Teach students how to argue
- Joanne Jacobs
- Feb 9
- 2 min read
Students need to learn how to argue productively about diverse viewpoints, writes Lisa Gilbert, touting Fair for All's American Experience Curriculum, designed for high school students.
Many start out with"straw-manning," arguing against the weakest version of the other side's case. For example: “So you think cops should just shoot Black people?”
"Steel-manning" -- presented the other side's strongest case -- is far more likely to lead to dialogue, she writes. For example: "You believe the officer faced a split-second decision with incomplete information, and we shouldn’t judge without understanding that fear and uncertainty.”
"Star-manning" goes even further, says Angel Eduardo, who chairs Fair for All's board. It acknowledges the good intentions and shared goals of the person on the other side of the argument. For example: “I can see you care deeply about human lives and want encounters between police and citizens to end without harm or loss of life.”
As a former editorial writer and op-ed columnist, I can testify that understanding the other guy's point of view works a lot better than sneering or bullying. Nobody is persuaded to change their mind by being told they're stupid, crazy, evil and/or ugly.
American Experience teaches students to listen, identify logical fallacies, understand others' perspectives and avoid "presentism," writes Gilbert. They look for "shared values beneath surface disagreements" about issues such as affirmative action, immigration and criminal justice.
They're encouraged to deal with the most "charitable" version of those with whom they disagree. Eduardo advises: “Be kind; we’re all first drafts.”
The Romans knew how to argue, writes Gregory Roper, an English professor and dean of students at the University of Dallas.
The Roman empire stretched" from Spain to Gaul to North Africa to Egypt and Asia Minor," he writes. Romans learned the art of rhetoric, the "skill of persuading others with one’s words to think something, to change their minds, and to make something happen."
One of the basic principles was that "you can’t have a productive argument unless you figure out precisely what the two sides are arguing about," Roper writes. Once everyone agrees on the facts -- the point of "stasis" -- the discussants can evaluate what's known and then move on to discuss what should be done about it.
Once students learn to define the question for debate, he writes, they learn how to "argue rather than quarrel."
Also probably worth pointing out again that you can't think critically in a vacuum. You have to know facts, otherwise your critical thinking is about nothing.
I agree completely. Knowing how to argue is just the external presentation of knowing how to think critically, and rationally. Understanding both sides of a position is a prerequisite for having an opinion in the first place, no?
Bring back the Trivium!
And, for another blast from the past, consider requiring students to argue the side they don't agree with , just for 'the sake of argument'. This presupposes what JKBrown mentioned, above, that disfavored opinions must be listened to, not automatically anathematized.
The first time I saw this idea was in 2018. A good way to think about debate is that in debate is that one can argue both sides of the case. If one is capable of arguing both sides, then one can have a much better discussion on virtually any issue.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-counterintuitive-proposal-for-improving-education-and-healing-america-debate-centered-instruction/