Collaborative debate

Debates are often nice, but can also devolve into point-scoring contests that reveal more about rules and participants than they do about the issues being discussed. Collaborative debate is a format that aims to shift the focus away from the people and points, back to the ideas and advancing our collective understanding.

Prior to the debate, you will work in groups to discuss arguments both for and against a proposition. Your goal here is not to build the strongest case for one or the other side. Rather, your goal is to develop a fuller understanding of the strongest arguments and counterarguments on both sides of an issue.

At the end of the group period, you’ll return to the main room. Professor Rao will determine whether speakers are currently speaking for or against, and will randomly change the stance over the course of the debate. You’ll be selected randomly, without replacement, to share your arguments (for or against, depending on the current stance Professor Rao has determined) for up to a fixed period of time (very similar to a random seminar).

When your time is up, the alert will flash and Professor Rao will say it’s time to move on. You can skip your turn if you’d like by saying “skip”, and you can also finish early if you’d like.

How is this different from a random seminar or normal debate?

Though both use formal randomness and give evernyone a chance to speak, there are two key differences between a collaborative debate and a random seminar:

  1. in a collaborative debate, you must respond to the proposition at hand or the arguments that have already been put forth;
  2. whether you speak for or against the proposition is randomly determined by Professor Rao, and changes over the course of the debate (i.e., you may be asked to give the strongest possible argument for the side you disagree with).

At a high level, collaborative debate differs from “regular” debate in that it’s cooperative rather than adversarial. But there are a few specific differences between “regular” debates (e.g., forensic debate) and collaborative debate worth highlighting:

  1. There are no points, winners, or losers in a collaborative debate. The goal is not to defeat your opponents, it’s to advance your collective understanding of the issues involved. Consequently, putting forth straw man arguments or appealing to unlikely-but-extreme consequences is considered poor form (I’m looking at you, forensic debate—I don’t want to hear about how adopting CBA in regulatory decision-making will lead to nuclear war).
    1. A corollary is that there are no incentives to speak fast and cram in multiple arguments. Make one or two arguments as time permits, and trust that someone else will pick it up and run with it. You won’t have time to make every single argument that comes to mind, or to highlight and close all of the gaps. Make whatever part of the case seems strongest to you at the moment, given what’s come before, and trust your classmates to flesh it out and explore it.
    2. Similarly, in collaborative debate you are encouraged to leave openings for those on the other side to explore and arguments for the side you’re representing to follow up on. Unlike a “regular” debate, you don’t benefit from attempting to close these gaps pre-emptively unless you actually believe you’re making strong arguments that advance your collective understanding.
  2. Debates often create space for interesting argumentative/rhetorical plays, such as undermining your interlocutor’s expertise. This won’t help you “win” a collaborative debate; if someone makes a factual mistake or commits a logical fallacy, you should correct it only to advance your collective understanding. In general, address prior arguments with the goal of clarifying the issues at hand.
  3. You won’t know whether you’ll be speaking for or against the proposition much in advance, so you’re incentivized to develop familiarity with both sides. The order in which you speak is also random, so you face an incentive to pay attention.

A few guidelines to make this experience more productive and rewarding

  1. Argue against ideas, not people: Try to avoid language that personalizes an argument—the person who made it may disagree with it, or you may agree with it! Focus instead on the arguments themselves. This involves a principle of charity: assume the argument has been advanced in good faith by someone else who’s trying to learn.
  2. The only prize is learning: You don’t need to try to win with a really good argument, you need to offer really good arguments so you and your classmates learn.
    1. There is a technical definition of the work “jerk” that is worth remembering here: a jerk is “someone who culpably fails to appreciate the perspectives of others…treating them as tools to be manipulated or fools to be dealt with rather than as moral and epistemic peers.” I sometimes find it difficult, especially when discussing convictions I hold strongly, to refrain from jerkitude even as I am nice and polite. Try not to be a jerk.
  3. Strong arguments, weakly held: In the pre-debate group time your goal is to develop strong arguments, and during the debate your goal is to advance them. While you may find yourself agreeing with some of the arguments you or others advance, be open to changing your mind or to helping others change theirs. You and your classmates are incredibly bright—give yourself every chance to harness and learn from that collective brainpower, and make it easier for others to do the same.