News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How critical theory is radicalizing high school debate by placesalt on Saturday July 29, 2023 @08:36PM (#36926422)
> Debate is for the observers, not the participants, to learn about all sides of an argument at the same time.

There are different types of debating, which may cloud the question; debating once or twice a year on a single prepared topic may be less informative for participants. Debating dozens of times a year on an active team is an entirely different experience. I would not be surprised at all if debate team participation has significant overlap with the rhetoric taught to students in ancient times.

Debating is an object lesson for the participants in how one can find (or should at least be able to find, if you're a good debater) arguments in favour of either side of any given issue.

Debating, especially impromptu debating, teaches quick thinking. It also teaches an ability to empathize with people on any side of an argument - you know, from experience after debating, that one can make good arguments in favour of an arbitrary side of a topic. You regularly work through points of view that you may not personally hold.

It's been said that math is learned at the end of a pencil - you learn it by working through it. Debating is the same - you learn empathy and understanding with points of view other than your own by working through them yourself.

Re:How critical theory is radicalizing high school debate by btilly on Saturday July 29, 2023 @10:11PM (#36927085)
According to the article, the K's in question are least used in parliamentary debating. And so parliamentary debating is most likely to have actual substance in the debate.