Title: Resolved: Debate Can Revolutionize Education and Help Save Our Democracy
Author: Robert Litan
Publisher: Brookings Institution Press
Publishing Date: October 6, 2020
Pages: 219 (Paperback)
ISBN: 978-0815737872
Part 1: Why Debate and Why Now?
Recently Donald and I were introduced to this intriguingly titled book, one that purports to solve America’s political woes with an activity we both love—debate. Both of us have been debaters as students, both have coached debate teams, and both use elements of debate in our classes. Because of this background, we thought we’d review the book in a quasi-debate format to help give an idea of what radical idea the book is pushing, and whether or not such a plan could be feasible.
Introduction, Definitions, and Harms (Kuiper)
As someone who has been engaged in some form of competitive debate for decades now, I picked up Robert Litan’s Resolved: Debate Can Revolutionize Education and Help Save Our Democracy with a combination of trepidation and excitement. There are not many books that from the cover celebrate the positive impact of debate, but the superlative wording of the title seemed a little ambitious at the same time. From the very beginning Litan suggests, “America is as divided politically and economically as it has been at any point in (the last 70 years),” citing both political and everyday divisions as evidence of such a divide. From this point on, his thesis is to suggest that the advocacy and practice of quality debate could solve this discordant status; as the title says, to “save our democracy.” To win this argument, he structures the entire book like a typical debate round, a style that we’ll try to emulate to some degree here.
The opening chapter (“Improving Education”) plays greatly on one of Litan’s central talent – the comprehensive use of research to support his arguments. Here he lays out the groundwork for the debate here, and like any good debater provides definitions for the core terminology. The key term referred to throughout the book is “Debate Centered Instruction” (DCI), which is what he explains, exemplifies, and exalts through this and subsequent chapters. In short, DCI enhances student engagement through the integration of debate into school settings, whether that be actual in-classroom lessons or an extracurricular debate program. Through extensive “training in research, thinking, and speaking,”1 students involved in DCI will become future leaders who “have experience and training arguing both or multiple sides of issues so that, by the time they reach adulthood, they will vote for and demand leaders who have these same qualities.”2 Chapter One is a fairly complete argument unto itself, and is one of the strongest chapters of the book. Litan’s provides extensive evidence that debate on its own has positive individual effects, and his anecdotal evidence about more corporate implementations is quite compelling too. The current situation is bleak, and debate is a key method to solve the problem. As he suggests, “The future health of our society and economy may depend” on a widespread application of debate education.3
The Method Explained (Kuiper)
Chapter Two (“Debate as a Model”) is probably the most accessible chapter for those not familiar with debate, and it provides a good review for those working in the debate field at the same time. He provides detailed accounts of what a debate team or debate tournament looks like, using this description to show how debate is already designed to be an arena of logic, respect, and skill. There are several types of debate currently speaking, and while Litan’s first love is “policy debate,” he ably guides the reader through the general history of competitive debate in most of its forms and evolutions. Again, it’s an interesting balance he’s navigating in trying to explain to the uninitiated and to remind the veterans, and it’s not quite clear that he succeeds. He obviously is a great resource for those already involved in debate, but as engaging as he is, the connection to “outsiders” might be tenuous. In addition, there is also a hint of elitism about what true debate ought to be, and he tends to take an old-school approach in terms of what is “good” debate.
Despite a few problems here and there, he accomplishes the basic goal of explaining debate fairly well. However, the larger goal of convincing non-debaters about the efficacy and utility of debate is not as clear. The whole book has a lofty objective of convincing readers that debate will solve and even enhance society if debate programs are comprehensively implemented across the board. As Litan himself states his overarching goal of the book: “to persuade school leaders, policymakers, and the wider public why” the country needs to change to a comprehensive debate format.4 As much as I and other might agree with him, we are in a niche environment, and a chapter that details the glories and tribulations of debate might not be the best of inroads into such intended audiences.
(Roth)
I’m jumping in at this point because all I have to say on the Intro and first chapter is “amen” to what Bruce says. For this chapter, though, I think Litan fails to take his criticisms of competitive debate far enough. In its competitive version, debate often gets gamified in a way that loses sight of its pedagogical objectives. Some students learn that they can memorize a really persuasive argument, then bend every argument toward those canned speeches. These students are often rewarded for looking polished, passionate, and articulate, and they win a lot of debates. In the current debate environment, this typically means learning to transform every argument into a laundry list of complaints about inequity and oppression, regardless of the topic. This should blunt Litan’s optimistic thesis, as it shows that debate can fall prey to the same social ills that Litan seeks to remedy.
