Why a Debate is Not Always Critical Thinking

There is often a misunderstanding that teaching critical thinking means doing a lot of debates in class. While a debate is a great tool, it may not always be a great critical thinking methodology unless carefully designed.

A debate is a formal discussion where opposing sides of an issue or a topic are presented in the form of an argument. Each side needs to make a presentation that would convince the listeners that their perspective on the issue is the right one. The best strategy to do so is to present only those points in their argument that favour their position and downplay those that go against it. They may also need to put down their opponents in whichever way they can --- selectively picking problems in the opponents’ arguments while downplaying or rejecting their good points, using sarcasm, as well as various logical fallacies to suit their purpose.

This goes against the core idea of critical thinking. As already explained in previous posts, a critical thinker is one who is able to appreciate multiple perspectives of an issue and then come up with one’s own perspective, taking into consideration all opposing views on it.

Let us take a hypothetical situation of the government wanting to cut down a part of a forested park in a city and constructing a much needed metro station there. There would be many different perspectives on it, both for and against, each one quite valid. There would also be a lot of interest groups for or against the proposal. Each of these perspectives and interest groups would have its own argument on why the park should or should not be used for the purpose, and each would do their best to downplay their opposing perspective. A lasting solution would require the decision makers to objectively engage with the entire debate --- to listen to the arguments from each group, identify assumptions, vested interests and fallacies of each of the sides, before coming up with their verdict which takes into consideration each sides’ concerns. This is what critical thinking is all about. It is not just presenting one’s own argument in a debate.

Using a debate as a methodology to teach critical thinking requires the teacher to go beyond getting students to merely present their own sides. Students will need to understand that their argument is only one part of the entire process --- it just presents one perspective. The debate, to be fruitful, will need students to carefully analyze all perspectives, evaluate one against the other and finally come up with a balanced conclusion. Students would need to exercise their skills of questioning and appreciate other people’s viewpoints even though they are different from their own. Finally they will need to come up with a solution or a decision that would not be biased and one sided. This is where they can be encouraged to think out of the box and create unique but balanced solutions. It is this solution that they will need to justify. This is how they will learn to think critically.

I am not for a single moment asking you not to use debates in the classroom. They are a good way to get students into analytic thinking. The point I am trying to make through this post is that just getting students to present one side of an issue may make them get into the habit of only looking at their own viewpoint and justifying that viewpoint, creating a one sided view of situations.  They may learn to analyze an idea, but not think about it critically.  The skills of evaluation and generation of new ideas will not happen. For critical thinking to be practiced, the debate will need to be followed with students going beyond their own presentations, understanding and appreciating other’s points and finally coming up with a balanced position on the issue.