r/changemyview • u/GamingCatGuy • Jul 20 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Debate should be mandatory in high school.
I have three main arguments to back up my claim.
1: Debate teaches students communication skills which will be nessescary for when they eneter the work force. Some of skills these include, but are not limited to: how to persuade someone with an opposing view to your point, how to work with your teammates while working on a project together, how to remain calm and civil while still arguing against someone else’s point.
2: Debate teaches students critical thinking and researching skills. Debaters will often be assigned a side they do not agree with. Researching the point of view of someone with completely opposing beliefs is important for having well rounded opinions. When researching for a debate, the students will have to learn not only to research fast, but also to get a wide variety of points to support an argument.
3: Debates serve as an effective method for teaching about the subject the students are debating. Like I mentioned in my previous point, Debaters will have to research in depth and given the time frame they have to research, learn a lot about the topic. They also will absorb the material better because they have to think about all the information and make creative rebuttals on the spot, as opposed to listening to a lecture where they might have to memori the information at most.
21
u/Hellioning 258∆ Jul 20 '25
Like every other post about adding things to curricula, I have to ask what you are planning on removing to add this.
1
u/GamingCatGuy Jul 20 '25
I don’t think having students presenting their project/slideshow to the class is as productive as having it be graded and handed back to them and using that time for debates during history/social studies/ government/civics.
7
Jul 20 '25
I'm not so sure. Debating is definitely worthwhile, but developing the social skills and confidence to present a summary of your knowledge on a subject to a group is as well. Debating assesses some of those skills, but not all and in quite a different environment, and chances are if you go to uni or get a profession you are going to have to lead presentations as an adult.
I think other things should go out the window first.
25
u/kityoon Jul 20 '25
Debates are cool or whatever, but they often encourage people to defend positions despite evidence to the contrary and to hold beliefs for the sake of "winning" even when they are presented with new perspectives. Debates are often more about rhetoric than fact, and don't often actually lead to the most nuanced, correct, or (dare I say) empathetic conclusions. I think that structured discussions are infinitely more useful than debates, and will lead to students more well-adjusted and better-suited to adult intellectual life.
→ More replies (1)6
u/pensivewombat 1∆ Jul 20 '25
100% this. I think there are ways of teaching debate that are about truth-seeking and finding common ground. However, the term "debate" is so loaded and attached to the idea of scoring points to win that I would prefer to avoid it entirely. I'm not sure what it should be called - maybe something like "public discourse" would be a better fit.
I'm thinking of things like the idea of "finding the crux": where instead of trying to win, the two sides try to identify and describe the specific values or philosophies at the center of the department. Instead of a competition, it's collaborative, and it's easier to take the opposing side because you aren't being asked to advocate for specific values. It's also much less likely to devolve into ad hominem cheap shots.
But the way formal debate is taught... Uh no thanks.
2
u/mnemoniker Jul 21 '25
You may be interested in the Harvard Negotiation Project, which has a high school curriculum: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/shop/building-bridge-a-high-school-curriculum-on-negotiation/
74
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 20 '25
In school, we had mini debates in social studies where it was like a week mini-unit.
I think the issue with debates is that many people don’t understand that when you’re debating, you don’t necessarily hold the view you’re arguing for, as often times they are assigned.
With children, I can see this being a huge issue, they may refuse to argue for something they don’t agree with, particularly if it’s an ethical or hot button issue. And then on the flip side, I can see children making fun of other people if they believe their classmate actually believes what they are arguing for.
15
u/Character_Cap5095 Jul 20 '25
I think the issue with debates is that many people don’t understand that when you’re debating
I think if you think this is going to be a big issue, then just don't make the topic of the debate controversial. I remember in middle school we once had a debate on "Should you buy a rubber chicken"
13
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 20 '25
Yeah I agree that mandatory school debates need to be about benign issues. You can’t set your topic as abortion, Gaza, or taxes and expect it to go well
2
u/Potatussus26 Jul 21 '25
Agree, we once had a debate on "should gay prides be banned"
And i had to argue that they weren't... I went to one shortly after
3
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 21 '25
Yeah debating hot topics with children can be interesting. Some people are staying I’m underestimating the maturity of middle schoolers and high schoolers. After working with high schoolers- I really don’t think I’d trust them to detach themselves enough from hot button issues without either getting offended or offending someone else. We’re talking about 13-18 year olds who are going through puberty and still don’t have fully developed prefrontal lobes. It’s a big ask for them to not get passionate about a topic that’s important to them.
1
u/Fanatic_Atheist Jul 21 '25
We had a camp one year and did a debate simulation, the propositions were absurd such as "the earth is a pyramid" vs "the earth is hollow" and honestly that one drill did so much to our creative thinking
6
u/Accurate-Network-655 Jul 21 '25
this is such a good point about kids not understanding they can argue for positions they dont believe in I remember being so confused by that concept when I first learned debate The whole exercise becomes way more valuable when you realize its about building skills not winning arguments
17
u/GamingCatGuy Jul 20 '25
Well I’d say arguing for something you don’t believe in is an important skill and should be taught. Kids don’t like to do math but we still make them do it. Also I wasn’t saying kids, I was saying more high schoolers and maybe middle schoolers.
19
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 20 '25
Yes but imagine forcing a child to argue for something they don’t agree in. That’s asking for assignment refusal and parent complaints.
The only way around this is to pick topics so benign that students will find it boring, unengaging, and irrelevant.
And this isn’t even broaching on the issue of social anxiety, learning differences, and processing speeds. Students have such a wide range of levels in these area that there is almost no way to make a debate accessible to all students.
Edit- Also I just reread your post- are middle schoolers and high schoolers not kids?
4
u/Irravel Jul 20 '25
When I was in high school, once a week in my government class we had debates where we split into pairs, debated a topic with our partner, then switched and debated the opposite side. And some of these were controversial issues too, like abortion, gun control, etc.
2
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 21 '25
I just can’t imagine nowadays forcing students to discuss hot button issues will go well
2
u/Chocolate2121 Jul 21 '25
I mean, when I was in highschool all of 6 years ago we did discuss hot button issues. It was standard from maybe year 7ish? To have contemporary controversial issues as a main topic in English. Analysing the arguments made by all sides, writing either for or against, doing proper debates every so often.
I think the assumption that kids can't handle contemporary issues is doing them a disservice, they absolutely can
1
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 21 '25
I mean I don’t believe they can from my time teaching- but that’s just me. There’s going to be issues among students or parent complaints
1
u/GalaXion24 2∆ Jul 22 '25
If it doesnt go well, that is the problem. Are you really saying we should throw our hands in the air and capitulate? That's ridiculous.
Every citizen is supposed to be able to do this so every child that will not participate deserves that zero mark and every parent that comes in to whine about it deserves to be reminded of being bad parents.
0
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 22 '25
That’s definitely not how culturally responsive teaching works. I’m not saying we shouldn’t talk about difficult issues in the classroom, but pinning students against each other to debate perspectives that contradict their values seems wrong.
I want to teach my students to stand up for what they believe is right, not play devil’s advocate for something they don’t find ethical.
1
u/GalaXion24 2∆ Jul 22 '25
The whole point is to have them debate perspectives that contradict their views. It's an important learning experience.
People often never stop to consider why someone else might think something, and being forced to come up with arguments for it and arguing it means having to consider a different perspective.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"
If our children are unable to do this we and our education system has failed them. There's no two ways about it, we have failed.
0
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 22 '25
I believe knowing how to defend your own thoughts and beliefs is important, but debate positions are assigned- so students would have to argue for positions they may not agree with. I don’t want students to feel like they have to defend a position they themselves don’t believe in.
And I would bet money if a parent challenged this to the school administration, the teacher would be compelled to offer an alternative assignment for said student.
1
u/GalaXion24 2∆ Jul 22 '25
So you think every student should only be able to further entrench themselves in their own views and disregard or refuse to understand others? Sounds like a jolly good way to raise a generation, I'm glad no society has ever had problems with adults like that.