The Plan Text (Roth)
Chapter 3 focuses on applying debate-centered education beyond the competitive circuit. Litan points to varied efforts to reform education at primary grade levels, but he notes none have really cracked the code to improving High School scores. Litan believes that debate’s engaging emphasis on critical thinking, communication, collaboration (in team formats), and creativity in forming arguments will help close this gap. He especially emphasizes the potential to close the test gap for minority students, cure the mental coddling of more economically advantaged students, and encourage females to speak up. The most helpful aspect of this chapter is a number of pedagogical recommendations for implementing debate in the classroom. The goal here is to learn healthy disagreement around issues where we haven’t become totally polarized by ideology, with the hope that this posture of engagement flows out from there.
Overall, I find Litan’s guidance in this chapter among the most helpful material in the book. I have benefited from debate-oriented pedagogy growing up, and I use it to good effect in a number of my classes. Of all of the claims he makes, though, I remain a bit skeptical that debate will rescue students already in the throes of the sorts of dynamics that Lukianoff and Haidt cite in The Coddling of the American Mind. I don’t blame this on the pedagogy specifically. Instead, I’m thinking of how common it was in debate rounds to see judges who were still so blinded by their biases that they tended to judge based on their preexisting preferences. The same was true of competitors who seemed to have learned that debate was about framing ever more creative ways to cry “bias and oppression!” Don’t get me wrong: I think debate has great potential in pedagogy, but I don’t think it’s strong enough to save us from ourselves.
(Kuiper)
I also enjoyed this chapter and thought it was essentially the core of the whole book, laying out a practical application of debate in the classroom. The ideas here encapsulate my basic reaction to the whole book—that the core considerations of the proposal are sound and feasible on an individual or even organizational level, but the intended scope is too lofty to realistically achieve. I think a chapter like this would be an excellent lesson plan in itself for classes or teams, and such an intent much easier to conceptualize. Such implementation on a broader scale might help to mitigate the biased judging that you mention here as an unfortunate aspect of some competition.
Part 2: How Debate Could Make a Change
In the first half of our review of the book, we outlined some of the fundamental reasons why debate is suggested as a remedy for the political chaos in America. In this second half, we’ll be covering how exactly debate might achieve such ambitious goals.
The Solvency for Culture (Kuiper)
The opening paragraph of Chapter 4 (“Debate-Centered Instruction Can Help Revitalize Our Democracy”) quickly gets at the heart of what Litan hopes this book will do—creating a vision for a debate-centered culture that fosters understanding rather than promoting dissension. He asks the reader to imagine a future in which every single American has had some training in debate. He finishes this rhetorical thought for us by suggesting such a society would be much more harmonious and unified than what we have now. In debating there’s a term called “bright line,” which is a clearly delineated rule or standard that is basically…well, undebatable. It becomes evident quite quickly in this book that Litan is hoping to establish a debate-oriented culture as the solution to our polarized woes, and even though he doesn’t use “bright line” himself, it does become an assumed standard here and in other chapters.
Eventually he returns to the concept of Debate-Centered Instruction (DCI) to show how such a method could reduce tribalism, limited thinking, and improper rhetorical methods. In an interesting argument, he suggests that if and when schools implement DCI, “more data will exist for researchers to determine whether (my claims of its benefits) hold up,”5 which becomes a unique hypothetical self-proof that many debaters would avoid. Regardless, he mitigates the panacea level a bit when he says “DCI training is not going to remove the predispositions or biases of students,”6 even he firmly believes it will have a mostly positive and energizing effect. His ending argument in Chapter 4 is his strongest and clearest one, laying out several reasons why DCI would change the face of both grassroots and national politics. Compelling arguments for the implementation of DCI, and a good foundation to introduce the “everyman” concept in Chapter 5.
The Solvency for Individuals (Roth)
In Chapter 5, Litan argues that debating skills transfer well to employment beyond obvious application to attorneys. As a former lawyer, I can certainly endorse the value of debate for law, but I think Litan makes a good argument for other applications as well. Essentially, in any field where it’s important to make your case, Litan sees debate experience as an asset. This includes the pitch-oriented work of entrepreneurs and marketers, but debate is also a core competency of successful business cultures like Ray Dalio’s celebrated approach at the hedge fund Bridgewater. Litan emphasizes the critical role that communication skills and a healthy culture of debate play in workplace success. To be clear, he’s not arguing that workplaces stage competitive debates; he’s arguing that the skills learned in debate sharpen our ability to deliberate and innovate together in an adaptive environment. I think Litan is right about this.
(Kuiper)
No argument here! Litan’s continual defense of debating skills is admirable, and his passion almost makes me think a widespread implementation of DCI could work. Other evidence points toward many employers—especially in the wake of COVID—desiring to have such “soft skills” for their workers, sometimes even in preference to the advertised hard skills. Litan obviously touches on a growing sentiment of how clarity in communication is needed now more than ever.
The Rebuttal (Kuiper)
One aspect of debate that many competitors love is the give-and-take between the opponents on a particular issue. A hallmark of Western debate since the Greeks, being able to counter other arguments and defend one’s own is part of the fun. Litan gives us a taste of this facet in Chapter 6 (“Objections and Challenges”), where he outlines the major criticisms of DCI, and then in turn shows how such objections can be answered. For example, the first one raised is a pretty common concern of how we already have too much argument in today’s society, and thus any proposal like DCI to increase such argument should be disregarded.
