DEBATE

Typical Western debates and discussions implement all the facets of argumentative activity: constructing points of view, producing good reasons; interacting with different people and points of view, forming more or less ephemeral alliances, integrating / refuting / destroying the positions of others, supporting arguments by drawing on personal involvement in the issues under discussion. Sometimes the two notions of argument and debate are conflated, with television debates implicitly seen as the prototypical argumentative genre.

This view of argumentation has important limitations. It leaves out argumentation in the workplace, or argumentation in science education. It associates argumentation with polemical debate, which is a non-cooperative form of argumentation. Television debates may try to influence the decision, but they have no decision-making power. Work meetings, family discussions are certainly more representative of the complexity of argumentation. In a work meeting where issues with both short-term and long-term implications are discussed, different types of sequences have to be managed in different episodes: introducing new participants; reading the agenda; giving relevant information is given (to all, to less informed participants), writing down conclusions — not to mention the episodes devoted to interaction management, including digressions and jokes. The level and nature of argumentation of these episodes can vary greatly.

The form and effectiveness of the arguments presented in a debate depend on the relative power of the participants in the sphere concerned. If taken on a majority basis, When a decision is taken on a majority basis compels the minority is coerced, whether or not they are persuaded, and whether or not the winning argument is the strongest from the point of view of an external evaluator.

1. Informed and properly argued debate as a source of legitimacy

From a foundational perspective, a political decision can be considered legitimate if it conforms to, or is derived from an original pact, a social contract freely entered into by the ancestors or ideal  representatives of the community in a mythical primordial time, or in an ideal rational space.

Democracy values ​​debate. A decision is considered legitimate only if the issue has been publicly argued for and against, in a safe, open, free and contradictory space. In principle, the decision should take into account the results of the debate ; whether or not that decision is really supported by the best argument, is another matter; authority and power play a role. Debate as a form of argumentation is at the heart of democratic life. In schools, it is seen as the key instrument of “democratic learning”, whether it in citizenship education, history, or science education.

2. Criticism of debate

Debate, however, is not an innocent and miraculous practice which can solve all problems in education, society and unequal development. Debate, especially debate in the media, or in any public space, is the target of a critical argument that includes the following points.

— The use of debate can be a mere means of presentation. The issue is framed as a problem, as being the focus of two antagonistic discourses, as if things were only “interesting” in so far as they radiate a certain polemical heat.

— Paradoxically, “the debate is open” can be a convenient closing formula, when listeners in both camps have their fair share of good reasons, as if the main virtue of a debate were to encourage and justify further debates.

— A doubtful and questioning attitude can be very comfortable. Debate condenses the diversity of positions into a single global voice that says everything and the opposite; but articulates such unresolved contradictions very well. Accordingly, debate is a fertile field for argumentative personalities to flourish.

— When debate becomes an end in itself, it becomes a performance, and loses all connection with the search for truth, clarification of the issues and positions, agreement or the exploration and deepening of the differences. This is the sophistical ad ludicrum tendency rightly and abundantly condemned as playing to the gallery; a delighted audience consents to its own manipulation, see Laughter and Seriousness.

— Pedagogically, debate can encourage confrontational forms of argumentation. In fact, debate does not systematically break with symbolic violence, but may simply displace it. Some cultures find open interpersonal confrontation repugnant, or at least rude and counterproductive. Forcing students to debate can be an educational blunder. Moreover, debates on serious issues divide groups, and can jeopardize the reputation and even the safety of the individual who is asked to expose his or her beliefs, networks and communities. In some communities and cultures, such self-exposure is not an option.

— Even in the best organized public socio-political forum, what is considered the best argument may differ from party to party. Moreover once the decision is made, it may require a new discussion about how it should be implemented, which a regulatory or legal issue, in the hands of the current regime. There is a wide open and opaque space between debate and decision, and another between decision and implementation.

— The ideal space in which the debate takes place is presented as egalitarian and free. It denies any imbalance of power, at least it puts power relations between brackets. But every space has its own rules that impose formal and substantive standards. Such rules of the place apply to all participants. Debate presupposes democracy, as much as it promotes democracy.

Debate is a powerful resource, but debate alone will not solve all social and individual ills, nor global problems.