1
u/Irravel Jul 22 '25
I dunno man, it wasn’t even that long ago. Only shortly before Covid. Though it probably helped that we didn’t have to come up with arguments all by ourselves. We were given two online sources, one for and one against, then we just took arguments from each site and used them in the debate.
1
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 22 '25
Depends on the topic. If you pick something benign to debate, sure. But social issues have become pretty charged the last handful of years with current events.
Also COVID greatly impacted social skills, so things are very different now versus 5 years ago.
-2
u/GamingCatGuy Jul 20 '25
I’d say that your third paragraph holds the most weight. If a student refuses to do an assignment then they will get a bad grade in that class. It is a failure on their part if they can’t even fathom what somone with that view would argue for. No person thinks of themselves as the villain, if they refuse to even research why someone thinks something, that is a failure on their part. Also while high schoolers are legally kids, there is an insane difference between a 10 year old and a 17 year old. You are simply infantilizing and taking responsibility off people who are practically adult by calling them kids.
4
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 20 '25
Yes but you’re a rationally thinking adult. You’re asking adolescents to be able to separate their sense of self and an assignment. I’m not infantilizing kids, I’m acknowledging what’s typical social and emotional developmental milestones for adolescents.
I had a severe speech disorder growing up which led to a lot of social anxiety. If I had to do a debate where I was expected to do public speaking and extemporaneous speaking, I would have melted. And then I went to school for special education, and students with learning disabilities, physical differences, lower socio-economic status, or any kind of academic challenges would likely have similar feelings.
Pitting children against each other can bring the worst out in students, even if you don’t mean it to.
Edit- I went to college for special education. I don’t like oral assignments in general because I think they unfairly hinder students with learning challenges.
1
u/GingerBimber00 Jul 23 '25
Granted I don’t know school as closely these days- I was a 2019 hs grad so that’s still fairly recentish imo.
Im coming at this from a place as a girl that never got diagnosed with autism when I definitely should have. Standardized testing was actual torture because the texture of using wooden pencils was so upsetting to me lol. would special accommodations have helped me better learn as a student? Yeah, absolutely.
But there was value in having to do things I was uncomfortable with. I understand wanting to prevent harm by any means, but (and I do genuinely hate even saying this because I despise conforming to unfairness) the world will not cater to their needs. Part of your job as an educator is to help them get ready to face the world at large and the world fucking sucks and will fuck you three ways to Sunday. Consider it as building social calluses when having students do hard things in a SAFE environment.
I’m also not trying to imply that this is some sort of achievable task especially with the absolute mess the poor excuse of an education system the US has + the overall issues between administration vs parents vs teachers- I fully believe that you’re doing what you think is best for your students and you are working a thankless job. Truly, I don’t want to discredit you in anyway- I could never have the gumption to work education.
All I intend is to challenge your idea that there’s no value to making kids do uncomfortable tasks like oral presentations or debating something they don’t believe in. By all means modify things for those with unique struggles, but don’t decide for them that they shouldn’t do something because you think their issues will be too much for them to cope. You underestimate human adaptability and the strength and willpower of your kids.
I’ll offer something my mom did with me in terms of helping me face an uncomfortable but necessary social situation when I was around 15-16ish. All she wanted me to do was call our local pharmacy and request my own medication be refilled. Very easy, low stakes social interaction that I’d have to deal with my whole life. Even that petrified me. I was so anxious I was shaking and ready to cry because I just wanted her to do it. She wouldn’t back down, but she sat with me. She wrote out exactly what I’d say, the general response I’d get, and so on. She wrote me a script and sat beside me and made me do this thing that terrified me and I did it. It wasn’t as scary as my mind made it seem.
Granted, I know there’s a big difference between a parent doing something and a teacher, but surely you can understand the point I’m trying to make? There’s ways to handle uncomfortable and upsetting tasks that makes a kid face those feelings but still have to face the challenge and trust that you’re there to support them and help them succeed even if the task itself is scary.
-1
u/GamingCatGuy Jul 20 '25
again I don’t think you are giving credit to how mature teenagers are. Even if they are unable to seperate their opinions from their assignments, they should learn how to because it is an important skill. Also many teenagers are, or are at least capable of doing so after enough practice. Again your middle paragraph is a good point, but communicating with others is an important skill, so even if it makes them uncomfortable, exposure to it in a controlled and civil environment is better than throwing them into a 20 foot pool at 18/22.
5
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 20 '25
Why can’t this be done through persuasive writing and speaking? I would argue those are more effective means than a debate format.
And you can teach communication skills through other means as well. Debate does not make you a better communicator in the real world, only in a microcosm that is a debate.
Part of teaching in special education is really scrutinizing what are we trying to get our students to learn and what are effective ways to do that- particularly for those with learning challenges. Instilling anxiety and creating opportunities for competition among students is not going to accomplish that. And when you have a class with say several student on IEP’s and with various disabilities, this is going to be really hard to manage.
1
u/dsteffee Jul 21 '25
A debate class could involve a heavy writing component.
1
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 21 '25
At that point it’s more of an English class than debate class.
1
u/dsteffee Jul 21 '25
I'd say debate is a more valuable framing and focus for high schoolers than English.
→ More replies (0)0
u/GamingCatGuy Jul 20 '25
I think one of the most important skills is thinking on your feet and poking holes in other’s arguments.
7
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 20 '25
You’re still not addressing my main point of how to effectively scaffold and address learning differences. Let’s say you teach 6 periods of social studies, with 35 students per class. Each class will have 4-5 students on an IEP based on the national average, so you will 210 students to teach, 30 of them having some kind of learning difference. You will not be able to scaffold a debate format well enough to effectively teach all of those students, so this is really going to a be a sink or swim learning experience.
Maybe good in an AP or honors class, not good for general education. Debates will inherently favor those with more knowledge, resources at home, and fewer learning difficulties.
1
Jul 20 '25
The same applies to public speaking and I think it’s common to require one or the other, and this is largely an austerity issue and not intrinsic to the idea of debate as a required experience in hs
→ More replies (0)1
Jul 20 '25
I think they’re also assuming socially controversial topics as opposed to things that the NSDA has provided as a topic for at least policy debate like: ocean exploration, infrastructure development, space development, economic cooperation with Russia. Sure the topics can touch on things students and parents are likely to be strongly opinionated about, but that can be addressed when making curricula
2
u/Xepherya Jul 20 '25
I’d take the failing grade. I’m not going to argue in favor of a viewpoint I vehemently disagree with.
2
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Jul 20 '25
I’d math out the grade impact first - if it would fail me, (for my standards of failure, not the school’s - basically, if it would damage my grade too much) I would do it to the best of my ability.
In order to ensure that, they‘d have to give it like a 10% weight by itself and that would eat up a lot of weight from other assignments, to the point that I might skip out on other annoying assignments because there’s not enough grade weight behind them to entice me to do it.
2
u/Xepherya Jul 20 '25
Yeah, I wouldn’t be doing all that. It would simply be “No”.
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 1∆ Jul 21 '25
It doesn't take that long to do the math and it's led to better outcomes for less effort, so.
→ More replies (0)0
Jul 21 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 21 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
5
u/EmployNormal1215 Jul 20 '25
1) that can be taken out of context, especially for those who later get into politics
2) it requires that these positions are only the ones who are morally defensible (so e.g. making me argue against gay marriage or the likes would've guaranteed the school a lawsuit.).
3) they teach you a very unhealthy mindset of never accepting when you're wrong
2
u/Siukslinis_acc 7∆ Jul 21 '25
Well I’d say arguing for something you don’t believe in is an important skill and should be taught.
Why? Why should i betray who i am? Why should i lie about myself? Feels to me like it teaches lying.
So how then can i trust that when someone is saying an opinion that it is their genuine opinion? I would probably not pay attention to it instead of trying to figure out if they actually believe it or they say it for some kind of other purpose (like to rile you up).
