While I was reading Tannen’s essay, I developed a bias right off the bat. From the very first paragraph I read, I knew exactly what she was going to be talking about and I didn’t agree with her. I think that debate is a wonderful thing. Tannen argues that debate in schools is not always healthy because “Students at these institutions were trained not to discover the truth but to argue either side of an argument.” What is wrong with that, I think this is a perfect reason to debate for many reasons. First of all, usually the things that people debate about in school are not black and white. They are not facts but merely topics to get kids to think. So when he brings up the point that these kids are not looking for the truth, he’s right but there’s nothing wrong with it. Most things in life are not truth, but opinions. If you never give kids the chance to explore these different ideas that they get from other students through debate then our country as we know it would cease to exist. The thing that makes America so great is that everyone is allowed to have their own opinions and formulate their own beliefs. Another reason why debate in schools is so good is that it teaches kids how to argue appropriately. It allows students to argue a point of view while under the guidance and direction of a teacher. If they get out of line the teacher will correct them. It also helps kids because they are always going to be challenged on their beliefs and thoughts, and if no one ever taught them to argue with evidence to support their thoughts then no one will ever take them seriously.
Back to what the author was talking about. The author talks about how even in ancient times the Greek favored the style of debate, whereas the Chinese rejected the art of argumentation. Tannen says that “throughout our educational system, the most pervasive inheritance is the conviction that issues have two sides, that knowledge is best gained through debate.” His example of this is many Ph.D. programs that require a public defense of their own dissertation. He says that their ideas are presented orally so that the audience can pick it apart and tell them what is wrong with it. My opinion is that this is a great way to tell if someone really knows what they’re talking about.
One of Tannen’s problems with debate in the classroom is that women tend not to speak up. Her solution for this was to begin class with open questions and letting comments go unchallenged. In theory this sounds good, but people need to be challenged or else they will never really know what they believe. Another thing that is wrong with this, is to what degree did this actually work? Did it get every girl in the class to speak up and say something or maybe did one girl that already comments regularly throw in a few extra comments? I just don’t think this is a very good argument for Tannen.