Teaching Argumentation Concepts Through a Meta-Debate

For those who read the comic XKCD, they have a series of comics pertaining to things that are "My Hobby." Here's one of my personal favorites, which really makes me feel self-reflexive about what we rhetoric people do in class all day:

Image source: XKCD Comics

In any case, I am going to use this post to share a bit of My Hobby: Going Meta.

To this end, I present to you a debate about a debate as a way to teach students skills in argumentation. 

Meta-Debate

Step One: Split the class in half. As a homework assignment, have students go back to the presidential election and review one of two debates. Have 50% of students go back and rewatch the debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan. Have the other 50% of students go back and rewatch the third presidential debate.

Step Two (10 minutes of Preliminary Setup): When students get to class, split each side into two groups. So, now we have four groups: two that watched Biden/Ryan, and two that watched Obama/Romney. Then, announce the debate topic: 

Group I: Argues that Joe Biden won the vice-presidential debate.

Group II: Argues that Paul Ryan won the vice-presidential debate.

Group III: Argues that Barack Obama won the third vice-presidential debate.

Group IV: Argues that Mitt Romney won the third vice-presidential debate.

Give them the basic structure the debate will follow, so they know what to prepare:

- An opening argument that lasts three minutes

- Some cross-examination questions to put the other side on the spot

Set the parameters: To win the debate, students absolutely must use the concepts of credibility, logic, and emotional appeal discussed in the chapter. Whichever side provides the best/most supported evidence that their candidate succeeded the most at all three of these will win the argument.

Provide resources: Have students bring laptops to class so they can review the videos during this prep time, and/or print out some copies of the debate transcript that groups can examine as they prepare their arguments.

Have groups decide who will do what: Each group will have an opening arguer, a rebutter, a cross-examiner, and a closing arguer.

Step Three (30 Minutes of Prep Time): Students will now have 30 minutes, with their groups, to prepare their team's argument. As they work, provide each group a handout of the following considerations they have to make. Also direct students to pages 388-406 (which they should hopefully have read before class).

How does your candidate exhibit credibility? 

- Where does experience support their argument? What authority do they communicate to speak on their topic? How do they play up their charisma and character to enhance their likability?

How does your candidate use logic? 

-What is the structure of their arguments? How do they wield propositions of fact, value, and policy--which do they rely on most? How do they use inductive arguments, generalization conclusions, hypothesis conclusions, deductive arguments, categorical syllogisms, and disjunctive arguments?

How does your candidate exhibit emotional appeals?

- Where do their appeals fall on Maslow's hierarchy of needs? What psychological states/dispositions do they appeal to (anger, joy, etc.)? What pathetic appeals do they rely on to make their arguments?

How does the opposing candidate fail at all of the above?

- What negative character traits do they demonstrate? Where do their claims to experience and authority fall short? Is their charisma appropriate to the occasion?

- Where does their logic fall short? Where do they rely on logical fallacies? What argumentative strategies simply do not work or make sense? Where is their evidence faulty--and does it matter (does your candidate call them on it)?

- Does the opponent make any unethical moves in their emotional appeals? Do the emotional appeals sound authentic and genuine? Do they overrely on one psychological disposition? Do they neglect Maslow's hierarchy in how they construct their arguments?

Regularly remind students how much time they have left to prepare their arguments.

Step Four: Debate! (30 minutes) Now, students will each present their arguments. Set an expectation ahead of time: at the end of their time limit, they must stop. They cannot cut one another off; they cannot interrupt; they cannot, in other words, act like the presidential candidates they're arguing about. (They need to be much more mature than them!)

Both debates will last twelve minutes. 

Before the debate starts, I'd walk students through the basic goal of each section: 

Constructive: To present your main arguments and points

Rebuttal: To address/refute the major points advanced by the opponent

Cross-Examination: To ask questions designed to make the opponent reveal/concede information

Conclusion: To prove that your team won the argument, partially relying on information from cross-ex

The structure will look like this (I'd put this on the PowerPoint so students can follow where they are at all times):

Obama/Biden Constructive (3 minutes)

Romney/Ryan Constructive (3 minutes)

(1 minute prep break to discuss rebuttals with group)

Obama/Biden Rebuttal (2 minutes)

Romney/Ryan Rebuttal (2 minutes)

Obama/Biden Cross-Examines Negative (2 minutes)

Romney/Ryan Cross-Examines Affirmative (2 minutes)

(1 minute prep break to discuss closing arguments with group)

Obama/Biden Closing Argument (3 minutes)

Romney/Ryan Closing Argument (3 minutes)

Step Five: Debrief! (Remaining Class Time): Now, students reflect on the outcome of the debate. 

Which teams won or lost the two meta-debates?

What about the use of persuasion did we learn from the two (vice-)presidential debates we viewed outside of class?

What is the state of argumentation in our society, given all of the flaws and problems we found with the two (vice-)presidential debates?

And finally, what does all of this teach you about the burden you have to meet in your own persuasive arguments? How will your classmates, armed with these concepts, be actively scrutinizing or challenging your positions?

And one more thing. An element of the final exam in my class will involve students analyzing and dissecting persuasive arguments. So, I'll give them the heads up that the skills practiced here will play a part in that final exam, so they remain cognizant of the importance of this section of the textbook.

There you go. Two blog posts in one day. Have an excellent weekend!

Michael