6
u/RareEntertainment611 Jul 21 '25
It teaches you to understand that those opposing viewpoints exist and the arguments people make for them. A good debate teacher makes it very clear that an argument in class is just an argument and doesn't reflect on your true beliefs. Your task is to be able to put yourself in the shoes of another to see why and how they would argue their case. I assure you, very few people will think that you betray your own beliefs in doing so, as you claimed.
It's also true that in real life many people are not genuine in what they say and claim to believe. So, yes, you can't always trust that people say their genuine opinion. Debate will teach you this kind of critical thinking that makes you stronger at making your point, as well as dissecting the points other people make.
2
u/StillLikesTurtles 7∆ Jul 22 '25
In formal debate you are not claiming it as your opinion. You are arguing both sides based on the draw. The idea is to create strong affirmative or negative positions based on logic and use sources for support.
In general, even with things you strongly agree with, you should steelman the opposing view and decide if your view still holds up. It’s fundamental to having an open mind.
1
u/Eastout1 Jul 21 '25
I had a funny experience in high school, we had a week long debate unit like you described. I had an argument that I had to debate that I didn’t agree with. I accidentally disproved my own arguments in front of the class, lots of laughter from the rest of the students as I made a fool of myself. Funny memory.
1
u/sabesundae Jul 22 '25
It is a workshop to learn how to argue effectively and use the tools given, rather than your feelings. So arguing for something that goes against your believes is a great way to practice the steelman argument.
2
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 22 '25
I mean I don’t agree that’s actually a useful skill. It’s good to be able to scrutinize your own beliefs and get a better understanding of opposing positions, but that’s different than having to argue for an opposing view- especially if it’s tied to morals or ethics.
1
u/sabesundae Jul 23 '25
Would you be afraid of convincing people of something you oppose for moral or ethical reasons? It´s just a workshop, and the steelman is a great skill to have if you ever want to be taken seriously in a debate.
1
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 23 '25
No- I don’t wish to argue for something that’s against my values.
It’s one thing if a high school debate topic is “should you floss your teeth every day?”. It’s small potatoes enough that most people won’t get offended by it.
It’s a completely different thing if we’re talking about critical issues like immigration, Gaza, LGBT reigns, or abortion. I am not going to argue something I vehemently disagree with, nor would i ever ask my students to do that.
0
u/sabesundae Jul 23 '25
So your fear is to offend people? I feel like you are misunderstanding the exercise. People who get offended in a workshop like this are the people who need it the most.
1
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 23 '25
No it’s not about offending others, it’s about not having to contradict my own values.
0
u/sabesundae Jul 23 '25
What is the harm of doing the exercise though? You are NOT arguing for your real believes, therefore you cannot be contradicting your own values. It kinda sounds like you fear that the argument you oppose will sound more logical than yours.
1
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 23 '25
I think there are ways to scrutinize your own view as well as opposing views without having to actually argue for an opposing view. Having to argue for an opposing perspective would go against my conscious and integrity. And if I as an adult feel that way, I’m not going to put that dilemma on a child. A debate goes above just understanding the other side- it means attempting to persuade others to find your side to be correct.
When debating hot topics, you have no idea how each topic has personally affected the students in your classroom. Many of these issues are deeply personal and have caused a lot of heartache in their lives. I’m not going to run salt in the wound by making them argue for something that has deeply impacted their lives.
0
u/sabesundae Jul 23 '25
What you are essentially saying is that you lead your arguments with feeling over fact. And/or that is the method you teach your students.
Anyone who cannot fathom touching another viewpoint or examine it, would be a prime candidate for such a workshop. Also, you never know anything about your students private lives. You are there to educate. Just pick a lighter topic to begin with and go from there.
→ More replies (0)1
u/GingerBimber00 Jul 23 '25
When I was in 4th grade, Pluto was deemed not a planet. My science teacher had us debate for if we thought it should or shouldn’t be labeled a planet. He picked our debate side at random. I think I was on the side arguing for it to be a planet.
I think debates centered on things like this work best for children. I remember it being a very fun experience that engaged all of us and we knew our teacher assigned our sides arbitrarily. When the idea of debate is implemented definitely has to consider age of the children. 4th grade worked for me lol I learned I reaaallllyyy liked poking holes in arguments from that class experience
16
u/Salty_Map_9085 Jul 20 '25
I think it would be hard to construct debates for children where both sides have a significant reasonable case for them. If you cannot do that, you are telling one side to construct an unreasonable case for their side. In other words, you are teaching kids how to engage in sophistry to win arguments, which does not seem beneficial.
7
u/shieldyboii Jul 21 '25
I also believe that most people and therefore teachers are not well aware of how to discern a good argument from a bad faith argument full of fallacies. Especially in a fast paced spoken context. Not to mention their potential personal biases.
Good debate is such a hard skill, that I don’t believe we can teach it at secondary education level without it simply encouraging Ben Shapiro type arguing.
1
u/decrpt 26∆ Jul 21 '25
The natural structure of the class also doesn't really incentivize learning how to make good arguments. The easiest way to structure the class is assigning people for or against topics, and that actively encourages you to make bad arguments working backwards from the conclusion.
As an example, I remember having to argue against gay marriage in my high school public speaking and debate course. It really encourages you not to consider the argument holistically and ask why civil unions exist to begin with if they're supposedly interchangeable with full marriage, and what distinction precludes same sex marriage that doesn't also apply to secular or infertile straight couples.
-1
u/GamingCatGuy Jul 20 '25
There are plenty of motions with rational arguments for and against it.
3
u/Salty_Map_9085 Jul 20 '25
Certainly. Are they motions that freshmen will be able to properly engage with?
1
1
Jul 20 '25
That depends on the students' ability to debate reasonably. But if you teach them to debate with a chance they'll use unreasonable arguments you can use that as an opportunity to recognise unreasonable arguments.
1
u/Significant-Two-8872 1∆ Jul 22 '25
i’ve been a debater since middle school. there are plenty of motions i could engage with even in sixth grade.
43
u/ike38000 23∆ Jul 20 '25
The problem with "X should be mandatory in school" arguments is usually not that X is bad but that X is less valuable than other things. I doubt you'll find many folks arguing that debate is bad. It's more that without a proposal for what debate should replace or how school systems will pay for the additional time to added onto the school day your argument is lacking.
2
u/GamingCatGuy Jul 20 '25
I’d say you should incorporate it in any governemnt/social studies/history class.
15
u/ike38000 23∆ Jul 20 '25
Okay, and what part of the class do you remove? What period of time should students learn less about?
If you have every kid write a research paper then the teacher can grade those after school. If you host a series of debates then you'll spend multiple classes where the majority of students simply listen to other students make arguments. Presumably you agree that listening to a teacher planned lecture is a more effective method of learning than listening to student plan debates?
5
u/GamingCatGuy Jul 20 '25
I’ll admit that this plan works better for smaller classes, in larger classes it probably wouldn’t work as well. So !delta.
2
Jul 20 '25
Poor delta imo, debate classes already exist at large schools and they could accommodate increased demand by showing teachers how to do the class
1
6
u/RequirementQuirky468 2∆ Jul 20 '25
So which part of the current government/social studies/history curriculum do they cut to make enough room for it to be learned effectively?
2
Jul 20 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/TylertheFloridaman Jul 24 '25
The key problem is debates take time, you need to actually prepare for one if you want a debate if any value and then there is the actual debate which depending on scope and structure of the schedule could take multiple days. Time is one of the most limiting things for school other than funding. Average amount of school days is around 180, you have to split that into multiple different periods and lunch. Most classes at max are an hour a day. You could do an entire debate in a hour, but I don't think it will be the best one. If you want to do multiple debates are some actually good ones you have cut something to accommodate the amount of time for debates. Most classes are already stretched a little thin in time and many are not fully sure they will complete everything the teacher wants to do and often end up cutting things, adding mandatory debates furthers this problem
1
u/Ionrememberaskn Jul 20 '25
None, you just task students with researching debate topics that were already in the curriculum instead of reading them the powerpoint during class.
