May 2007 ¥ Volume 38 ¥ Number 5 ¥ Pages 4-13
The Instructional Use of Argument Across the Curriculum
|
* This We Believe Characteristics
* Denotes
the corresponding characteristics from NMSA's position paper, This We Believe, for this article. |
Elizabeth
A. Martens
As a speech and debate teacher at the
middle school level, I am frequently asked by peers how they might use debate
in their own respective classrooms. "We'd like to debate whether the
United States should have joined the United Nations" or "Is there a
way to argue the pros and cons of genetic cloning in one class period?"
"What format do we use?" "How long does it take?"
Debate is not only manageable in
the classroom, it is also an effective and enjoyable learning activity. Debate
in the content area classroom serves a dual purpose: students are exposed to a
process that facilitates critical thinking and analytical skills, and debate
serves as a device for authenticating and deepening subject area knowledge.
Facts become related to ideas, which are then used as a springboard for
gathering and organizing additional relevant information and making new
connections. Issues that are controversial (open to more than one
interpretation or position that can be taken) tend to attract student interest
and investment. The dialectical discourse involved in arguing a position
improves speaking and listening skills and promotes a broader and greater depth
of understanding.
Some students as young as fifth grade
can see two sides to an issue, and many are ready to tackle the reasoning
process required to build and sustain an argument. Teaching argument skills
offers students a way to organize their thinking so that it becomes productive,
visibly moving toward a purpose. Debate for young adolescents is not only
developmentally appropriate, but timely in another sense—this age group
loves to argue! At a time when so many middle school students feel awkward and
embarrassed about walking into a room, they can be amazingly open to entering
into an argument. Debate gives these young people a meaningful
"voice"—a way to interact with and to feel a part of the bigger
(adult) world around them. Most significantly, it builds both the voice and the
skills to enable the developing young person to begin to make sense out of his
or her place in the world through the consideration of differing points of
view.
Debate also allows for the application
of content area knowledge to issues of student interest. For example, a debate
on the issue of whether or not the use of atomic weapons was justified in World
War II provides a meaningful accompaniment to an American history unit on the
United States' role in World War II. On a more general level, debate provides
questioning and organizational skills that carry over into learning across the
curriculum. These higher-level thinking skills are particularly useful for
strengthening students' listening and writing skills. Good debaters learn how
to "think on their feet" by quickly identifying issues and organizing
responses in their heads—the same skills used in the formulation of a
written response to an essay question.
The following is not so much a
step-by-step description of "how to debate" as an overview of the
basic elements and concepts that are helpful in implementing informal debate in
the classroom. The use of an occasional classroom debate can be as simple or as
complicated as the teacher wants to make it—and the point is that it
should be left up to the teacher to select a format that is practical for his
or her classroom. Not every concept or procedure outlined here is necessary for
holding a successful classroom debate, and there are many concepts and
procedures that have not been included.
Most debating that goes on at the
middle school level in the speech and debate classroom is not competitive but
consists of informal debating, in which the primary focus is on development of
an argument. Learning how to develop an argument is something that most
students would rather "just do" without being asked to think about
it. Although the concept of argument is most effectively understood through
practice, it is still a good idea to introduce the concept before beginning a
debate and to revisit the concept occasionally during the course of the debate.
The Concept
of Argument
Argument, simply defined, is the offering
of reasons and evidence in support of a conclusion (Weston, 2000). Argument can
be used for different purposes. In philosophical discourse, a form of argument
used in philosophical discussion, argument is used to move closer to the
essential truths about concepts such as "truth," "justice,"
or "beauty." The purpose of philosophical
discourse is to bring the parties closer to an understanding of the nature
of the issue before them.
In debate, on the other hand, argument
is used to prove a point and to persuade someone to adopt one position over
another. Whether argument is used for purposes of discourse or debate, students
need to understand that argument always
involves the use of reasons and the process of reasoning. The difference
arises in the purposes for which the argument is used.
