Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
1.
THEUNiVERSEOFDEBATE.FOREWORD
19
examples,selectedfromthevastuniverseofdebate-orienteddiscourse,therearehun-
dredsofotherverbaldisputesorganisedaccordingtoestablishedrules.Teyallhave
somethingincommon-somethingthatconstitutestheessenceofdebate,itsgenrecore,
theideaforwhichpeoplegatherinoneplaceandtimetotakepartinrhetoricalcompe-
titionsofargumentation.
2.DebateforDemocracy
DebateisoneofthosegenresthatcanbecalledsociallyusefulandrhetoricalintheAris-
toteliansenseoftheword(whilenotbelongingtoanyfieldofartorlife,itfindsusein
many).Itisagenreofdemocracyanditslitmustest.Itthrivesincountrieswheredecisions
aremadewiththeparticipationofcitizens.Asacommunicationtool,debateisbecoming
aphenomenonofsocialconcern.Tisisaboveallbecausethepracticeofdebatesperpet-
uatescertaincommunicationhabitsthatmaybesociallyusefulineverywayor,ifthey
promotethewrongattitudes,proveharmful.Itisimportantthatdebate,asavehiclefor
contentiousinteraction,doesnotfueldisputesforthesakeofdisputes,thatis,disputes
thataregoalsinandofthemselves.Youngpeople,justbeginningtoenterintorelation-
shipsinvolvingresponsibilityandco-determinationovertheafairsofthecommunityto
whichtheybelong,shouldnotdevelophabitsthatmayprovedestructivetotheresolu-
tionofdisputes,norshouldtheypursueviolencearisingfromatendencyofalwaysbeing
right.Ifdebateweretoleadtothiskindofbehaviourinsocialinteractions,itwouldbe
agreatfailureofthepromotersofdebate,includingtheauthorsofthisvolume.Weare
keenforreaderswhochoosetodelveintothisbooktothinkofdebatenotasatoolfor
winningarguments,butasatoolforunderstandingandresolvingthedisputesinher-
enttothenatureofdemocracy.
ItisworthnotingthatresearchonthephenomenonofdebatinginCentralandEast-
ernEuropeancountriesisinitsearlystages.Criticalandrhetoricalreflectioniscarried
outwithintwogroups:theorists-academicsandpractitioners-students(pupils)andtheir
teachers.Teoristsareinterestedinthedevelopmentofmodesofargumentationandthe
impactofdebatesoncommunicativecompetence,whilepractitionersexplorenewpos-
sibilitiesforharnessingpersuasivepowerinvariousinteractionsoferedbynewdebate
formats.
Competitive(tournament)debatehasbeenpractisedinPolandinanorganisedway
sincethe1990s,muchshorterthan,forexample,intheUKortheUSA(Hinton,Kob-
ierskiinthisvolume).Tedevelopmentofthedebatingmovementwasfirstinitiatedby
non-governmentalorganisations,studentsassociations,andfinallyenterededucational
practicesattheuniversityandschoollevels.Teideaofdebating,soimportantforthe
developmentofdemocracyandfreedomofspeech,spreadinpoliticaldiscourse:parlia-
mentarydebates(Batko-Tokarzinthisvolume),localgovernmentdebates(Choroś,Skra-
bacz2016),pre-electiondebates(Budzyńska-Daca2015,2016,Kochan2016)andmedia
debates(TV
,radioclashes)(Szkudlarek-Śmiechowicz2010,Poprawa2009,Kaszewski
2006).Nowadays,withthedevelopmentofinternetapplications,debatesfunctioninvir-
tualspace(Borzutainthisvolume,Glencinthisvolume).Tisiswhereviewsandopin-
ionsareexchanged,wherethepositionsofdiferentsidesoftheargumentarefleshedout.