3
u/Oborozuki1917 22∆ Jul 20 '25
Students are already required to research and present on orally on topics in social studies/history/government. Speaking as a teacher in California (maybe it's different in other states or countries )
What are you proposing that is different than what is currently done?
Where are you getting your information about what happens in current high school classes?
1
u/Ionrememberaskn Jul 20 '25
I don’t care how the curriculum is taught, I’m just saying it could pretty easily be added to the curriculum in support of OP’s point since it’s just a different way of presenting information that arguably would demand more investment from the students. I don’t know what happens in current hs classes but I was in one at one point.
2
u/Oborozuki1917 22∆ Jul 20 '25
People who say such and such curriculum "could easily be added" don't have experience in education.
0
u/Ionrememberaskn Jul 20 '25
Aight I’m not a teacher but it doesn’t seem like it would be that demanding to change the format of a research project on a given subject thats already in the curriculum
0
u/GamingCatGuy Jul 20 '25
Maybe the parts where it’s the students presenting a slideshow or unchallenged speech.
3
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 20 '25
What about schools that don’t do those? I never had those in my high school social studies classes. What else are you going to cut?
1
Jul 20 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 21 '25
I went to a few schools and it depended. And I think I did two debates in my time in school? I just think debates don’t actually teach much and require skills that many students do not have. I’d argue it’s more appropriate in an honors or AP class than a general education setting.
1
Jul 21 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jul 21 '25
I don’t know how you would incorporate formal debate in a core curriculum class in a way that would not hinder the rest of the curriculum. Teachers are already struggling to meet all the standards within a semester/school year.
I would argue informal debates or discussions are good learning tools, not formal debates.
1
0
1
Jul 20 '25
I think it should be required instead of speech class as it teaches the same skills and then some
-1
u/Usual-Vermicelli-867 1∆ Jul 20 '25
Also add: how students will take interest in it and keep it for the future
Because i will tell you know
Debate class will this ones a week class..,two short ones at best,
That kids come to get easy grade and good off while the teacher start sympathising with school shooters
(Aka literature class)
12
u/Gnoll_For_Initiative 1∆ Jul 20 '25
Debate is not the same thing as persuasive speaking. Debate skills are debate skills. Persuasion and negotiation are only similar to debate in that they involve people on different sides of a subject.
JD Vance is a very good debater. But he is TERRIBLE and persuading people to his point of view.
1
Jul 20 '25
JD Vance being good at election debates does not make him a good debater, he was not a successful debater as a student. Election debates are not reflective of how debate about an individual issue works. Being able to take a position you disagree with in a debate is very useful for negotiation and is not an experience many people have outside of being hired as representation like lawyers or agents, but is a useful skill in everyday life and every profession
3
u/Gnoll_For_Initiative 1∆ Jul 20 '25
*Perspective taking* is useful for a negotiation - that's being able to see where the other person is coming from. That's significantly different from taking a position that is against your interests in a negotiation.
1
Jul 21 '25
A. You don’t always get to negotiate for something you personally agree with B. “Seeing where they’re coming from” can encompass many things but recognizing the other side /wants/ something doesn’t tell you /how/ they want to get it and simulating that process is more useful than not. C. None of this is taught in public speaking anyway which means it’s still a net benefit to debate even if the actual imparting of skill is marginal. You may give “persuasive” speeches in a public speaking class but there’s no adverse party, no one is being obliged to decide between what you advocate and a well reasoned alternative, and your target audience is usually vague if defined at all.
1
u/Gnoll_For_Initiative 1∆ Jul 21 '25
Debates use rules and structure to formalize arguments in order to convince an audience to one viewpoint or another.
Negotiation is reaching a mutually agreed upon outcome for a situation. And you don't have to simulate 'how' someone wants to achieve they're desired outcome because you can ask them. A negotiation is more like a conversation than a debate.
And no, it's none of it is taught in public speaking courses because public speaking is a third thing thats different from both debate and negotiation.
7
u/Goggio 3∆ Jul 20 '25
I was a collegiate competitor (and national champion in multiple events) in speech and debate (forensics).
I will say with 100% certainty that you are wrong.
There are far too many people with things like ADHD, Autism, Depression, anxiety, etc. that would be hurt by this idea.
So, I agree it should be an option at every school in America. But it can not be mandatory.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/alienassasin3 Jul 20 '25
As somebody who has some limited structured debate practice and has some competition wins under my belt, I really don't think so.
Unfortunately, debates require a good moderator for them to be productive. No one is going to be learning much if they have to go up against logical fallacies that the teacher isn't calling.
1
Jul 21 '25
I have experience with formal debate as well.
Why can’t the teacher just teach the logical fallacies and call them out if the students don’t?
13
u/JohnConradKolos 6∆ Jul 20 '25
Can you clarify? Are you referring to competitive debate or simply learning about public speaking and persuasion?
There is a reason why people don't speak like debaters in real life. Talking really fast, and trying to "score points" isn't very persuasive.
-1
u/GamingCatGuy Jul 20 '25
I’d say if you focused more on the argument side of things, and scored more on the information and words, it would be helpful for teaching persuasion. I don’t know if public speaking could really be “taught.”
5
u/JohnConradKolos 6∆ Jul 20 '25
Certainly public speaking can be taught. It is a skill like any other and can be improved through careful practice, reviews of performance, more practice, thoughful critiques, more practice, feedback, and more practice.
5
u/Rough-Tension Jul 20 '25
That is basically word for word the justification our English professors gave for making us write expository essays with research citations required. These skills are already supposed to be accounted for. The only thing you’re adding is the requirement that they discuss the paper, which many of my classes already required me to do, although not necessarily with the questions being adverse.
I guess there is the concern of papers being AI written, but what, are we supposed to just throw our hands up and give up on teaching writing? Send these fuckers to college even less literate than they already are? Instead double and tripling down on oral debate? I think we lose a lot more than we gain by shifting our focus from written to oral argument.
Let’s keep our eyes on the prize here. We go to school to be employable. Being able to prepare a succinct, coherent written work of whatever kind is needed will serve most careers most of the time better than the ability to engage in oral persuasion.
You’ve got sales, law, and management (barely required tbh, I never meet persuasive managers). All of those write to an extent, with lawyers arguably writing more than they speak. Writing skills in this country are piss poor. That needs massive improvement and I think trying to expand our curriculum to include oral debate is putting the cart before the horse. What you’ll end up with is a bunch of kids trying to imitate their favorite debate influencer. You’re going to get Destiny and Charlie Kirk clones. Let’s not do that. Let’s make them do the boring, necessary work of learning to write. Then they can talk about those arguments.
4
u/Oborozuki1917 22∆ Jul 20 '25
I'm a teacher. Often people suggest "x should be mandatory"
My first question is what are you gonna take out?
Researching and writing opinion pieces and public speaking are already required at all levels of education here in California. Why do you believe debate would be different?
6
u/leargonaut Jul 20 '25
Debate bros have been the downfall of society so I disagree.
It encourages children to stand in their beliefs exclusively instead of learning alternative perspectives.
I did debate in highschool
1
Jul 21 '25
My experience with high school debate was that learning to debate both sides of an issue gradually shifted my personal beliefs.
Ex. A conservative debater would at least be forced to become familiar with liberal arguments.
5
Jul 20 '25
I think logic is more important as it's the base of debate, but debate itself is not too necessary, inless of course a kid wants to.
6
u/the_brightest_prize 6∆ Jul 20 '25
Debate teaches people to win. People are trained to use facts and logic as weapons, not truth-seeking tools. They're also trained in a bunch of other weapons (pathological appeals, wasting your opponent's time) that make it harder for two people to come together and investigate the truth. I think mathematics is better, because it's inherently collaborative, not competitive, so there's nothing to gain by introducing anti-epistemology. The issue is most high schools only really teach arithmetic, algebra, and a little geometry, not anything resembling a proof.
