Debate should be a required subject in High School

Let me begin by suggesting a clarification. We are debating the proposition "Debate should be a required subject in High School." We disagree in that I have argued that a course in debate should be an elective rather than a required course. I contend that you have the burden of articulating the CRITERIA that distinguishes a required course of study (as a class of subjects) from an elective course of study. I will now respond to the three paragraphs in your response: (1) " While high school is a limited forum, that time could better be spent by analyzing all of the subjects you mention with an eye toward logic and truth. Science, literature, history, geography and all of the other courses would not be detracted from, but rather illuminated by the formal study of logic. Force feeding students the same old curriculum would become outdated as they would be primed to accept only information that could be proved with logic. No longer would "because it's in the text book" be an acceptable answer, and information and learning could take on a real world application. How can we even pretend to teach unless we first teach how to discern useful versus non-useful information? Truth versus fiction?" My Response: Your argument from LOGIC is not relevant to the proposition that we are debating. Debate and Logic are separate subjects. The distinction is described: " Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examine the consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examine what is or isn't the case or rhetoric which is technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy as well as some emotional appeal to audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic." http://en.wikipedia.org... In the index to the text that I am reading, "COMPETITIVE DEBATE - The Official Guide" by Richard E. Edwards, PH.D, supra, there is only one entry for logic "logic, formal logic, limitations, 14-15" and no entry for formal and informal fallacies. http://www.amazon.com... Edwards criticizes formal logic in these sentences: "There was a time when debaters were encouraged to use formal logical structures to support their arguments. The classic example of formal logic is the syllogism... There are, however, weaknesses in the syllogism. Aristotle himself was well aware of these weaknesses." p. 14 "A premise is an assumption, so the conclusion is true only if the two premises are true. The problem is that the "major premise" is such a huge assumption that it makes the conclusion trivial." p. 15 "The point of this discussion is that argument must begin from assumption; the challenge comes in finding an assumption that a listener (or debate judge) is willing to believe is true." (last sentence, p. 15) Another excellent and online text, http://www.learndebating.com... , also lacks an explicit treatment of logic. Thus, I contend that formal and informal logic plays a small part in the subject of debate. (2) "As to your second counter; agreed that all individuals may not be the "debate" type as evidenced by your reference to the Abby, though being educated in formal logic which should comprise the cornerstone of a debate class, would neither interfere with adversarial discussion, but rather give students an appreciation for truth. Even so, a single and I think even you would admit "unique" viewpoint such as the Abby's has never been the guiding force behind public education." My Response: You write: "...formal logic which should comprise the cornerstone of a debate class." Based upon Edwards' comments above, I suggest that historically (and currently) the debate community has rejected "formal logic...the cornerstone of debate." (3) "Surely, any of us could study anything as you aptly point out, but that does not stop the state from requiring that all students take math science and English. How many of the general population would study those things on their own. You point out in your own argument that you have "(One time, in court, I actually met a high school GRADUATE who could not read or write!)" By making logical analysis and debate a voluntary exercise only, we assure that very few people will ever utilize it. Further, the advertising companies rely on the fact that the average consumer has absolutely no understanding whatsoever about what is and is not logical. A course in debate would at least allow students the ability to recognize that there are fallacious arguments." My Response: I mentioned the illiterate high school graduate that I encountered in court as an example of a failure in basic education (literacy). A student who can't read or write certainly cannot learn much from a course in debate. I was shocked that the high school had graduated him! I contend that schools must focus on basic courses so that, at least, every graduate is literate.