Sample paragraph writing_debate

Metaphilosophy, 2019

The current debate about disagreement has as rivals those who take the steadfast view and those who affirm conciliationism. Those on the steadfast side maintain that resolute commitment to a belief is reasonable despite peer disagreement. Conciliationists say that peer disagreement necessarily undermines warrant for one’s belief. This article discusses the relevance of open‐mindedness to the matter of peer disagreement. It shows how both the steadfast and the conciliatory perspective are consistent with a robust and substantive display of open‐mindedness. However, it also turns out that there are more ways to display open‐mindedness on the steadfast view than on the conciliatory view.

Speech and Debate as Civic Education, 2017

Agora - Teaching the Capabilities Through History HTAV 59:1 (2024), 2024

Building students’ social and emotional capacity can create communities of learners who work cooperatively with each other and participate in reasoned and respectful discussion. This article explores the importance of fostering respectful discussions and engaging with diverse perspectives. Through the lens of a history classroom, it also highlights the importance of listening to different points of view and the dangers of homogenizing thinking in the age of AI chatbots and social media influence.

Speech and Debate as Civic Education, 2017

Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 1998

A person can be sure that he has the right ideas and the other person is wrong, whereas the other will think exactly the same of that person. We know very little about the ways in which our brain works, and less than nothing about what goes on in another person's mind. If we can understand more on the way our brain function, and what influences our views, maybe our debates will be more civil, and perhaps we can even find some truth in our opponent arguments.

2008

We present a game-theoretic model of debate and a laboratory experiment that explore how strategic incentives to make potentially persuasive arguments vary across different informational and institutional contexts. In our model, a key feature of the informational environment is the extent to which members of a debate audience are able to extract informational content from exposure to an argument that they find unconvincing. Our theoretical results show that when the informational content of unconvincing arguments is relatively high, speakers are discouraged from arguing irrespective of the distinct institutional rules of debate that we consider. By contrast, when the informational content of unconvincing arguments is relatively low, debate rules matter: speakers may be lead towards maximally or minimally informative debate, depending on the debate rule. In a laboratory experiment, we vary the informational and institutional settings for debate across four distinct treatments, and ob...

It is very hard to persuade another person on any subject. There is no common ground of understanding the facts and their meaning, except among friends of the same cultural group, unless a person lowers his defenses and is ready to accept the other person's opinion validly.

2016

Dewey defines open-mindedness as “freedom from prejudice, partisanship, and other such habits as close the mind and make it unwilling to consider new problems and entertain new ideas (1910, p. 30). It is commonly included in lists of epistemic and argumentative virtues. We begin this paper with brief discussion of various accounts of open-mindedness. Our principle interest is in what it is to behave as an open-minded enquirer. Drawing on two cases, we consider whether open-minded behaviour varies between the contexts of solitary and community enquiry and whether inquirers face different challenges to behaving open-mindedly in each of these contexts. We conclude that although group deliberation introduces some extra barriers to open-mindedness, it can also make it easier to achieve by providing an external check that is absent in solitary inquiry

What Do We Know About the World? Rhetorical and Argumentative Perspectives, Gabrijela Kišiček e Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), pp. 275 - 300

Competitive debate is a challenging educational tool for argumentation. as the empirical research proves, debating improves learning, critical thinking and verbal and non-verbal communication skills, among others. nonetheless, many scholars criticize it for one of its alleged and detrimental impacts: polarization. Indeed, listening to them, polarization would lead to bias assimilation, close-mindedness, dichotomization and disagreement and conflict escalating attitudes, polarization would appear as a debate "side effect" and debate itself as a detrimental educational tool. Therefore, the purposes of this survey will be (i) to show that polarization is neither a necessary nor a likely consequence of debating, (ii) to argue that even when polarization occurs bias assimilation, close-mindedness, dichotomization and disagreement and conflict escalating attitudes, do not necessarily follow, and (iii) to stress the mistakes these detractors commit. Finally, polarization will lose its "side effect" color and debating will be recognized as an effective and organic tool for argumentation education.