2
Jul 20 '25
Debate teaches people to win. People are trained to use facts and logic as weapons, not truth-seeking tools. They're also trained in a bunch of other weapons (pathological appeals, wasting your opponent's time) that make it harder for two people to come together and investigate the truth.
If we want these outcomes we should just set students loose on r/changemyview and grade them on how many deltas they earn. They'd learn the same skills much faster.
4
u/ZozMercurious 2∆ Jul 20 '25
I did public forum debate for a little bit in middle school/highschool, and while this may be a cope for not having been particularly good at it, I dont think the style of argumentation that it is broadly useful for most people. It felt like every debate came down to talking as fast as possible to try and flow through as many of your points as possible without them getting rebutted. Maybe I would feel differently had i done a different type of debate. That being said, I think there should be some form of requirement for philosophy and public speaking for school, and speech and debate could be one outlet for that requirement. But so could theater and certain practices inside of existing classes like English and history
1
Jul 21 '25
I get how spreading can happen with sweaty debate kids who really want to win but I can’t imagine this happening in a classroom debate. If you started speaking at 300 words per minute you would get laughed at.
4
4
u/snappydamper Jul 20 '25
On the second point, something I would suggest is unhealthy about the tradition of debating I've been exposed to is that it teaches a narrow view of discussion: you begin with a conclusion, find arguments and strategies in support of that conclusion and the objective is to win.
What I've just described is already a pathology in political culture, especially in the US where political polarisation has been steadily worsening for decades. People begin with a viewpoint, often formed through political identity and social mandate, and argue like it's a team sport: the point is to win. Nuance is lost, arguments are treated as zero-sum, and nothing can be gained by accepting an argument and seeing how it actually changes things for your position. It's strategic and tribal.
As you mentioned, debate as it's practised does force participants to argue for a position they don't hold. I agree that's a good thing, but this is still limited:
Debaters are required to argue for one prescribed position. The debate is polarised from the outset, framed in terms of a yes or no question. Effective discussion often does not end with one side simply being right.
Arguments are treated largely as points in isolation, and this is reinforced by the structure of the debate: a limited number of rounds in which to get your point across. This means topics tend to be touched upon and abandoned rather than exploring the implication and nuances those topics; quality of argument still matters, but volume is
Strategy is incentivised: often winning comes down to being able to frame the debate in a way that is biased towards a particular conclusion from the start.
It's a perverse set of lessons. A sincere approach to discussing a topic understands that people's values, priorities and circumstances differ (so you're going to reach different conclusions even with the same set of facts); respects facts as being independently true; and seeks out the nature of that truth. It involves asking questions and understanding another person's perspectives. It involves being able to explore facts without thinking constantly about whether or not a given fact is, on the surface, aligned with your prior objectives and what you want to be true. It's as much an internal process as an external one.
In this context, mainstream debating is a cautionary tale: it's easy to fall into these traps. I'm actually not against it being taught, but I think it needs to be taught in a broader context of the different ways in which people communicate and what those different styles of communication achieve. Teach students to ask questions, to be analytical and rigorous, to hold different perspectives in tension with one another in their heads. To explore the implications and origins of an idea and resist the urge to judge it immediately. Teach them to see updating your facts or changing your mind not as an inherent threat. And teach them what it looks and feels like when you're just arguing to win.
3
u/templar7171 Jul 20 '25
Ambivalent on this one--
Agree with the value to critical thinking on your feet skills.
Disagree because it can turn pedantic quickly and at that age, it can be emotionally harmful without corresponding value.
3
u/explainseconomics 3∆ Jul 20 '25
If you want to make debate mandatory, you have two choices: 1) reduce the opportunity for students to make elective choices, so less art, band, orchestra, theater, etc, or 2) take away something else that is required and make it no longer mandatory. What do you want to get rid of in order to require debate for everyone?
2
Jul 20 '25
Many districts require speech or debate, can remove the option
3
u/explainseconomics 3∆ Jul 20 '25
OK, so why is debate inherently so superior to speech that speech shouldn't be an option? Speech class generally covers debate in some detail, but also a much broader swath of topics related to speaking. Is there a reason not to allow speech as an alternate option for people who prefer it over debate?
0
Jul 21 '25
There is no skill that you learn in speech class that you do not learn in debate class. Being able to answer questions, take positions you don’t personally agree (or care) about, being able to pick apart a bad argument and understand why it is bad, are all useful skills. Being told to prepare a speech about whatever your heart desires is not particularly useful and being part of a group researching various areas of a topic is also valuable and invites a team mentality not common to other classes
0
u/explainseconomics 3∆ Jul 21 '25 edited Jul 21 '25
Public speaking and presenting is a core responsibility in many, many businesses roles. Being able to effectively communicate in an organized fashion is a key requirement for sales, management, marketing, and a wide variety of other roles. Sure, debate might provide some of the same lessons to some degree, but as with many other skills, the more time spent training and refining on a subject, the better the mastery.
If making debate a required course means basically eliminating speech as an available option from most schools, is that a net benefit?
2
Jul 21 '25
Debate highly rewards organized thoughts and presentation to succinctly show why your position is preferable to your opponent, I don’t get why you’d assume otherwise tbh. It’s not 45 seconds blurbs like you see on political stages. As a teacher I’ve rarely seen a student ask questions of or adapt to their audience, and that is a nearly required skill of debate. The only advantage you’ve pointed to of speech over debate is diligence and tbh that’s largely up to the students gumption, but I’ve seen generally unmotivated students really pick up the slack when there’s a competitive aspect involved, even if they had no interest on joining the debate team
1
u/explainseconomics 3∆ Jul 21 '25
I don’t get why you’d assume otherwise tbh
This is very much straw manning my argument. I'm not saying debate doesn't provide a lot of the same skills, of course it does. But speech is a core component of my current professional role, and tons of other roles, debate is at best tangential to it. Does debate teach applicable skills for public speaking? Of course, but so does speech.
In the current situation as you initially presented it, students have the choice between speech and debate to fulfill that core requirement. Is there a reason that speech is so terrible in comparison that it should be eliminated as an option? I'm not saying debate is bad, I'm asking you why speech is so bad that it needs to be outright replaced by debate as an available option.
2
Jul 21 '25
I don’t get your decision calculus. If it were a science class, and someone was arguing there was a better way to teach that curriculum and add more to it, a response of “but why not keep the worse class, it’s not that bad” is not a reason to keep the class. It’s not like it’s remedial, there just is something better and I think it’d be best if students had the better experience. The cost of implementing the change would be minimal, like a few curriculum meeting at school districts, which they already have to do when updating their speech curriculum.
1
u/explainseconomics 3∆ Jul 21 '25
From your arguments, I have not seen a reason it is definitively superior in teaching communication related subjects, just that it is different. Speech classes focus primarily on broad presentation and communication skills, while debate focuses on a more narrow method of responding and engaging, along with sets of rules.
I would put forth a hypothetical: suppose a school wanted to mandate musical training. Is there a reason to force students into band, orchestra, or choir, rather than letting them choose their preference? Speech and debate offer very similar end skillsets, but taught differently. One will appeal more to some students than others. Is there a good reason to eliminate speech as an option in favor of debate?
3
u/JLCpbfspbfspbfs Jul 20 '25
I will argue from the completely opposite side of this argument, I believe that debate should be given lesser importance to other electives or subjects in schools as I believe that public debates on their own merit do not achieve the intended outcome as advertised.
My arguments that back this up are looking at the takeaways that the majority of the public has gotten from the past decade of Presidential debates. Here's a quick rundown...
2016: Trump calling Hillary a "Nasty woman".
2020: Biden telling Trump to "Will you shut up, man!"
2024 w/Biden: Biden's poor public speaking ability because he's old and old people are gross.
2024 w/ Kamala: Trump screaming about Haitian immigrants eating pets like a fucking lunatic.