This distinction in purpose is
important in any classroom where much of the learning takes place through class
discussion. There are many times in speech and debate class when the process of
brainstorming about a particular issue should begin with an exploration of the
underlying philosophical issues. Likewise, in my English class, the study of
literature would be incomplete without a careful consideration of the
philosophical issues raised in the work. For example, when reading To Kill A Mockingbird, we begin by
clearly defining what we mean by "prejudice." In addition to
understanding the word's denotative and connotative meanings, students are
asked to distinguish "prejudice" from related terms such as
"bigotry" and "racism." The students' ability to use the
word "prejudice" properly depends on their ability to compare and
contrast it with similar but different terms—a form of reasoning used in
both discourse and debate.
A student handout explaining
philosophical discourse and tips for effective arguing are offered in Figures 1
& 2.
Figure
1
RAD Discourse Procedures
|
||||||||||||
Figure
2
Things to Remember When You Argue
|
Argument
in debate
When introducing the concept of argument for purposes of debate, it is helpful
to begin by identifying the three parts of an argument. In its publication Speak Out! Debate and Public Speaking in the
Middle Grades, the Middle School Public Debate Program (n.d.) uses the
acronym ARE (assertion, reason, evidence) to explain the parts of an argument
and their role in development of the argument (Shuster & Meany, 2005).
The assertion.
The assertion begins the argument with a statement that claims something is
true but does not, in and of itself, provide reasons or evidence to support the
claim of truth. Examples of assertions include:
- Global warming is an immediate
threat to our well-being.
- The U.S. should not have
invaded Iraq.
- Truth is to be valued over
intent.
The reasons and reasoning
process. The assertion begins the argument, and
the process of reasoning develops the argument. Schuster & Meany (2005)
described this as the "because" part of an argument. The assertion is
made, but it needs a "because" to prove its truth or merit. The
reason for the "because" should be relevant, or directly related, to
the assertion in such a way that the
reason gives rise to an inference that the assertion is true or justified. Inference occurs when one can conclude
that something is true in light of something else's being true or seeming to be
true.
Example: The death penalty should be
eliminated because innocent people are put to death.
The reasoning process refers to the way
that the evidence is interpreted, and reasons are used and put together to
infer a conclusion (Zarefsky, 2001). Listing the reasons for an assertion is
not sufficient; you need to tie them together in a way that strengthens the
inference to be made.
Assertion
+ Reason + Reasoning = Argument
I use the idea of "links in a
chain" to explain the abstract concept of reasoning to students. The most
commonly used "links" or types of reasoning are reasoning by example,
causal reasoning, and costs and benefits analysis.
- Reasoning
by example (or reasoning from
generalization). In reasoning by example, one or more examples from a
group are examined, and then a conclusion is drawn about the group. The
conclusion is based on similarities found among the examples, or parts, of
the group.
Examples:
- Middle
school students who perform some form of community service tend to be
more empathetic to the general needs and concerns of others.
- Middle
school students who perform some form of community service tend to be
more likely to undertake leadership roles in community affairs.
- Therefore, community service plays a
valuable role in the education and development of middle school students.
- Reasoning
by analogy. With this type of reasoning, you
infer that when two or more things, events, or ideas are alike in some
ways, they will be alike in other ways. Reasoning by analogy requires that
you show that what was true in one situation will probably be true in a
similar situation (Schuster & Meany, 2005). Analogies compare people,
historical times and places, governments, conflicts, laws, and ideas to
find significant similarities or distinctions in the comparisons. Keep in
mind that analogies are particularly vulnerable to attack based on
relevant distinctions (in addition to the similarities) that can be made
in a given comparison.
Examples:
- The war in
Vietnam could not be won because the U.S. sought to impose democracy onto
a dissimilar and unstable political and military culture.
- In the
current war in Iraq, the U.S. seeks to impose democracy onto a dissimilar
and unstable political and military culture.
- Therefore, it is not likely that the
U.S. will succeed with its military and political goals in Iraq.
- Causal
reasoning. Causal reasoning is used to show
a cause and effect relationship between two things.
Examples:
- Reading a
paper aloud during the editing process enables a student to more readily
detect forgotten words and awkward phrases.
