Teleology of Debate
I join Danny in wishing all of our readers and contributors on this page a happy and healthy new year. During this time of resolutions, it seems fitting to take a step back and reflect on the activity of debate. What is the desired end, the purpose of debate? In philosophical terms, this is its teleology. As it turns out, the way you answer this question will to a large extent determine the details of your debate theory. This obviously isn’t a comprehensive discussion of these matters, but I think will serve to illustrate a few main points.
A key question – Is the goal of debating to win, to educate, or some combination of both?
If you believe the goal of debating is only to win, then your debate theory comes down to whether this or that debate position will gain the debater the ballot. In this context, “good” debate theory is simply theory that will gain ballots. Lying, manipulating evidence, making the arguments more confusing for the other team than they need to be would not only be ethical, they would be correct debating practice.
If the goal of debate is to be educational, we still have one more nuanced question to ask. Are we aiming toward the educational outcome of debaters in the “real world” after their debate careers are over? I think this is probably the only kind of education we could mean since making “smarter debaters” for it’s own end seems to fall into the kinds of practices mentioned above. if education is the primary (perhaps the only) goal of debate, then we would encourage practices that would help students to lead successful lives after they graduate.
Perhaps you’re thinking that my third option above, a combination of winning and education should be the primary goal of debate. I would argue this third option is viable, but only if we admit that one of the two must have primacy. If the methods of a “winning” approach and an “educational” approach are contradictory, then the philosophies are contradictory. If they are not contradictory, then one of them must have primacy. For example, if we coach debaters to be educated, and we coach them that the best way to become better critical thinkers is to try to win, we have to decide at some point which (winning or education) has primacy. For some, this question comes when we see someone on our team manipulate a piece of evidence in a practice round. Is at precisely this moment that we make our choice.
Let me illustrate how this teleology is reflected in a situation that is not related to ethics. In the final round at PSCFA’s Fall Champs, a debater argued (amidst at least 10 responses) that a specific speed kritik was unfair because (I paraphrase) “I’m trying to win at NFA, and all the midwestern teams spread, so I need practice in spreading”.
While I can’t (and didn’t) intervene against the argument within the round, this is an example of how my own personal teleology of debate would lead me to discount an argument. Why would I value competing at NFA? Why would I value what midwestern teams do in NFA L/D? My highest criterion for debate theory is the after-college education of my students, so this students chance to spread in anticipation of winning at NFA is immaterial to me at best.
This is exactly the kind of question that the Southern California Lincoln/Douglas community has to explore as we set about making our own collective reality as a regional institution. Will we attempt to “match” midwestern L/D? What will our goals be? What kind of judges will become the stereotypical “SoCal” judge?
I do not presume to have the final answer on these matters, and enourage any and all comments.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
[...] bk2nocal @ 12:24 pm An interesting and challenging question was posed over at SoCal-LD.net on the Teleology of Debate. I have struggled with this in my own coaching, not only in debate but also in IEs. After all, [...]