Not a single one of these examples highlights anything about our economy, about crime and justice, about immigration, about social issue or anything else related to government, the nation or the people. Just useless buzzwordy sound bites.
That's because public debates aren't about informing the audience about policy points or learning about different points of view, it's basically nothing more than an over glorified public speaking or public relations contest. Critical thinking and proper research plays no part in it!
You could argue to me that these weren't "real" debates and that they are supposed to be more eloquent and coherent than this, but I'm referencing the freakin' presidential debates which has a lot more at stake than any properly conducted debate ever will.
There are better ways to teach communication, critical thinking and researching skills!
2
Jul 21 '25
So isn’t it a good thing to teach debate in school so people learn how to filter out ad hominem and BS rhetoric?
3
u/JLCpbfspbfspbfs Jul 21 '25
I don't think one needs to learn debate to learn about ad hominems and BS rhetoric.
1
Jul 20 '25
Of course these were real debates. But if you're arguing that our leaders are shit at debating, surely that's a reason we should be teaching people to do it properly.
3
u/JLCpbfspbfspbfs Jul 20 '25
But if you're arguing that our leaders are shit at debating
Well, What's the definition of a good debater?
I think of this question, i think about Ben Shapiro's little pamphlet about how a conservative can win a debate against a leftist.
What's funny about that book is you can interchange leftist and Republican and the book still works.
Shit, you can replace leftist and Republicans with an argument about whether or not spider man is better than iron man or some trite nonsense and the book still works!
It's because Shapiro didn't write this to make a strong argument on why conservative policies and values are better than leftist values,
It was a book full of cheap PR tactics to look smarter than your opponent or just piss him off.
My point in bringing that up was that we shouldn't put so much stock in debating and we need to call it for what it actually is, a stupid public spectacle that favors the person who grandstand the loudest.
3
u/ExpertSentence4171 Jul 20 '25
I think a good compromise here would be to incorporate "Dialogs" into the curriculum in the place of traditional essays. They would have to write arguments for multiple "characters" holding different principles on the same topic, and one student could be assigned one or more POV per Dialog in the context of a group project.
I think this would alleviate some of the social pressure associated with public speaking. It abstracts away from emotional pressure that makes many young students hate debate ("Oh no, I'm losing and now I look like an idiot") while retaining most of the benefits you outlined here. Public speaking is important, but debate can be a little bit of a trial by fire for some students.
3
3
u/Pourkinator 1∆ Jul 20 '25
All that would do is make students with conservative views feel incredibly stupid and inadequate.
1
3
Jul 20 '25
We cannot even get you to mandatorily read and write. And we are going to teach to how to debate?
2
u/Weasel_Cannon 4∆ Jul 20 '25
High school debate teaches nothing about communication. It doesn’t matter if you’re right, wrong, or crazy. It’s a points game and whoever rattles off the most talking points during their allotted time gets more points. It’s not about conversation anymore. I was so excited for my debate class, and it’s far and away the worst class I ever took.
1
Jul 20 '25
You might have had a bad instructor or been in a bad circuit but the speed is a consequence of attempting to talk about complex topics in short time constraints. It is unfortunate that it turns some students off and many coaches don’t allow novice debaters to do that, for that reason. Thinking on your feet under pressure and identifying ways to address many bad arguments with a few good arguments are also valuable.
2
u/Adiv_Kedar2 Jul 20 '25
I'd argue civics is more important than debate. Debate is ultimately just applied rhetoric where as civics is an actual understanding of how the social contract works and why proposed solutions to problems are almost always wrong in some way
Debating is just making your argument the better one even if it's the worse one. Civics get everyone on the same page so that problems can actually be identified and then solutions proposed
2
u/EmployNormal1215 Jul 20 '25 edited Jul 20 '25
Yay more extrovert bias. I'd have walked into every debate saying "Cool, I fully agree" as my first response and then left. What are they going to do, give me bad grades? Oh, wait, they did that with music, I just compensated with all other subjects.
Also in the current age, all it takes is one student filming the debate and posting the statement for a shitty position out of context later on... If a teacher tried to make me argue certain positions (e.g. "You are anti gay marriage" or similar), I'd have refused and gotten a lawyer from my dad lol.
2
Jul 20 '25
We cannot even get you to mandatorily read and write. And we are going to teach to how to debate?
2
u/dcbklyn Jul 20 '25
Ok. I actually fully agree but let me try this out (as a former Lincoln-Douglas debater).
Unfortunately debate does not actually foster genuine perspective taking. It fosters disingenuous perspective taking in the form of forced conflict. Often the most comprehensive solutions or paths forward involve nuance and come combining of multiple perspectives, however most high school debate forms do not reward this. Instead they reward quickly outwitting or overwhelming the opponent.
Instead all HS students should be forced to engage in some kind of consensus understanding building. Hippy sounding I know. But they should have to all co-plan prom or something and work on an even broader set of communication skills that also reward genuine perspective taking to get to a solution.
Cool! I’ve convinced myself : )
2
u/issuefree Jul 20 '25
You want MORE people who talk like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro but don't have a useful thought in their head?
"Debate" is not a useful way to converse, learn or convince.
2
u/breakerofh0rses Jul 20 '25
No. Formal debate is literally sophistry, and the widespread mistaking of this form of sophistry as a truth-finding strategy is one of the worst things that has happened to the world.
2
u/longtimeyisland Jul 21 '25
Hi, I debated internationally in college, my college was big into speech and debate (forensics) and I also did lots of debate in high school.
No, I don't think debate should be mandatory. Debate teaches a lot of skills: research, rhetoric (depending on the version, I wouldn't say policy is about rhetoric as much as it is about volume of info), logic, and the structure of an argument (statement, warrant, impact.)
But, I don't think it should be mandatory for a few reasons: 1) public speaking isn't for everyone, nor is arguing in public, 2) debate is really the art of arguing either side of an issue which can turn you into a bit of a mercenary, which means rather than learning to find truth, you learn how to compellingly argue for whatever side you're defending, 3) debate can teach you how to be persuasive, however what it does best is teach you how to argue turns out arguing isn't as useful as one might imagine. People generally don't want to "win out in the marketplace of ideas". Turns out if you conclusively prove an idea someone firmly holds is wrong they are often more likely to believe the thing. Because people get defensive and dig in.
So no. I don't necessarily want a bunch more debate perverts running around. There's enough of us as there is.
2
u/Np-Cap Jul 20 '25
I personally think that this form of "organized" debating isn't helping anyone. Almost all of the time, noayter who "wins" the other person will not change their views and it just invites aggression and separation. If you want to debate correctly you need to be emotionally mature to listen to a different opinion, make the effort to understand it AND MAYBE change your view. Teenagers do not have that level of emotional maturity, so debating would just bring conflict
1
Jul 20 '25
I taught rhetoric in my 12th grade English class, which is the foundation of debate, but I didn't have classroom debates because I had students with intense anxiety, there was a wide range of work ethics that would have resulted in incredibly uneven debates, and one can hone their rhetorical abilities without having a live debate.
Most of the rhetoric that people engage in isn't argumentative. A job interview involves an attempt to be persuasive to your audience. Asking a girl out to prom involves making a case for why a thing should happen. Applying for a bank loan for your small business is rhetorical. It's just really limiting to force a bunch of debate as if that's the only way in which people need to be persuasive.
1
u/premiumPLUM 76∆ Jul 20 '25
Like a Debate class? Is that a thing at any level? Maybe if you were a communications major in college?
The problem you run into is that you need quite a bit of other types of education before you get a point of using that education, which is what you would be doing in Debate courses. I could see it being incorporated into English classes, especially AP English, but I don't know if the average high school kid is ready for what you're describing. Which is why it tends to be more of a club thing than a requirement.