- Reading a
paper aloud during the editing process helps a student more readily
recognize the need for reorganization of thoughts and ideas.
- Therefore, the practice of reading
papers aloud during the editing process is beneficial and should be
encouraged.
- Costs
and benefits reasoning is a practical
way to weigh the relative merits of an option or proposed course of
action. The costs (e.g., harmful consequences, inefficiencies, economic
costs, time and resource allotment) are weighed against the benefits
(e.g., desirable consequences, efficiency gained, economic gain). Costs
and benefits analysis uses causal reasoning to weigh the good and bad
consequences/effects of a proposed course of action.
Examples:
- Our prison
system is inadequate due to overcrowding and high recidivism rates among
nonviolent offenders.
- Efforts to
rehabilitate nonviolent offenders would reduce prison overcrowding and
high recidivism rates.
- The
associated costs of rehabilitation may prove less expensive than the
costs of incarceration and building of new facilities.
- Therefore, the benefits of
rehabilitation outweigh the associated costs of rehabilitation programs.
Evidence.
Reasons require evidence to support them. Evidence in support of a reason
provides information that strengthens the inference to be made by making the
reason more believable. The quality and relevance of the evidence determines
the weight that will be given to the reason. Evidence takes the general forms
of facts, expert opinions, and statistics (Bauer, 1999). Middle school students
do not need to engage in extensive research prior to a debate, but they should
be able to distinguish between facts, opinions, and statistics and begin the
process of "weighing" the quality and strength of the evidence. (See
Figure 3 for a list of helpful student research sites.)
Figure
3
Student Research Sites
|
www.nytimes.com/learning/students/index.html
|
Assertion
+ Reason and Evidence + Reasoning = Argument
Informal
Debate
Once students have an understanding of
the role of argument in debate, they are ready to engage in informal debating.
In debate, the issue must present a controversy, the resolution of which
requires that two opposing positions be taken. If the issue does not pose a
controversy, then it is not "debatable." The dialectical contrast of
two opposing views causes the argument to progress toward the adoption of one
position over the other. In debate, the reasoning process is used to persuade.
Informal debating can take many forms
and is distinguished from formal competitive debate formats (such as
cross-examination debate or policy debate) because of its lack of complex and
rigid procedures. Many competitive debating associations and clubs maintain Web
sites with detailed information regarding formats (See Figure 4 for a partial
listing of debate resource sites.). Informal debating in a middle school
classroom tends to take on adapted forms of the more user-friendly formats of
parliamentary and pubic forum debate.
Figure
4
Teacher Debate Resources
|
General Debate: |
Choosing
topics
Choose two-sided meaningful topics/issues from which two legitimate and clearly
differing positions can be taken. It is also helpful to select topics that can
be broken down easily into two to three main or related ideas. A list of
commonly debated topics appropriate for the middle school level is offered in Figure
5.
Figure
5
Possible Topics for Middle School Debating
|
Policy Issues: |
Parties
Since the issue has two sides, there are two parties to every debate: the
"pro" side that argues in favor of the proposition/motion/resolution and
the "con" side that argues against it. Members ("Speakers")
on the pro side are generally referred to as "the Affirmative," while
speakers on the con side are called "the Negative."
Different debate formats use different
numbers of speakers on each side. The order in which the speakers speak
determines the speaker's role. The Schuster and Meany (2005) format uses three
speakers on each side—the first two speakers on each side handle the
constructive speeches, the third speakers handle rebuttal. The number and roles
of the speakers can be expanded as needed, but more than five speakers on each
side can be cumbersome.
There are various ways to get around
the numbers problem in classrooms containing more than 10 students. The number
of students addressing the constructive and rebuttal speeches can be increased,
a speaker can be added to handle cross-examination, or a speaker can be added
to give a summary speech. Alternatively, several topics can be debated using
different speakers.
