The New York Sophist

Things have been happening so quickly over the past couple of days that I find myself typing this on the morning of my departure from Japan. Last night was the send-off party where there were many great speeches and great fun had as everyone wished us a safe trip home.

We had several good events over the final days. First was a workshop at Chuo University where we discussed U.S. debating for English teachers and graduate students. This was a great session, and I feel that I learned a lot about the situation Japanese debate faces – it is not unlike the situation in the U.S.

On our day off we visited the famous fish market here in Tokyo, and it was unreal. So huge and so many people driving in so many directions – I felt that we might be run over at any minute. The sushi there though was beyond amazing. Unfortunately, we didn’t have enough money to fully enjoy it.

We also had an amazingly huge debate at Rikkyo University. The Professor there was a debate legend, and the debate with high school students was fantastic. I can’t believe they were so confident even in front of 100 or so English teachers, students and people from Benesse corporation, who sponsor a lot of debating in Japan. It was really humbling to see and made me wonder why we do not encourage debate in the U.S. as a way of learning a foreign language.

The Rikkyo University event was followed by two great things – first, a wonderful meal of what can only be described as Tex-Mex-aneese food, as it was a Japanese spin on Tex-Mex food. Taco Salad with steamed white rice? Oh yes, it was good although perhaps some purists out there might not like the idea.

This is a picture of the taco stuffing – avocado, onion, bacon, cheese (very light) and some chicken hiding underneath. Very good food! They even had hamburgers which were very tasty.

At this party I met an English teacher named Tony who teaches in Japan now but is Australian. He was very interesting to talk to and pointed something out to me about teaching debate in Japan – he believes, as do I, that the long history of Zen training in this country has influenced the idea of how education should take place – in the Zen tradition you listen to a speech, and then you silently reflect. Insight and understanding appear through silent reflection alone. Not through cooperative engagement. So this might explain the difficulty in spreading High school debate in Japan, although it is increasing at a regular pace.

So yesterday was our final debate, and it was a strange one. It was at Sophia University, very close to the Imperial palace. This debate saw the tour out very quietly and in a very American style.

We were shown into a small room where about 7 people sat, and had a full on policy debate in a very quiet private setting. I though it was very strange not to pulicize it or do it for many classes, or even advertise the event to the campus (it seemed the opposite of the publicity we had for other events). Nevertheless, it was the most American style policy debate we have had, and on top of that, highly educational for the handful of advanced debate students that attended. It was very on par with American debate in the policy style, although not as fast. There was a discussion I led at the end which I prefaced by saying that since the debate was so American in style, I would speak to them as if they were American debaters. They told me they got a lot out of the comments after the round.

Then we went to the farewell party and had a great time. But now it’s time for me to eat some breakfast, and try to pack up all my stuff. That will be an adventure. We head for the airport in a few hours, and back to my normal life. But I will not forget all the amazing people, food, and debates that I was given the opportunity to experience in my short time in Japan. When’s the next trip??

There was an interesting piece by Roger Ebert today in the Sun-Times comparing Bill O`Reilly to Charles Coughlin, and using some scholarly research as support. Ebert, I didn’t think, had much of a mind at all since all he usually does is say rather obvious things about rather obviously bad films. But this piece changed my mind about him.

It was reminicent of Deborah Tannen’s book The Argument Culture where she dismisses switch-side argumentation as fairly worthless for real problem solving or for access to truths about issues or problems we face in society. Her research is seriously lacking, as she does not cite any contemporary argumentation work from scholars who research this issue all over the globe.

Ebert, on the other hand, felt that to prove O’Reilly was a propagandist he had to cite some formal research study on propaganda. Not bad, although unfortunately, he falls into the same trap as Tannen, the trap of thinking of argument and debate as something that has a right and wrong way of doing it – that once a fallacy is identified, the use of it will be exposed and the bad results of propaganda will cease.

Arguing is like smoking in this way – people who smoke are not just unaware of the health risks. It’s not like you can go up to a smoker, tell them it’s unhealthy, and expect them to be surprised, thanking you while putting out their cigarette and promising to quit right away. They are fully aware that it is bad, they are doing it because they are addicted, or perhaps they feel like the enjoyment is worth more than the health risk.