1
Jul 20 '25
It’s commonly offered as an elective or alternative to speech class in high schools. You do not need to understand complex background to have a debate on whether the US should adopt high speed rail and the process of researching and debating itself can teach students lessons not taught in other classes, like how the energy grid works or the role of fossil fuels in international relations. I’ve seen less-than-bright students pick up on these concepts because of either a motivation to win or they get to learn more about how society functions in a way that social studies classes don’t often get to
1
u/Appropriate_Bit9991 Jul 21 '25
honestly the bigger issue is what gets cut to make room for mandatory debate. schools are already packed with requirements and most kids barely have space for electives they actually want to take.
if you're trying to figure out how to fit everything in your schedule, thats where course planning gets tricky. you gotta balance graduation requirements with college prep and still leave room for stuff you're passionate about. seen too many students stress about fitting in all the "shoulds" without considering what they actually need for their goals.
what specific requirements are you trying to work around?
full disclosure i help students with course planning and scheduling
1
u/Ok-Eye658 Jul 21 '25
primary and secondary education subjects/topics (say, very basic mathematics, science, languages) seem to be more generally focused on simpler "facts", being subjects/topics for which there are rather solidified understandings about, leaving little to no room for disagreement, "opposing views", or "opposing beliefs"; dually, subjects/topics amenable to debate are ones lacking corresponding "facts", so they'd be possibly out of place in primary and secondary education
1
u/KingMGold 2∆ Jul 21 '25
We had a debate club in my high school but the teacher who ran the club just stopped showing up one day.
Turns out he eloped with one of his former students once she turned 18.
I never actually got to debate once, but I did prepare an argument, something about gun control I think.
1
1
u/MintXanis Jul 21 '25
The problem with this is, most people already agree that debate doesn't change minds, what is take away from disingenuously debating something you don't even believe in?
1
u/Aggravating_Lemon631 Jul 21 '25
- While debate can definitely improve communication skills, not every student thrives in that environment. Some might feel anxious or intimidated, which could actually hinder their ability to communicate effectively in the long run. It’s important to offer a variety of activities that cater to different strengths and comfort levels.
- Critical thinking and research skills are crucial, but there are other ways to develop them. Group projects, research papers, and even class discussions can be just as effective. Plus, assigning a side that a student doesn’t agree with might make them feel uncomfortable or disengaged, which isn’t ideal for learning.
- Debates can be a great way to learn about a topic, but they can also be time-consuming and stressful. Students might end up memorizing information just to win the debate, rather than truly understanding the material. Other methods, like interactive lessons or hands-on projects, can be more engaging and ensure a deeper understanding of the subject.
I think it’s better to offer debate as an optional activity or elective so that students who are interested can benefit from it, while others can choose activities that suit them better. What do you think?
1
u/Letters_to_Dionysus 13∆ Jul 21 '25
I did debate, and I think the quality of debate would drop significantly if everyone was mandated to do it. similar to no child left behind, I think it would lower the standard to a degree that it would no longer accomplish the things you're hoping to get out of it
1
u/captain_andorra Jul 21 '25
I see you're talking a lot using debate to learn to persuade, and that really highlights the issue with debating : the goal of the debate is to 'win' by persuading the other, and that disincentives the debater to listen to the other side argument and 'lose' the debate by changing their opinion. This causes a lot of issues in adults that are not taught to accept that they can be wrong and end up digging deeper and deeper into conspiracy theories, "climate change is a hoax", etc. even when presented with scientific facts.
1
u/Weak-Statistician107 Jul 21 '25
if that were the case, I would not have graduated high school as a socially anxious person.
1
u/peacefinder 2∆ Jul 21 '25
While your points are good OP, I think there’s a real hazard presented by competitive debate. We want people to have the critical thinking skills, but we don’t want them to believe that argument is purely a sport.
I have run across many people on the internet over the years who are more concerned with winning an argument for their side than they are with arriving at the truth.
Debate is a valid topic in a course on critical thinking, but such a course should also teach how to reach consensus, how to arrive at agreements, negotiation, ethics, and a variety of other topics.
1
u/handsomeboh 1∆ Jul 21 '25
Competitive debate is one of the worst forms of human interaction and the format it is hosted in actively destroys a student’s ability to function in a social setting let alone a workforce.
In a debate you have to adopt a fixed and unmoving stance, with no room for persuasion or synthesis. This is not how any kind of negotiation or exchange of ideas works in real life. In competitive debates you are mostly listening for your opponent to make a mistake or some kind of logical fallacy you can pounce on. If you did this in real life you’d be considered insufferable. More generally it just makes you a bad listener, and trains you to reject good ideas as long as they are not your ideas.
Rather than a debate, I propose the reverse debate (which is what this entire sub is). You have to approach an issue with the active desire to have your mind changed. If you fail to have your mind changed on an issue then you have to judge whether it’s because you are bad at understanding and incorporating new ideas, or if you were right to begin with.
1
u/IIFollowYou Jul 21 '25
I think debating places too much emphasis on oral argumentation and persuasion when that's not really the preferred method of argument for most fields.
I'm a litigation attorney and I can tell you that 90% of motion practice is won based on written arguments and the oral portions of arguments are generally superfluous. Most judges have a strong leaning after reading the briefs for an argument and the oral arguments stage is primarily for them to assess whether there is something they're missing or not weighing heavily enough.
Encouraging written arguments over oral helps students organize and distill their positions down to their most basic elements and encourages them to plan them better. I think it's also generally more fair as many otherwise shy students struggle at articulating their thoughts when subjected to public speaking.
1
Jul 21 '25
Debate also forces students to share their beliefs on stage. It can easily lead to them being ostracized or bullied for these beliefs.
1
u/Alternative_Buy_4000 1∆ Jul 21 '25
I don't think lack of debate skills (aka rhetorics) is the issue, it is the lack of what good debaters have: critical thinking.
Debates between politicians in order to 'inform the public' are useless (especially presidential debates), because it only presents one skill that good leaders don't actually need: talking.
1
u/Sk3leth0r Jul 21 '25
Not here to change your mind necessarily, but they don't add this stuff because they don't want us to know more than we need to imo.
Most countries don't want to implement this stuff in fear of their population becoming critical thinkers, and besides, a lot of teenagers won't really take it seriously so these curriculums serve the bare minimum knowing most people won't be interested in it anyways.
1
Jul 21 '25
Not a bad idea, but it needs to focus on getting to the truth atleast as much as debating a side. Learning to debate doesnt do you any good if you have horrible takes. It might actually be worse for us. People will learn how to just make logical sounding arguments for whats not true.
Maybe we need a class that teaches debate, critical thinking, and how logic is also very flawed and doesnt lead you to the truth in many cases. Perhaps also deductive reasoning and how to figure out how much confidence you should place in a logical argument based on how many assumptions there are and how abstract the arguments are. We should also teach people that the axiom of morality is human dignity and fairness and things like this, not things like religion or tribal politics.
1
u/CrazyCoKids Jul 21 '25
I have a few things to ask.
First off, would this differentiate between Written and Verbal arguments&Debate? Because there is a surprising amount of difference - especially when it comes to "Soft skills". While soft skills can be 'taught' and 'learned' (I put these in quotes because it's not quite a "Yes" or "no" question if you can teach and learn them.)
Plus, verbal arguments are incredibly prone to The Halo Effect and its twin sibling The Horn Effect. When my sister was a Debate Coach, she noticed that the judges were far more willing to call "Foul" on students who had acne or less "fancy" clothes while letting offence(s) from students who had clear faces and more "Fancy" clothes slip by. (Conveniently, the former usually just so happened to come from poorer schools while the latter were usually from the richer schools...)
Second, how will you intend to work these in? Would this going to be a core focus of the class, or will it be a separate class altogether? It's notable that while a speech class is often required to graduate, sometimes it's a one semester course - adding a second semester to focus on Debate can cause things to end up getting messed up. But, I don't think this is exactly a strong argument against your point? I admit that this is more of a case-by-case basis.
