Making the Case for Teaching Students to Debate

Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon during the first televised U.S. presidential debate in
1960. —National Park Service

Abraham Lincoln vs. Stephen Douglas … John F. Kennedy vs. Richard M.

Nixon ... even Lloyd Bentsen vs. Dan Quayle—American history is filled
with great debates that have made an indelible impact on our country’s
collective memory. In fact, debating could be seen as a national pastime,
as American as apple pie and baseball.

Today, as we in the education world consider how best to modify our

curriculum to help students navigate a rapidly changing world, I strongly
recommend that any changes incorporate the study of debate. While
debate is typically a college- or high-school-level pursuit, some middle
schools (including mine) are introducing formal debate study, and I would
urge more middle schools and even elementary schools to do so.

Research supports this development. It has been demonstrated already

that debaters in high school show improved academic performance and
fewer disciplinary and behavioral problems than non-debaters. Student
debaters also have a much ​higher likelihood of attending and graduating
from college than their non-debater peer groups. But research also tells
us that middle school is a period of considerable brain growth with the
shift from concrete to abstract processing and growing capabilities in
problem solving, planning, and critical thinking. Debate can support and
enhance brain development as an activity requiring and honing these
skills.

There are various debate formats, but all share the following: structure,
rules and procedure, teams of participants, reliance on evidence, and the
need to rebut arguments presented. In the fledgling arena of middle
school debate competition, students are given a topic to prepare for,
usually in teams of three. The topics can be edgy: “Do common-core
standards work?” “Is Edward Snowden a traitor?”

"The process is valuable for all students because it teaches many of the
so-called softer skills now linked to future success."

Interestingly, student-debaters generally do not learn which side they will

be assigned in advance. This uncertainty requires them to think through
the issue with an open mind and, channeling empathy, to see how others
might present a case in which they might not personally believe.

During preparation, the students might start from a given information

package, but they will certainly use the Internet to find additional news
articles and information to amplify their understanding of a topic. (The
debate format allows an opponent to challenge each point a speaker
makes, so the ability to cite sources is critical.)

Young debaters have to also figure out who will speak first and who will
make what points; earlier speakers, in particular, must draft persuasive
language to convey the points.

Once an actual debate commences, other skills come into play. Thirty
minutes before a debate, children find out which side they are arguing.
They then must transcribe their notes onto one sheet of paper. Because
that is all they can take into the debate with them, facility with
consolidation is key. This demonstrates the new challenges presented by
the ever-increasing volume of information at our fingertips. The modern
problem is not finding information; it is identifying the truly important
information and separating it from the white noise.

Kids also have to stand in front of a crowd and speak, a skill that
improves with practice. They have to think on their feet when challenged
and listen carefully to the other side, noting every argument and, in real
time, find an argument to refute each point.

Teamwork is critical here, and rapid whispered communication of ideas is

essential, as is the ability to bolster the spirits and enhance the positions
of a teammate, even if he or she messed up. And, importantly, students
must listen to the judges’ comments and suggestions calmly and, win or
lose, show grace and, ideally, leave determined to try even harder next
time. The process is so engaging that the rewards of hard work are
immediately evident.

I have witnessed these rewards firsthand on many occasions, most

recently in June, at the Speyer Legacy School in New York City, where I
serve as head of the middle school. Almost 100 elementary school
children—30 students from Speyer and more than 60 students from
high-poverty public schools in New York City and Washington affiliated
with the nonprofit organization Turnaround for Children—participated in a
one-day debate “boot camp” during which the kids were divided into 30
teams of three; each team included two Turnaround students and one
Speyer student. All of the students were coached on debate tactics by 30
trained volunteers from Goldman Sachs as part of the company’s
Community TeamWorks 2014 initiative.

For the children at my school, such a program is nothing new. Debating is

part of the established curriculum here; it is introduced to children in
kindergarten as a way to stimulate minds and discourse, and then
reinforced in subsequent school years, both in the classroom and through
the school debate team. For the kids from high-poverty schools, however,
the day was eye-opening. While they had learned about debating in the
weeks leading up to the boot camp, their debate knowledge accelerated
during their time at Speyer.

Clearly, for all students who take part, debate offers more than simply
academic enrichment. The process is valuable for all students because it
teaches many of the so-called softer skills now linked to future success.
Thinkers such as Paul Tough, in his book How Children Succeed, focus on
young people’s need for subtler abilities.

These skills, loosely categorized as elements of emotional intelligence,

include the capacity to persevere through setbacks (grit), the facility to
bring existing knowledge to a novel situation (creativity), comfort in
working with others and knowing when to lead and when to follow
(collaboration), the capability to confront the seemingly infinite volumes
of information on any topic and select the relevant data (research), and
sensitivity to what a target audience is thinking so that such data can be
presented persuasively (empathy). The debate curriculum teaches young
people much of what they’ll need to know in these areas by active,
engaging, and highly direct means.

The increasingly polarized nature of our national political conversation,

the exponential growth of technology’s impact, and easy access to
competing statistical claims can be daunting and perhaps disheartening.

If we want future generations of students to see beyond the haze of

24-hour news punditry and to use critical thinking to get to the heart of
what’s important, if we want them to go beyond participating in a
conversation to actually raising the level of national discourse, and if we
want them to stop the use of contrived political debate as a tool of
distraction and begin its use as a tool to address complex problems, we
had better start teaching them the means to do so early.
By Paul Deards
August 12, 2014

Paul Deards is the head of the middle school at the Speyer Legacy School, an
independent, coeducational K-8 school in New York City.
Retrieved from ​https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/08/12/01deards.h34.html​ on ​September 29, 2019