Fostering Viewpoint Diversity and Creating a Culture of Open Dialogue in the Classroom via Debate

by Tola Atewologun
Published 4/25/2024

When I first started teaching, one thing that initially struck me was the amount of intellectual certainty students displayed. So many students were so certain that their perspectives, ideas, and inclinations were right and other peoples’ wrong. In response, I incorporated debate in the classroom to puncture the veneer of certainty and to introduce viewpoint diversity and critical thinking. I have used this style of debate in a variety of school settings, including Title I schools, suburban public schools, and private/independent schools.

Typically, I present debate questions that are relatively narrow, binary – questions that can usually be answered “A or B” or “Yes or no.” The questions are binary to minimize the range of debate, since often students say something like “well I see it both ways….”  thereby allowing them to avoid taking definitive positions on anything. By requiring students to take definitive positions it compels students to be prepared to defend their positions, they cannot avoid intellectual conflict by taking a middle position. Furthermore, it facilitates intellectual assertiveness as students can question each other more effectively given that other students have definitive positions. 

To further develop the intellectual marketplace, students put their positions on a shared spreadsheet. For a given debate question students answer “Yes” or “No” and at the bottom of the spreadsheet is a count of the number of people that answer Yes or No. This spreadsheet is displayed on the board during the debate and students are completely free to change their Yes/No position as the debate progresses. This creates a debate environment where when a given student finds themselves at the end of a verbal exchange that they cannot adequately respond to, me or other students in the class will often say “given that you cannot respond to that question, why don’t you switch?” Optimally it creates an environment where students are not hesitant to change their answers. It promotes changing one’s mind as they are introduced to new evidence or rationale. In fact, often students argue one side then change their positions and argue the other side as their positions change.

The debate questions that I present to them tend to be practical rather than theoretical, and I usually assign a few short articles to help them attain background information. Sometimes students are required to produce debate notes to help guide them. These debates align with topics we discuss in class and are often used towards the end of a unit to connect content to a larger issue in American society. I have used such debates in a variety of courses, including Personal Finance, Economics, Government, Human Geography, and American History. Some examples of debate questions include:

  1. Should this municipality allow cashless stores?
  2. Should we allow specific ethnic groups in Alaska to hunt bowhead whales to the exclusion of all other ethnic groups?
  3. Little Earth, a low-income housing project in Minneapolis, gives near absolute preference to American Indians. Should it be allowed to give a near absolute preference to American Indians over low-income people of other races?
  4. Should women in Virginia pay more for Long Term Care Insurance?

These questions directly align to units from my class. For example, question 1 is from the money and banking unit in a personal finance class. Often debate questions relate to racial issues, gender, or socio-economic class and at times include some sort of disparate treatment component. For example, Question 4 deals with the economics concepts of adverse selection and moral hazard, yet also includes issues of disparate treatment.   Questions like 4 are among the most challenging because additional scenarios can be added to foster precision and intellectual consistency. In aggregate these debate questions are meant to be cognitively intense yet accessible, with multiple places by which to engage in an intellectual dialogue. 

As the teacher I don’t just manage the debate – I often participate in them. I connect the specific question or students’ comments to larger concepts being discussed in the class. For example, for question 2, the following discussing might occur:

Sam: These Alaskan natives care much more about hunting whales than anyone else

Me: Do you think Alaskan natives get more value from hunting the whales than others

Sam: Yes

Me: So, because they get more value from hunting whales, should they be able to hunt the whales whereas the others should not?

Sam: Yes

Me: I want you guys to understand the crux of Sam’s argument, he is making a utilitarian argument stating that total utility produced is the appropriate way to evaluate this policy.   What do you think of a utilitarian approach to this debate?

In the example above, I reference utilitarianism as a possible way to interact with the debate, and hopefully my students evaluate past and future debates through that philosophical lens. I don’t always remain neutral in the debates, at times I take a position, if there is a notable lull in the debate or if there is a significant imbalance between yes and no. When I take a position, I often do it in the context of trying to provide information or data to the wider debate. The following is a dialogue that often happens within the 3rd debate question. 

Lily: What portion of the total low-income housing in Minneapolis is Little Earth?

Me: Does it matter?

Lily: Yes

Me: So, if it's 60% of all the low-income housing in Minneapolis, that would affect if you are in favor of this or not?

Lily: Yes

Me: Why? Given that this is discrimination. Is discrimination justified if it occurs on a small level rather than a large level?

Lily: I did not say that

Me: Ok, can you answer the question; is discrimination justifiable when it occurs on a small level?

Lily: No

Me: Ok then you should be against Little Earth

Lily: I am, I’ve switched

Me: Does anyone else want to switch?

Me: By the way, Little Earth is under 2% of all low-income housing in Minneapolis.

This sort of dialogue pushes the debate to metacognitive questions about so-called discrimination. It shows students different ways to ask and answer critical questions. It forces students to reexamine their certainty and ultimately it gives students more confidence and willingness to wrestle with ideas.  

The basic structure of the debate is as follows: 

  1. Structure dialogue as a binary debate that requires students to take a starting position..
  2. Give students ongoing opportunities and encouragement to change their positions. 
  3. Jump into the conversation when there are opportunities to clarify a student's position – ask a critical question or show the class where a more extreme version of a position might lead.
  4. Move back and forth between the practical issue on the table and broader philosophical principles.

I’ve found it to be imperative to create a classroom environment that is open to ideas and productive conflict. As such I weave argumentation, and intellectual conflict throughout the course. I often take seemingly extreme positions and ask them “will you at least hear my argument?” Now students want to hear arguments against most of their cherished positions. The result is an environment that is less sensitive to seemingly extreme positions and a willingness to not shut down a debate because it makes them uncomfortable. Overall the atmosphere is one in which  everyone has found themselves “caught” by another student or by me and this makes being challenged not personal but a useful exercise in learning.