Response to Essay by Tannen

I found the essay, "The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope of Dialogue" by Tannen, interesting. According to Tannen, "one reason so many teachers use the debate format to promote student involvement is that it is relatively easy to set up and the rewards are quick and obvious." However, the author claims that this "agonistic" approach to the pursuit of knowledge is disadvantageous for females; not because females are less smart than males but, because by nature females are less willing to debate. Besides that, when one is searching for the truth, an argument is not the answer because it does not take one closer or farther away from the truth; it only helps defend one's own point of view whether right or wrong. The author favors the approach that the Chinese and the Indians had about this dilemma. According to Robert T. Oliver, "the preferred mode of rhetoric was exposition rather than argument. The aim was to 'enlighten an inquirer,' not to 'overwhelm an opponent.'" In Asia, "rhetoric was devoted not to devising logical arguments but to explicating widely accepted propositions."

I agree with the author in that the adversary in the educational system between males and female is unnecessary; it does not create better students instead it isolates some. So what is the benefit of this practice?

The story on page 227 is a great example of agonistic attitude gone terribly wrong. As critical thinkers, we should always question authority; however, there are "proper channels" which we must observe to keep the order. The student in this story could have approached the teacher after class and talked to him about the mistake he thought the teacher made. I am sure the teacher would have appreciated it more if this student would have been prudent about it. I guess the urgency to prove his teacher wrong in front of the class was stronger that the respect the student had for his teacher.

"The standard way of writing an academic paper is to position your work in opposition to someone else's, which you prove wrong. This creates a need to make others wrong, which is quite a different matter from reading something with an open mind and discovering that you disagree with it." I could not agree with this statement any more. I have learned that keeping an open mind whenever one is about to read something is the best way even if one is about to read something from a controversial figure. If one allows biases of any kind to invade the mind, unconsciously one has already rejected whatever one is about to read. So, why read it?