Debate should be a required subject in High School

I agree that logic, or right thinking, is a necessary part of the art of debate. And I certainly have NOT contested "the usefulness of studying debate." We disagree on whether a course in debate should be a required or an elective course. A high school can deal with debate in one of three ways. First, it can be offered as an extra-curricular ACTIVITY, "debate club," without any academic credits attached to the activity (as it was in the private Jesuit Catholic high school that I attended). Second, it can be offered as an ELECTIVE course for academic credit. Finally, it can be offered as a REQUIRED course (all students must take and pass the course as a requirement for graduation), which is what you advocate in this debate. Regarding debate as a required course, I challenge you to cite a school in Pennsylvania that actually teaches debate as a required course. Do you know of any? I doubt if there is a PUBLIC high school in the country that has debate as a required course. If I'm accurate in this assumption, then I argue that the current educational establishment is more in agreement with my position than with yours. Next week I'll check with the Minnesota Department of Education to see how the art of debate is handled here. I respectfully suggest that we subscribe to different philosophies of education. You subscribe to the CONTEMPORARY philosophy: The focus is on the institution, the process, and "education" is a thing provided by the institution. "Schools" succeed or fail. "Educators" are experts. The criterion of value relative to knowledge is utility, usefulness, or that which is practical. (Dewey's thought still reigns supreme) In contrast, I subscribe to the traditional CATHOLIC philosophy of education: The focus (and primary RESPONSIBILITY) is on the student (guided by his parents, parent, or guardian). The student educates himself or herself through the DISCOVERY of knowledge. The teacher is a mere instrument, a guide. The school introduces the student to both formative knowledge (concepts and things in the theoretical order of reality, and to character formation) and to instrumental knowledge (concepts and things in the practical order of reality). The teacher introduces students to issues and areas of knowledge and seeks to stimulate independent study. The school urges the student to acquire a personal library of books having permanent value during one's lifetime. Thus, the Contemporary Teacher will want a required course in debate in the school. The Catholic Teacher will urge selected students ( those who may have the aptitude and interest and ability) to take the elective course in debate. The following text reflects the rationale for debate as an elective course: "About a week later, on July 14, as it is recorded in Boswell, Johnson and Boswell are again at the Mitre. They are discussing how to study. "I myself," Johnson admitted to Boswell, have never persisted in any plan [of study] for two days together. A man ought to read just as inclination leads him; for what he reads as a task will do him little good. A young man should read five hours a day, and so may acquire a great deal of knowledge." 1 I submit that Dr. Johnson would be opposed to debate as a required course of study, to the state forcing all students to take such a course. No, he would seek the student whose "inclination leads him" to want to study debate and Johnson would argue that the student should take the elective course. (N.B. I could not resist submitting an argument from authority) Finally, in your last paragraph you state: " Finally, the argument that we are failing to educate many students so we should set the bar lower and only require the basics, leaves us with reducing education to the least common denominator. Standards are already in place as referenced above, Debate as a required course would satisfy the Speaking requirement of sec. 4.12 (a)(8)(iii) while at the same time enhancing all of the other subjects." I respectfully disagree with your characterization of my argument. Basically, I argue for a basic required core curriculum which will result in all students graduating who are intellectually and culturally literate. A personal anecdote will illustrate what I mean. One Saturday afternoon I was sitting in the living room reading Michael Harrington's book SOCIALISM. Our baby-sitter, a girl in the neighborhood who we knew well, arrived and entered. Seeing me reading, she said "What are you reading?" I responded identifying the title and author. She replied: "WHAT IS SOCIALISM?" I was stunned. She was a senior at the high school in town whose students went on to college. And she was going on to college. I was stunned because socialism was (at the time) the dominant political, social, and economic idea (in the world) of the prior 125 years. I contend that at the time every high school senior should have had at least a minimal familiarity with the concept of socialism. No student should be graduated who can't read and write and who doesn't know at least something about basic ideas like socialism, or science, et cetera. This concludes our debate which I have enjoyed immensely. What more could an old fart lawyer ask for than the opportunity to meet and debate a charming and brilliant brand-new lawyer. Notwithstanding, I think that I've kicked your butt good in this debate! Congratulations again. Tom ______________________ 1. Schall, James V., in "On God's making both Hell and Scotland," p. 70, in Schall on Chesterton - Timely Essays on Timeless Paradoxes (The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., 2000). http://www.amazon.com...