It seems like every staff I have been on, people who take sides on a contentious issue link personal self-worth and value to the outcome of the decision, rather than trying to find a good COA and build consensus. I think you are on the right path- debate can help our rhetorical and analytical skills. But I'd argue the more important skill is being wrong or losing the debate and then rowing with the decision that was made, while not being personally and emotionally compromised. I wonder if and how we could integrate this kind of exercise into typical staff life or the institutional pipeline.
I'm torn about this. I wholly support anything that improves analytical and information presentation skills - but debate has turned be off since High School when I realized that it was about promoting argumenting skills and was less concerned about discerning the truth.
It seems like every staff I have been on, people who take sides on a contentious issue link personal self-worth and value to the outcome of the decision, rather than trying to find a good COA and build consensus. I think you are on the right path- debate can help our rhetorical and analytical skills. But I'd argue the more important skill is being wrong or losing the debate and then rowing with the decision that was made, while not being personally and emotionally compromised. I wonder if and how we could integrate this kind of exercise into typical staff life or the institutional pipeline.
I'm torn about this. I wholly support anything that improves analytical and information presentation skills - but debate has turned be off since High School when I realized that it was about promoting argumenting skills and was less concerned about discerning the truth.