<story><title>Critical theory is radicalizing high school debate</title><url>https://www.slowboring.com/p/how-critical-theory-is-radicalizing</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>noduerme</author><text>I think this an attempt to champion the idea of rhetoric as a virtue, in the face of arguments made in bad faith. I have a soft spot for this. My grandfather, before he fled Belarus, was trained at a yeshiva and on his way to becoming a rabbi. His explanation of the training was ... Jedi-like, to my young mind. Students were paired off and given a biblical passage to examine, say, Jonah and the whale. One student would have to defend Jonah while the other defended, basically, God. After ten minutes, the teacher would say &amp;quot;switch&amp;quot; and they would have to defend the opposite side with equal logic and vigor. This was the making of a mind. Any shortcuts to rhetorical passion might be allowed, but learning to parry them and see through them was what was truly valued... well and beyond the ability to convince others (and certainly beyond obedience or conformity). Not surprising that my family in the US became lawyers.&lt;p&gt;This is not to say that there&amp;#x27;s anything wrong - morally or rhetorically - with breaking the game if you don&amp;#x27;t like the choices. There&amp;#x27;s no unfair play when the point is to win a debate. Debates are not won by changing your opponent&amp;#x27;s mind - I mean, who cares? They&amp;#x27;re won by convincing whoever else is listening. That being said, failing to take the unlikeable part of a debate is &lt;i&gt;read as cheating&lt;/i&gt; - if not to the judges, who may share your bias, then to the audience who you&amp;#x27;ve alienated and failed to convince. And so it can and should fail in the long run, as an impurity in the art.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>atoav</author><text>Socrates was already complaining about the sophists and their ability to argue for and against everything (destroying every truth on the way).&lt;p&gt;Don&amp;#x27;t get me wrong, I love arguing and rhetorics, but there are people who abandoned all sense of truth and rationality in debate. Rhetorics are a weapon, and like every weapon it should be wielded by people who know that with great power comes great responsibility.
Sure, one can argue about objective truth and whether it actually exists, but many who wield rhetorics don&amp;#x27;t give a damn about &lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt; truth, be it objective or subjective — they care about winning. And they don&amp;#x27;t care about the price everybody has to pay for that win.&lt;p&gt;Despite that I still think putting yourself in a different position to defend is a good lesson, but the goal of rhetorical training shouldn&amp;#x27;t be to form ruthless mercenaries, but thinkers who can wield the word and still admit they are wrong in an actual, real world debate, when they are shown to be so.&lt;p&gt;If you are one of those people (like me) who likes debate for debates sake, you have to be especially careful. Like people who &lt;i&gt;like&lt;/i&gt; to use guns we have to be especially aware when we use it and for what reason.&lt;p&gt;Most people who use their rhetoric have never been given the moral compass to wield it.</text></comment>
<story><title>Critical theory is radicalizing high school debate</title><url>https://www.slowboring.com/p/how-critical-theory-is-radicalizing</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>noduerme</author><text>I think this an attempt to champion the idea of rhetoric as a virtue, in the face of arguments made in bad faith. I have a soft spot for this. My grandfather, before he fled Belarus, was trained at a yeshiva and on his way to becoming a rabbi. His explanation of the training was ... Jedi-like, to my young mind. Students were paired off and given a biblical passage to examine, say, Jonah and the whale. One student would have to defend Jonah while the other defended, basically, God. After ten minutes, the teacher would say &amp;quot;switch&amp;quot; and they would have to defend the opposite side with equal logic and vigor. This was the making of a mind. Any shortcuts to rhetorical passion might be allowed, but learning to parry them and see through them was what was truly valued... well and beyond the ability to convince others (and certainly beyond obedience or conformity). Not surprising that my family in the US became lawyers.&lt;p&gt;This is not to say that there&amp;#x27;s anything wrong - morally or rhetorically - with breaking the game if you don&amp;#x27;t like the choices. There&amp;#x27;s no unfair play when the point is to win a debate. Debates are not won by changing your opponent&amp;#x27;s mind - I mean, who cares? They&amp;#x27;re won by convincing whoever else is listening. That being said, failing to take the unlikeable part of a debate is &lt;i&gt;read as cheating&lt;/i&gt; - if not to the judges, who may share your bias, then to the audience who you&amp;#x27;ve alienated and failed to convince. And so it can and should fail in the long run, as an impurity in the art.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>worrycue</author><text>&amp;gt; Students were paired off and given a biblical passage to examine, say, Jonah and the whale. One student would have to defend Jonah while the other defended, basically, God. After ten minutes, the teacher would say &amp;quot;switch&amp;quot; and they would have to defend the opposite side with equal logic and vigor. This was the making of a mind.&lt;p&gt;I always felt the whole point of discussion and debate was to establish truth - given specific premises. This kind of &amp;quot;argue both sides&amp;quot; exercises seem more like practice in audience manipulation.</text></comment>