The Debate Nerds Were Right!
Knowing how to argue effectively and persuasively matters. Who knew?
Lots of attention on the "Gish gallop" lately. Hey, what are all of ya a buncha Debate Nerds?!
Turns out that we "Debate Nerds" were right. Knowing how to argue effectively and persuasively matters. Who knew?
I first learned about the "Gish gallop" tactic when I started training for the Debate team in 9th grade. It was already "old news" then, and we were told that when someone uses it, they're either unskilled, or unprepared, or both. We were taught tactics to deal with it, and with other sorts of standard debating gambits.
When you teach youngsters to debate, you touch on a lot of important skills - public speaking, research, grace under pressure, critical thinking, and more. It used to be a standard part of the curriculum. Everybody took rhetoric, at least, and learned not only how to recognize invalid or fallacious arguments but why they were invalid, and how to effectively and persuasively refute them.
Now, from what I've seen, they put up a list of the most common informal fallacies, and call it a day. This does nothing unless the students are taught why these fallacies are fallacious, and why so many people find them persuasive.
Do you really think that a Presidential candidate who lies, misleads and relies on "fecal firehose" tactics would get 40% of the vote in a country where every kid had a year of rhetoric in school? What about if the kids were taught rhetoric for a year, and then an advanced course in college?
Do you think we'd be better governed if every educated person really knew how logic and persuasion actually work? Why some arguments and opinions really are more valid than others? Why Truth is not just a matter of what "feels right in your guts?" Here's a hint - informal fallacies are so common because they "feel right." Your "gut" is what responds to ad populi or ad hominem arguments.
Things like Debate and Forensics in general are considered "extracurriculars" and are among the first things to be cut in school budgets. But I'd argue that there's really nothing more important. Without understanding of how reason or persuasion works, what sense can you make of History? Or Literature? Or anything else, really? How can you understand why bigotry is wrong if you can't understand the fallacies on which it is based, and why they're invalid?
You can't really be "woke" until you're wise. And you can't really be a good voter and a responsible, participating citizen without understanding how persuasion works.
Of course, there are those who really would rather that we didn't learn how persuasion and manipulation works. It's harder to sell gimcracks, trifles and gewgaws; politicians or holy spirits to people who have had their bullshite detectors tuned up and maintained.
Screw those Once-lers. The most urgent and significant reforms, the ones we desperately need are voter reform and consumer reform. None of the other work that needs doing, from climate collapse to getting our government back to being responsive to ALL the citizens can be done while people can be easily swayed in millions by self-interested, bullshite arguments.
Debate is more than a nerd hobby. It is the process by which, in a deliberative society that is expected to participate in its own governance, ideas are tested and exchanged. It is the single, most crucial thing we do as a society.
And our educational system should put great emphasis on teaching our kids to do it.
True enough, but wouldn't it be wiser to teach listening skills first. I belive most of us have speech class. Which, in my experience is a small percentage of the body of an arguement. After all who wants to speak when no one is willing listen?
I did NDT debate in high school and college.
The entire focus of “debate” was “the spread”. You read your arguments as fast as you can during your 8 minute (ten in college) Constructive speech.
AS FAST AS YOU CAN
The goal is to talk so fast that the other side doesn’t have time to respond to everything when their turn comes around.ideally, they can’t write or listen fast enough to even know what you said.
That was 90% of the competition. Talk so fast they can’t get to it all.
We debated interesting topics.
“resolved: the us should reduce its military commitment to one or more NATO member states.”
“Resolved: the United States should provide a guaranteed minimum income to all US citizens living in poverty”
In practice it was just read your arguments faster than the other side could.
Climate Change was the other cheat code. Turns out that it is almost impossible to do anything good without it leading to economic or population growth. And those are bad bad things so we can’t have that!
I remember the North Carolina team responding. “It’s not fair to blame us for the entire orientation of western society!!”
Tough luck. Growth is bad. Bring your”Paul Ehrlich is a nut” indictments next time.