Negotiating a Change in the Argumentation Course: Teaching Cooperative Argument

While less common than was once the case, the argumentation or argumentation and debate course in American colleges and universities is often taught as a scaled-down version of a tutorial in intercollegiate debate. Although textbooks that de-emphasize traditional debate formats have increased in popularity, many instructors still provide students with basic instruction in policy or value debate, where they are introduced to a version of the National Debate Tournament (NDT), Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA), or parliamentary debate format. Students are then encouraged to compete with each other in debate rounds where a win-loss decision is announced and a grade is issued. This approach to the course seems sensible enough. Intercollegiate debate has a long history of providing valuable experience to student competitors (e.g., Colbert & Biggers, 1985; Colbert, 1987; Matlon & Keele, 1984), and non-forensics students would seemingly benefit from this instruction as well. But the argumentation course would be bolstered by a dual focus on possibilities for argumentation that will deemphasize the competitive component of the course without seeking to eliminate that component entirely. The competitive element of debate instruction should be balanced with recognition of the need to foster competencies in cooperation, compromise and consensus building that may not be adequately addressed by the traditional debate formats. We will suggest that by including a unit on negotiation, argumentation instructors can provide their students with instruction and activities of clear potential benefit for public-sphere deliberation and professional development. While many of the research, argument construction, and refutation skills used in negotiation have analogues to those required for debate, a negotiation unit emphasizes for students how argumentation is potentially consistent with cooperation and outcomes of mutual benefit. As Gerald I. Nierenberg (1995) states in the introduction to his book, The Art of Negotiating: A competitive spirit is necessary but does not have to be divisive. In fact quite the opposite will happen... instead of creating a rift, each negotiator's competence will enhance the other's, and result in the achievement of a common goal. Competition then becomes a cooperative effort. (viii) This cooperative perspective requires a set of argumentation skills that is not typically emphasized in the traditional argumentation course. The move toward viewing argument as a cooperative enterprise is anything but new and is consistent with more recent challenges to the competitive focus of debate education. Gordon Mitchell (1998) recently criticized the "purely preparatory pedagogy" of current intercollegiate debate practice. His essay suggested that a focus on learning the intricacies of academic debate as a means for preparing students for future activities can be limiting. His call was to move beyond tournament competition and use argumentation in the public sphere (e.g., public debates, debate outreach, and public advocacy). Mitchell noted that "approaches that are purely oriented toward preparation place students and teachers squarely in the proverbial pedagogical bullpen, a peripheral space marked off from the field of social action" (43). Mitchell's concern was with the practice of intercollegiate debate tournaments, but his concern is also applicable to the argumentation course. An exclusive focus on in-class debates can limit studen ts' perception of the versatility of skills they are developing. While the negotiation process might be viewed by some as still competitive, it offers an account of argumentative practice with a more cooperative framework and purpose, where a mutually satisfactory outcome is more likely. If instruction in argumentation is to include a public-sphere component, then the development of cooperative argumentation skills will enhance the ability of participants in public fora to take seriously a variety of perspectives in exchanges with auditors. …