There’s a hint of a straw man argument in some of his lines of reasoning in this chapter, but in general the issues raised are legitimate, and the solutions plausible. One area that should have been given more attention was how to publicize the plan or, in other words, how to broaden the audience for the book’s ideas. It’s all well and good to have a great plan in place to revolutionize American education (and subsequently American culture) but that first step of getting beyond a debate-centric audience is a major challenge, to put it mildly. Early on in the book, he makes the claim that understanding “how to identify and articulate the merits and drawbacks of multiple sides of almost any subject or issue is important in all phases of life and is key to a healthy democracy.”7 Such thinking is echoed here in the penultimate chapter, and once again it would be difficult to imagine someone arguing against it. However, equally difficult would imagining people outside of the debate world caring about it, and as valid as his arguments are, ultimately the impetus for the plan seems unclear.
The Roadmap (Roth)
When I coached debate, the winners and losers of a policy-based round were often determined by the raw practicalities of whether a proposed plan could actually work. In good style, Litan closes his book by offering his policy prescription for implementing the sorts of initiatives that he has been arguing for throughout the book. He does this drawing on Leslie Crutchfield’s substantial work studying successful policy reform initiatives, which is as good a model as any to adopt.
Crutchfied argues that most successful social movements share a number of features: they start at state and local levels, build a grassroots support network, slowly shift the perspective of a large chunk of the populace, and then spur a change from business as usual. Along the way, these movements garner the support of philanthropists while building a coalition of varied allies. All of this percolates and builds until the right confluence of timing and leadership spurs the tide of change.
This model for change is ambitious and hardly something accomplished overnight or without substantial investment. Litan notes that, at 70, he is too late in the game to be the champion for the reforms he proposes, but he thinks that a reform movement that prioritizes debate pedagogy can be built. Personally, I hope he’s right. When I look at collegiate programs, it seems to me that many places are instead deemphasizing or cutting their programs. Other schools champion debate, but the posture is more of an “own the (insert your enemies here)” approach that I’m not sure cultivates the virtues that Litan extols.
In the end, I’m highly sympathetic to Litan’s book. I think we all benefit from learning to reason together well. Debate can be fun, invigorating, and enlightening when done well. It can also reinforce sophistry based in bleak relativism or build the tools of emotional manipulation that make debaters ever more adept at playing the victim card. In the classroom, I’ve seen it help all of us think more carefully about important issues, but I’ve also seen students come to agree with whatever position they were randomly assigned to represent. Debate is a powerful pedagogy, but it needs to be done well, or I doubt it will have most of the effects that Litan argues for. Sadly, many large-scale policy initiatives that get forced through also get implemented badly.
Perhaps that’s ground for optimism, though. If you read this exchange between Bruce and myself and wonder about checking out debate for yourself, then I think small-scale adoption and micro-level implementation is where this is most likely to be done well, and, happily, that’s something that’s within all of our power to embrace.
(Kuiper)
As mentioned in several other places here, Litan’s core ideas make sense and have little to argue against. Yes, debate is useful for helping foster understanding. Yes, debate has clear verified positive effects, both individually and corporately. Yes, the fractious world we live in would be better served through rationale dialog. Yes, a comprehensive program like Debate-Centered Instruction probably would have amazing effects across the board in our schools. Yes, debate is a time-honored, fun, challenging, rewarding, thought-provoking, issue-raising skill that more people should be involved in.
All these are great ideas, but the reality is pretty stark, not to be overly pessimistic. Debate participation has declined significantly over the past number of years, precipitously during and since the COVID-19 outbreak. High schools and colleges across the country have cut funding or entire programs (in fact, there are only four colleges in Iowa offering debate as a program; Dordt University being one of them). Newer styles of debate are turning off potential participants and supporters, despite providing a new kind of platform. The reality is that formal competitive debate is a hard sell just in itself. To propose a complete overall of the American education system that features debate as its core feature is even more difficult.
In short, Litan makes a great case for involving debate in a wider context, and those who know debate, those who teach debate, and those who love debate will probably agree wholeheartedly. The tricky next step of convincing others outside that circle is frankly overwhelming, and readers most likely will not be able to or want to take on a seemingly quixotic task like that. Litan has done a great job here of outlining the need for debate as a possible cure for party politics in America; following up with a clearer plan on how to reach the masses with the message would be even better.
This post was originally published in two parts for In All Things on April 18, 2023 and April 19, 2023, and is cross-posted with permission. The original versions of this post can be found here:
Part 1: https://inallthings.org/a-new-resolution-a-review-of-resolved/
Part 2: https://inallthings.org/a-new-resolution-a-review-of-resolved-2/