The
resolution
In debate, the issue to be debated is called the proposition, motion, or
resolution. This is the subject or topic of the argument, which has been
restated in a particular form. I refer to the proposition/motion/resolution as
the "resolution," because it is easy for students to remember due to
the form that a resolution takes. For example, if the topic of the debate was
school uniforms, the resolution might be stated as: "Resolved, that all middle school students should be required to
wear uniforms." The important thing to remember when drafting the
resolution is to clearly state the issue in its simplest terms.
Resolutions fall into three distinct
categories or types, depending on the nature of the issue: fact, policy, and
value.
Fact Resolutions:
A fact resolution asserts a matter that can be determined as a matter of fact.
The indictment in a criminal trial is a form of a fact resolution; the
determination as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant will be decided as
a matter of fact. The resolution "Resolved,
that capital punishment has reduced violent crimes," can largely be
determined as a matter of fact. Fact resolutions could be particularly useful
in a science classroom ("Resolved,
that monkeys are more highly evolved than dolphins") as a fun and
meaningful way for students to gather information and present their findings.
Policy Resolutions:
Policy resolutions call for a change in the status
quo, for a change in policy. The status
quo refers to the existing state of things, and is always presumed to be
satisfactory. The affirmative (arguing in favor of the resolution) has the
burden to prove the need for a change in the status quo. The word
"should" almost always appears in a policy resolution: "Resolved, that the U.S. should eliminate
capital punishment," "Resolved,
that the student council should purchase pizza once a week for resale as a
fundraising project."
A policy resolution, by its terms,
requires that certain steps be taken when arguing for or against it. Basic
steps in developing a policy argument are as follows:
- Identify and define the problem
(need for change).
- Suggest possible solutions.
- Select the best solution.
- Explain ways to carry out the
solution
(Establish that the proposed change in policy will satisfy the need.).
(Bauer,
1999)
Value Resolutions:
Value resolutions call for the evaluation of a value inherent in the
resolution. The word "should" does not appear in value resolutions,
as the issue usually concerns the weighing of relative values, as opposed to
changes in an existing policy. The resolution is set forth like a belief
statement: "Resolved, that
oppressive government is better than no government," "Resolved, that science is of greater
value to society than art," or "Resolved,
that the pen is mightier than the sword." Value resolutions rely more on
the logical analysis of philosophical issues than on the presentation of
evidence.
The
speeches
When it is a speaker's turn to talk, he or she gives a "speech."
Speeches are divided into two types: constructive and rebuttal. Constructive
speeches build an argument, and rebuttal speeches refute the opposition's
argument and rebuild an argument, when necessary. Both the affirmative and
negative sides give constructive and rebuttal speeches.
Constructive:
In the constructive speeches the affirmative and negative speakers give their
offensive arguments. They are advancing their own arguments by making
assertions and giving reasons and evidence why something is so. The first
constructive speakers (for both the affirmative and negative) need to clearly
define all terms central to the resolution and present the basic outline of
their argument. The role of the second round of constructive speakers is to
"fill in" the outlined argument with evidence and additional
reasoning in support of the assertions.
Rebuttal:
In the rebuttal speeches both sides give their defensive arguments—they
respond to arguments put into play by the other side. This is called
refutation. Rebuttal may involve direct refutation of arguments put forth by
the other side, or the rebuilding of one's own argument that was attacked.
Rebuttal speakers cannot possibly speak to every argument offered by the
opposition, and, therefore, must determine the strongest aspects of the
opponent's case that need refuting (or the weakest parts of their own case that
need rebuilding).
Clash:
"Clash" is not a speech but a term used to describe what happens
during refutation and what is essential to a good debate. During the course of
the debate, there should be direct clash (dispute on the issues) occurring
between the two sides. If both sides are advancing arguments but their reasons
are unrelated to each other, there is no dispute. Each side must attempt to
refute the other's arguments for clash to occur.
Format
The format is made up of the rules and procedures that govern the debate. The
format can determine the form of the resolution, the number and order of
speakers, and the role of each speaker. The one common factor is that the
speaking order goes back and forth between the affirmative and negative.
Generally the affirmative goes first with its first speaker, then the negative
gets a turn with its first speaker.