And in argument it is the same way – I don’t think identifying a bunch of fallacies or propaganda techniques are going to get much argument improvement. I think instead you will get the smoker’s response – yea, yea, yea, I know, I just don’t care. This is a pleasurable act. And when smoking bans appear, the rights discourse rises along side it. Smoking (like free speech) is a right that cannot be infringed, it is a personal liberty – just like Bill O’Reilly does according to Ebert. However, just telling us that these propaganda techniques are there won’t do much against the pleasure of the act. This is the weak point of argument theory built on rationality. Perhaps we can try an experiment: Argument theory built on romanticism, myth, or aesthetics. Can it be done? I think perhaps there are clues that it has – the vast collections of aphoristic writing of the 18th and 19th centuries, koans from Buddhism, and mixed media art perhaps. Maybe television? Propaganda and fallacies are only bad if you accept rationalism and Reason as the starting point.

If we want to stop the public health problem of bad argumentation we need a better model than simple conciousness raising. “That is a fallacy!” says the argument student. “yea, yea I know,” says the layperson, “I know they are bad for me, but I really just don’t want to quit.”

This is a fantastic city. Perfect size, very livable, and the temperature is just cool enough that you might want a sweatshirt in the evening. But if that doesn’t convince you that Sapporo is an amazing town, check out the picture. Isn’t that the most beautiful tuna you have ever seen? The seafood here is what they said it was in Tokyo – outstanding. We just had an amazing late lunch where I think we did a pretty good job trying to close down the sushi bar.

But we don’t just sit around and eat sushi. We debate and work as well. Today’s debate was again the national high school topic on worker dispatching, and in the 4 person Japanese high school format. It takes some getting used to, but the whole debate is about comparing impacts versus advantages. In fact, the ballot indicates that this is the only way to make a decision in the debate. You have to fill out a formula of sorts that explains how you weighed the advantages and disadvantages in equation form. More on this in a seprate post to come after I reflect on the format a bit more. Suffice it to say for now that the format is a mix between standard debate in the U.S. and a dash of World School’s format. I think it works for Japanese high school students who might not have the will to jump into something like parliamentary or CX debating where there doesn’t appear to be a bottom to the form. Here the boundaries are set and wherever you go in the pool you feel like you can touch the bottom. Very good for beginners.

Here are today’s teams – the teacher Mr. Kimura (who is a very enthusiastic and dedicated high school coach) split up the Americans so they would face each other in today’s debate.

They were told by the photographer to make a stern debating pose. I think you can see their interpretations of what that might mean from these pictures.

The debate was observed by many people who were teachers and students. I think over 180 students came to the debate, and from my count there were perhaps about 10 or 15 teachers. The debate caused such a stir that many teachers from other schools in Hokkaido came to observe the match and to see if debate is something they would like to have at their school. There was a lot of interest in the room and some fascination with debate – and it seems to me this region of Japan is a sleeping giant in the JDA world. Once debate becomes more regular in Hokkaido, the rest of the Japanese high school scene should watch out. These students are sharp and eager to learn all the subtlety of good argumentation. And they have a very sharp, witty and well respected coach in Mr. Kimura.

Thanks to everyone who helped us out here in Sapporo. It seems we just arrived, but tomorrow morning it is back to the airport to fly to Tokyo for the last time on the tour.

We returned to Tokyo energized from our encounters and debates, but physically exhausted. A day off was in order, and we spent it shopping in Akihabara district for souveniers. Of course, it wasn’t my crazy love of anime and japanese pop culture that helped select that particular location for our day of tourist activities, no way.

The next evening we were to visit a Toastmaster’s club to give a demonstration debate in parliamentary style. The club is considering starting a debate portion of their activities, and wanted some introductory training. Professor Ayabe conducted the demonstration debate, then split the group up into 3 rooms to have practices on the same motion judged by the Americans. My group was fantastic, and made many good arguments. They also all ended perfectly on time even without the use of a timer. Toastmaster’s is good for training in time management as well as introductions and conclusions to speeches. The only element that needed more work was refutation, as well as argument and impact development. Many of them ended arguments with an open question rather than a concrete impact.

Overall it was a great session, and I think that the Toastmaster’s club will have a lot of future debates where they can quickly learn how to make well developed arguments.