and 65% of secondary school teachers) and suits female students. <BR/><BR/>The distinction is that the style of teaching that is used to teach kids is a function to teach kids the curriculum. Not that the curricululm is there to guide a teaching style, with the goal to encourage the ability to communally debate and think crtitically - for better of worse (i personally think critical thinking should be taughta s a core subject).<BR/><BR/>Boys respond to competetive activities - either inwardly where each test they will try to improve on their own mark (or a freinds mark), or externally ie times tables races etc, where they train to memorise quickly, to beat their rivals. this is not counterproductive to education, just a differentl way to engage young men to learn.<BR/><BR/>The goal of the schools should be to infuse students with knowledge and understanding - the measure is what is in the curriculum. The way they teach should be based on how best the students respond and achieve learning. Taking all competition out of schools may be the best way for girls, and not for boys. This should be recognised rather than advocating that perhaps one is an inherently better way, and boys should learn to learn like the girls (i am not saying this is your argument at all Michael). this is one reason why boys are being out done by girls in every aspect of high school performance and are now 65% of university students in NZ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-22822443291111697722007-03-25T04:43:00.000-04:002007-03-25T04:43:00.000-04:00I'm certainly not an experienced teacher, but I us...I'm certainly not an experienced teacher, but I used to help teach at a university martial arts school for a little while. (students were predominantly 18-21 - though I wouldn't be surprised if the same facts held for the older students too)<BR/><BR/>I certainly found that your division between types of combatitiveness (no pun intended!) held fairly well. You'd get some who turn up merely to try and prove that they're the best person there, often ignoring the point of the exercise in order to "get one over" their partner. Others would turn up and treat it competitively, but fairly. These people tended to train fairly well, but usually weren't the best people to pair with beginners, since they'd rather compete with them rather than help them learn. Finally, in my experience, those who stuck it out longest, and who generally proceeded furthest, were those who competed not with others, but with themselves - to get out of that annoying ingrained bad habit that they had, or to get into some new habit that they lacked.<BR/><BR/>As I say, I'm certainly not particularly experienced, but your terms did certainly seem to fit into place from my experience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com