The Middle School Debate Project, a
program originating out of the Los Angeles area, provides a basic format
readily adaptable to most classrooms. Speaking times and the numbers of
speakers can be adjusted quite easily.
Adapted
MSDP Speaker Format:
|
Affirmative
Speaker A/Constructive speech |
4
min. |
|
Negative
Speaker A/Constructive speech |
4
min. |
|
Affirmative
Speaker B/Constructive speech |
4
min. |
|
Negative
Speaker B/Constructive speech |
4
min. |
|
Affirmative
Speaker C/Rebuttal |
3
min. |
|
Negative
Speaker C/Rebuttal |
3
min. |
|
(Schuster
& Meany, 2005) |
|
Speakers cannot interrupt other speakers, but some formats, such as
parliamentary debate, allow for a form of questioning during a speech called
"Points of Information (POI)." POIs are questions from the opposition
allowed after the first minute and before the last minute of a constructive
speech. When asking a POI, the opposition stands up during a speech with one
palm extended and must wait to be recognized by the person speaking. If told
"No thank you" or "Not at this time," the questioner must
promptly sit down (but can try again later). If the speaker accepts the POI,
the questioner has no more than 15 seconds to ask the question directed at the
speaker. The speaker then responds to the question during his or her remaining
speaking time. Middle school students find POIs very empowering because they get to decide whether to accept or
reject a question.
Despite the brief speaking times, it is
difficult to schedule more than two debates based on the above format in a
48-minute class period, particularly since you want to allow sufficient time
following the debate for "debriefing" (see Evaluation/Judging,
below). It is best to allow at least one class period for preparation time and
hold the debate during the next class meeting.
Formalities:
Students actually enjoy the formalities that accompany many debate formats. You
might insist that certain parliamentary procedures be followed and that
students address each other as "Mr." or "Miss/Ms." or
"My Distinguished Opponent Ms. Smith."
Another "formality" that is
lots of fun for students is derived from the parliamentary debate practice of
"heckling." Heckling is a way for team members and the audience to
respond to statements made by a speaker. "Positive" heckling, used
when the speaker has made a particularly good point, involves light tapping on
the tabletop or the shaking of a triumphant fist in the air.
"Negative" heckling, if allowed, involves a low hiss or "thumbs
down" sign.
Evaluation/Judging
For most classroom purposes, informal debates are evaluated
rather than judged. This can be disappointing to middle school students who
would prefer to have a winner declared after every debate. The simple rubric
contained in Figure 6 can be used to serve both purposes.
Figure
6
Informal Debate Rubric
|
Name:
_______________________________ |
Debriefing with the class should be
attempted after every debate. This is the time when students look back over the
course of the debate, identify turning points and errors, and give
self-evaluations. It will also be the time when everyone wants to get a last
word in!
Miscellaneous
Advice
Brainstorming
Before students begin researching and preparing arguments, it is wise to
brainstorm the issue with the entire class. While brainstorming, my students
are asked to consider all applicable "related ideas" posted on a
board in the classroom. The related ideas exercise is designed to get the
students to consider the broad implications of a given issue. The following is
the listing of related ideas posted in my classroom:
- Social (family, community,
local, national, global)
- Economic (individual, local,
national, global impact)
- Cultural (ethnicity,
historical, value-oriented, the arts)
- Political (local, state,
federal, global)
- Educational (goals, processes)
- Religious
- Moral (ethical concerns,
values, individual and community, absolute and relative)
- Philosophical (related to the
Big Ideas of Truth, Justice, Beauty, Goodness)
Always:
- Define
- Distinguish
- Find Relationships
- Compare and Contrast
If, for example, the topic of debate
was the death penalty, brainstorming notes might look like this:
Social
implications (perpetrator's family v. victim's
family; general community and prison community interests in safety and
security; state/national/global rates of execution)
Economic
implications (costs of execution v. costs of death
row; costs of appeal)
Cultural
(history of attitudes and beliefs; breakdown of ethnicity/gender/economic
background of those executed)
Moral
and religious (value of life; concept of
mercy/grace/judgment; justification for killing and State's role)
Philosophical
(how does this relate to our idea of justice?)
