On a different note, while I kind of enjoy your sarcastic tone, this feels more like the real Steve and it made me feel better than the original posts: Now I’m more interested in being a part of the solution at a grass roots level–giving young minds the guidance and space they need to foster a healthy curiosity in their surroundings; learning and passing on the principles that govern human interaction and community development; learning how public and private educational institutions function and why. I’d be glad to read more posts along those lines, with practical examples, links to sites and stories, etc. To paraphrase a famous dead (but not white) male: “The batshit crazies are always with you”. To paraphrase a very good friend of mine, we are like the groundsman of a beautiful golf course: instead of seeing the 99% which is perfectly green, he’s just focussing on the one little brown patch, and tearing his hair out.

When crafty (or blatent) rhetorical techniques sway arguments, there will always be an price to pay, and that price will usually be learning and truth.

Mick: Agree on both counts. Religion is a fascinating discussion topic as long as neither side has anything to sell. And I used to be much more outspoken about my political views until I realized that I was buying them in bulk and selling them to the unsuspecting undecided. In the end I decided that I’d have to hold much stronger convictions before I’d feel comfortable running around trying to convert anyone. Shortly after that, I stopped seeing the value in hustling beliefs altogether.

Now I’m more interested in being a part of the solution at a grassroots level–giving young minds the guidance and space they need to foster a healthy curiosity in their surroundings; learning and passsing on the principles that govern human interaction and community development; learning how public and private educational institutions function and why.

Frankly, I just have a hard time being hopeful about anything as lofty as instigating reform in the distribution of power and wealth during my lifetime. But I think it’s safe to say that it’s all got to start with a redistribution of knowledge, so an educator I am, and an educational leader I strive to be.

As it stands, people don’t even know where to start when it’s time to go shopping for beliefs. It has way more to do with social environment and convenience than awareness or conscious choice. That just has to change, or the slow bleeding of the undereducated and unaware will continue indefinitely. Hope Web 2.0 can provide some assistance here.

Marco Polo: Yeah, I think the problem lies in how we define the terms. From what I can gather, most people have included in their definition of ‘debate’ something along the lines of ‘arguing to win.’ The problem is that the criteria for winning is left undefined. In parliamentary debate, there are rules, guidelines, and judges:

http://www.apdaweb.org/old/guide/rules.html

I suspect that the practice of debating for the benefit of an audience–as in American political elections–morphs both the intentionality and the impact. It can often end up being nothing more than a public bullying contest. It becomes all about shaming the proponents of the opposing position by way of humiliating their spokesperson, hoping that they’ll become so embarrassed that they’ll consider flipping or at question their own beliefs.

To get back to your point, though, I hear what you’re saying. Debate, in the everyday sense, really shouldn’t have to include this negative, hostile approach. But I think to achieve more constructive paramaters we’d have to redefine ‘debate’ to mean something that strays too far from common usage. It’s much easier to choose a more neutral word: discussion, discourse, dialogue, etc. as seems to be the trend in education.