One of the reasons I am such a proponent of academic debate in schools is that it literally, by rule, forces people to take two sides on a controversial subject.
In order for a debate to make sense both sides need to be fairly represented and the advocates assigned to positions need to present the best arguments in favor of their side of the issue. As a result, the audience and participants learn different perspectives and view points.
I clicked on a link to the foxnation.com website from a diary and the front story at the time was How Do You Grade President Obama’s 1st 100 Days? What I found in the comments section was so disheartening.
At the time that I posted the following
one poses the question:
"Question ...... Are there any Oboma voters out there who have the courage to admit that they made a mistake?? Bet there are a few.... come on ,,, it's ok to admit it."
The real question reading these comments is:
"Are there any McCain voters out there who have the courage to admit they made a mistake?"
I never believed in the "echo chamber" of fox news but wow is this page telling - perhaps 2 people saying Obama deserves something other than an F? Broaden your perspectives - not sure why it's helpful to only hear from people who agree with you.
there were well over 500 comments attached to the story. Page after page were "F" or worse. I do not see the benefit the readers of that page are getting simply to hear those who are in agreement. What benefit does it do for me to simply receive positive feedback on my arguments? I need people to challenge my points of view so that I can learn and grow as an advocate. If I simply wanted to hear agreement I would tape myself making an argument and listen to it repeatedly. Just because other people agree with your view does not make it correct. In argumentation we call that a specific fallacy - ad populum
From what I've seen so far on daily kos I appreciate the fact that debates happen in the comments and people can disagree.
One of the best recommendations I share with my students and is referenced in the diary about new members of the community is to be polite - especially when you most disagree with someone. I try to impress that as a debater/advocate the need to be most respectful is when you are most angry. This is why the legal system uses attorneys or are not personally involved in the decision of the trial. If the defendant were speaking they would get upset and flustered when horrible things were said about them. But because an attorney is the one advocating for the defendant they can keep their cool and present the best defense.
I will try my best to avoid being an echo chamber - disagreement is helpful and productive!! Of course, feel free to disagree =)