Once the topic has been broken down
into its related ideas, the class lists all the questions they can think of
that are relevant to the issue and related ideas. The reformulation of issues
into the form of questions prepares the students for thinking dialectically in
assertion and response format. Sample questions follow:
- What rights does the victim's
family have in seeking final resolution/retribution?
- What are the costs of
incarceration for life compared with costs of death row and execution?
- When has the U.S. abolished the
death penalty in the past and why?
- Does the death penalty appear
to be applied unjustly or unfairly? (Are innocent people put to death/how
often, is the penalty applied to any racial or ethnic group
disproportionately?)
- Is it moral to kill another
human being, even when that individual has killed another?
Determine
Contentions
Once related issues and questions have been identified, the students are ready
to organize the related ideas and questions into "contentions" for
the affirmative (pro) and negative (con) sides. Contentions are the statements
of the evidence, the main reasons given by each side for its position. The affirmative
should always come up with its own list of negative contentions, and likewise
for the negative side. Students need to be constantly reminded that you cannot have a "point" until
you have explored the "counterpoint!"
Most of the informal debating in my
classroom is "impromptu," in the sense that speeches are not written
out in advance. Students should, however, be prepared with an outline of main
contentions and supporting evidence. I prefer impromptu argument for the
beginning debater because it helps students learn to think and argue on their
feet, feel free to add to outlines, and be ready to adjust or adapt arguments,
depending on how the argument is proceeding.
Keeping
the Debate Going/Listening and Note-taking
In my experience, the most difficult parts of informal debate for middle school
students are learning how to listen to other speakers and learning how to take
effective notes during the course of the debate. Listening and note-taking are
essential to the dialectical progression of a debate.
Listening:
This age group has so much to say that it can be extremely painful for them to
have to give up the floor or otherwise listen when someone else has the floor.
It is agonizing for them to have to keep quiet and not respond immediately to
the opposition. It is during the course of all of this angst that they
inevitably forget to listen to the other side's argument. A clash fails to
occur, and the debate is over without ever really going anywhere. Everyone has
had a chance to say their piece, but no one has responded to what has been
said. During the debriefing period following the debate, it is helpful for the
teacher to point out the exact contentions that were never addressed.
Note-taking:
It comes as no surprise that this age group does not want to take notes any
more than they want to listen to others speak. Encouraging (or requiring)
note-taking in debate does help facilitate listening and is necessary for the
development of the argument. Note-taking enables the debater to address
specific arguments/evidence and stay
aware of the flow or progress of the arguments. An example of a simplified
debate flow-sheet suitable for middle school students is shown in Figure 7. A
legend for the abbreviations used is found at the top, and the columns used for
note-taking are determined by speaker order (three speakers per side) and type
of speech (affirmative or negative). Main points made by each speaker are noted
under the appropriate column.
Figure
7
Sample Flow Chart
|
Resolution: _______________________________________
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Final Thought
Given a classroom of excited middle
school students, their desire to be a part of the world around them, and their
willingness to make themselves heard, it really does just take an issue to get
a classroom debate started. Since the issues can be found in the subject matter
being taught, and the "rules" of debate can be adapted to fit your
classroom, there is no reason not to let the debate begin.
References
Bauer, O. (1999). Fundamentals of debate. Omaha, NE: Rockbrook Press.
Middle School Public Debate Program.
(n.d.). Retrieved July 26, 2005, from http://www.middleschooldebate.com.
The Radical Academy. (2006). Retrieved
July 22, 2006, from http//radicalacademy.com.
Schuster, K., & Meany, J. (2005). Speak out! Debate and public speaking in the
middle grades. New York: International Debate Education Association.
Weston, A. (2000). A rulebook for arguments (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Hackett
Publishing.
Zarefsky, D. (2001). Argumentation: The study of effective
reasoning. Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company.
Elizabeth A. Martens is an English teacher at St.
Andrews Episcopal Middle School, Austin, Texas. E-mail: emartens@sasaustin.org.
Copyright © 2007 by National Middle School Association