O-Mitchell

= Pedagogical possibilities for argumentative agency in academic debate  =

Gordon R. Mitchell
According to Gordon R. Mitchell, the language a powerful human capacity and knowing how to use the language for argument and debate is a way people can empower themselves and shape their thoughts. Some studies confirm debate's potential as a tool to develop critical thinking and communication [|skills]. Other studies document the professional success of debaters after graduation. On the one hand, Gordon underscores the importance of grounding the practice of academic argumentation to notions of democratic empowerment. On the other hand, he challenges the notion that such a grounding maneuver can be accomplished with faith alone. The author proposes a notion of argumentative agency that brings questions of purpose to the center of pedagogical practice: For what purpose are argumentation skills used? Where can they be employed most powerfully (for better or worse)? What can be learned from efforts to bring argumentation skills to bear in concrete rhetorical situations outside of tournament contest rounds. Austin Freeley suggests that academic debate "provides preparation for effective participation in a democratic society" and "offers preparation for leadership" (1997, p. 21, emphasis added). Complete reliance on the laboratory metaphor to guide pedagogical practice can result in the unfortunate foreclosure of crucial learning opportunities. These opportunities, which will be discussed in more detail in the later sections of this piece, center around the process of argumentative engagement with wider public spheres of deliberation. In the strictly preparatory model of argument pedagogy, such direct engagement is an activity that is appropriately pursued following the completion of academic debate training (see e.g. Coverstone 1995, p. 8). Preparatory study of argumentation, undertaken in the confines of the academic laboratory, is conducted on the plane of simulation and is designed to pave the way for eventual application of critical thinking and oral advocacy skills in "real-world" contexts.

Such a preparatory pedagogy has a tendency to defer reflection and theorization on the political dynamics of academic debate itself. In basic terms the notion of argumentative agency involves the capacity to contextualize and employ the skills and strategies of argumentative discourse in fields of social action, especially wider spheres of public deliberation. Pursuit of argumentative agency charges academic work with democratic energy by linking teachers and students with civic organizations, social movements, citizens and other actors engaged in live public controversies beyond the schoolyard walls. These experiences have the potential to trigger significant shifts in political awareness on the part of participants. The notion of argumentative agency is not only important for the task of lending weight to projects in debate oriented toward the telos of democratic empowerment. The pursuit of action research carries intrinsic transformative benefits in the form of concrete political change. Debate practice itself becomes dynamic as debaters invent new forms of argumentative expression tailored specifically to support particular projects of political intervention into fields of social action.

In another part of his publication, the author distill more specific ideas that serve as provisional answers to the questions that initially drove the study: How can argumentation skills be used? Where can they be most powerfully employed? What can be learned from efforts to apply argumentation skills in concrete rhetorical situations? Primary research Within this pedagogical horizon, possible options for action that move beyond traditional library research and contest round advocacy become more difficult to visualize. However, when debaters reconfigure themselves as producers of knowledge, rather than passive consumers of it, it becomes easier to cultivate senses of personal agency. One very basic way that academic debaters can reverse this equation is by turning more to primary research as a tool of debate preparation. Primary research involves debaters generating evidence "from scratch," by contacting sources directly and engaging them in conversation. If the resulting dialogue is illuminating, and the conversation partner(s) agree, the transcripts of such conversations can be published, and subsequently quoted as evidence in contest rounds. Public debate Once students begin to conceive of research areas as fields of action, it becomes easier to invent strategies for intervention. One such strategy involves the extension and adaptation of the debate process beyond the immediate peer audience. It is through this process that the fabrics of multiple public spheres are spun and woven together to form the variegated patterns of "social knowledge," or shared understandings and expectations that "govern subsequent discourse" (see Farrell 1976; Goodnight 1992).

Because formats for public debates are flexible, students and teachers can tailor formats and topics creatively to fit local needs, as well as experiment with new forms of debating. In order to maximize the potential of the debate medium as a generator of citizen empowerment, however, debate resources need to be put toward projects such as citizen advocacy training and community action research that are designed to build community capacity for public discussion.

“There is also the need for students and universities to learn from and be trained by community residents regarding the history, aspiration, concerns, assets, wisdom, culture, knowledge, genius, and vision resident in that community" (Lee 1996). Ultimately, the power of public debate as a medium of democratic empowerment for disadvantaged and impacted communities may depend on the extent to which academic scholars and debaters push for "a deeper examination of the word 'interactive"' (Lee 1996) when it comes time to forge partnerships between academic institutions and community groups.   Debate outreach    The transformative dimension of debate pedagogy can be pursued in outreach efforts designed to share debate with traditionally underserved student populations and communities. With recognition of the emancipatory potential of critical thinking and oral advocacy skills in hand, students and teachers trained in argumentation are today transforming debate practice into a tool of empowerment by collaborating with students who are systematically denied opportunities for engaging in exciting, rewarding and powerful intellectual activities in their schools.

Because such projects would be unhinged from the restrictive grid of power that undergirds zero-sum contest round debate competition, parents, younger children, and other citizens could participate as actors, not just audience spectators. Novel forms of argument couched in multiple aesthetic registers would become fair game. "Why are you debating?" might supplant "What's your affirmative case?" as the most common question shared among participants in debate events.

Public Advocacy It is possible to go beyond thinking of debate as a remedial tool to redress educational inequities and to start seeing debate as a political activity that has the potential to empower students and teachers to change the underlying conditions that cause inequities among schools and communities in the first place. In this task, the public advocacy skills learned by debaters can be extremely efficacious. The ability to present ideas forcefully and persuasively in public is powerful tool, one that becomes even more dynamic when coupled with the research and critical thinking acumen that comes with intensive debate preparation. A crucial element of this transformative pedagogy is public advocacy, making debate practice directly relevant to actors who are studied during research, and making the topics researched relevant to the lives of students and teachers.

On this point, Jurgen Habermas has served as an impressive exemplar, giving concrete expression to his theories of discourse ethics and communicative action in numerous direct interventions into the German public sphere (see Habermas 1994; 1997; Holub 1991). These interventions have taken the form of newspaper articles, speeches and public appearances on such topics as the historical interpretation of National Socialism, the process of German reunification, treatment of immigrant populations in Germany, and the political role of the student movement. Habermas presented his most comprehensive comments on this latter issue at a June, 1968 meeting of the Union of German Students. At this meeting, he suggested that students have the capacity to roll back "colonization of the lifeworld" and protect the public sphere by promoting wide-open public discussing of pressing political issues. By doing this, Habermas suggested that the students could directly complicate institutional moves to cover for legitimation deficits by fencing off public scrutiny and tamping down critical protest.

Finally, the author concludes that the continuing desertification of the public sphere is a phenomenon that serves as an urgent invitation for argumentation scholars to develop remedial responses. With greater room to maneuver for inventing strategies for action, taking risks, making mistakes and affecting change, scholars can begin to envision how to do things with arguments not only in the cozy confines of contest round competition, but in the world beyond as well.