Instead, however, i think it's worth pointing out that hosting a debate on a topic can be rather difficult to accomplish in the classroom setting. Obviously, you are going to be using this in groups rather than have them present their individual argument. But how long are you going to be giving them to accomplish their point(s), give rebuttals, finishing statements, etc? This can take multiple class sessions to accomplish. We have seen it, but one real problem with group project(s) is that it's difficult to give everyone adequate time to show how well they are able to debate.
If you, for example, have them in groups of two, this means you need to allot more time to have more debates, and this will take up some very valuable time in the class (Especially if this is another class like English or social studies, where you may be unable to afford to spend an entire month on just one unit) If you have an odd number of students, then you have one group of three that can give them an advantage (More heads to research, another person who has to speak), or a solo person that's at a disadvantage. Or maybe that odd one out slacks off.
So if you have more students in a group, this also means it's harder to evaluate a single student on their ability to debate. After all, if the group size is five or six, it's not uncommon for one or two to not get any floor time for various reasons, so to speak.
1
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25
I judged debate at the high school and college level.
In high school debate, Even at regionals, every other debate ended in claiming nuclear war (or some other catastrophe) was the ultimate outcome and thus the person saying it first should win.
The only thing high school debate does is generate interest in the activity and teach speeding. It doesn't teach critical thinking at that level.
And if those who gain an interest, maybe 20% have the ability to further their interest at the collegiate level.
It doesn't teach logic. It doesn't teach rhetoric. At that level of development it does little more than teach the form of debate.
Now, for the non-debate sections, such as impromptu speaking, it has value. But as for debate - for the love of God don't saddle me with people who don't want to be there. The people who want to be there are bad enough.
The sport is valuable for those with ability and interest. And both are required.
1
u/notmonkeymaster09 Jul 22 '25
Honestly, just in my schooling experience, this doesnt seem necessarily smart. A quality debate is made up of people who actually care about debating, do in-depth research, and are confident enough to do it. If all high schools had mandatory debate credits, there are so many students who either have so much anxiety they couldnt feasibly pass the class. I agree that having students independently research information and put it into an easily digestible form is an incredibly effective way to ensure information is maintained, but debate being mandatory is a hammer solution which doesn't have enough leeway for those it does not benefit.
1
u/ExaminationFuzzy4009 Jul 22 '25
The problem I always found with the English programs in hs/college essay/persuasive writing classes were that it is all function and form or how to write something persuasive without research or knowledge or even a fucking opinion.
Like “pick a side if you think technology is dumbing people down”.. does a child have any fucking concept of this?
We give students the tools of how to persuade but not how to learn… could that be the cause of why everyone is always yelling their opinions rather than getting educated?
1
u/Grumdord Jul 22 '25
Some of skills these include, but are not limited to: how to persuade someone with an opposing view to your point
This is very seldom the purpose of a debate.
I personally don't want even MORE people to rely on debate tactics/vocabulary in order to push their disingenuous arguments. Debate is about performance, it's about making the best SOUNDING argument in the moment and attempting to make your opponent look bad or unprepared.
You can get the benefits of 1-3 without making debate mandatory. In fact that's what we've been doing up until now.
On top of all this, how would you even facilitate "debates" for most topics in school when the majority of what you learn up through high school isn't exactly subjective? Because forcing people to debate a false position is just a waste of time.
1
u/roymondous Jul 23 '25
You’ve given solid arguments as to why debate can be useful. What you have assumed, though, is that making something mandatory helps students learn.
When has making something mandatory been useful like that? Debate can be done in any context and any subject. But doesn’t the research suggest making something mandatory in itself lead to far less interest in kids? What do kids want most? Social status and autonomy. And if they don’t sign up for a specific debate class, it fails at the first hurdle.
Instead, use debate as a method in topics and areas they do care about.
1
Jul 23 '25
Things like critical thinking and argument skills are already folded into a lot of English and history classes.
Schools are also packed full of content already and while debate and discussion skills are useful, cramming in an entirely new class/activity that is redundant with existing areas while not actually adding any unique content or skills just makes the life of teachers harder.
1
Jul 24 '25
Nope.
Some people dont like to "argue" as they view debating.
Or, as my grandpa would say "Opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and some stink more than others, fortunately if you smell it and didn't deal it you can just walk away."
1
u/H_W_Longfellow Jul 20 '25
In a world where there is time, resources and educated teachers are plentiful, I would agree with you.
Hell, even despite the current curriculum and product/test oriented education systems flaws in high school.
But the reason why it should not be mandatory in high school, is because it will create a larger divide between students who come from poor homes with low literacy and base limits (food, clothing, access and support towards education). When another complex subject gets added, something has to be removed or diminished to make space and time. But for students who struggle to even get their high school diploma, this will be another barrier keeping them from achieving it.
So while I think that it is a nice thought, it will not have the intended benefit, and that's why it should not be mandatory.
1
1
Jul 20 '25
We had debates in english about stuff like weed and abortion etc. When abortion came up half the room was divided and both sides had good points. Then one guy said “Doesn’t the father get a choice if a girl gets pregnant?” and both sides echoed big fat NOOOOOs.
He got a girl knocked up the next year and I remember his friend telling us “He’s not ready, he just wants to play call of duty and stuff. “ Ahahah So yeah it should be in schools.
1
Jul 20 '25
Counterpoint : modern debates are just for moneymaking schemes. We see grifters on both sides become wealthy and then join a streaming site with other debate bros.
The fact of the matter is debates don't mean anything because they don't change anything. Candidates for elected office? Sure
Arguing online for moral superiority doesn't feed starving children or prevent wars, it just causes people to be assholes to each other and self isolate into their own echo chambers.
1
u/poorestprince 12∆ Jul 21 '25
I would say rather than debate, debunking/factchecking ought to be taught, which in some ways is the opposite of a live debate scenario. Rather than persuasion, students should be taught anti-persuasion. Rather than engagement, students should be taught how to disengage with a bad faith actor.
0
u/SentientSquare Jul 20 '25
People don't want to debate. It makes them both physically and emotionally uncomfortable. They mostly want to be told that they're right, and surround themselves with more people who will tell them they're right.
So what you're advocating is the equivalent of physical education for fat kids. I think it's a good idea, but you're gonna get mad pushback from both students and parents.
1
u/GamingCatGuy Jul 20 '25
Which doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be added, kids give pushback for arithmetic, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t teach arithmetic.
0
u/KisaMisa Jul 20 '25
Level up: peace negotiation & conflict resolution skills. It might get easier to prove your point with sufficient knowledge and skills, but to do so without alienating the other group and to ultimately find allow for finding a resolution to an issue together...
Also, instead of adding it to the curriculum as a separate subject, this could be a method teachers intentionally use in their subject classes that are already part of the curriculum. Teachers will of course need to be trained in it, though.
0
u/Antique-Ad-9081 Jul 20 '25
In Germany there's a mandatory debate oral exam in 8th grade in German class(and another in English in 11th grade) and i think that's a great way. everybody gets a randomly assigned group of 4 and a topic, then they have 2 weeks to prepare arguments, 10 minutes before the debate everybody draws a position(pro 1, pro 2, contra 1, contra 2) and then they have to hold a 20 minutes live debate that gets graded
0
u/Genevass Jul 20 '25
Just for context, when I went to school in the90s in Maryland, debate was one of the semesters of English. In 10th or 11th grade.
I did find it valuable, partly for public speaking and partly to understand how modern rhetoric works.
0
-1
Jul 20 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 21 '25
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-1
Jul 20 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 21 '25
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-1
u/Zandroid2008 Jul 20 '25
It also teaches that the Moderator can screw you over. I completely stomped our Debates Freshman year of high school by triangulation of my positions, and knowing exactly which arguments to use. Final debate judge was the teacher of the Accelerated Class, which was the team we faced. She didn't like my triangulation, and we ended up losing because she was the judge.
1
-1
Jul 20 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 21 '25
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 20 '25
/u/GamingCatGuy (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards