Me disagreeing with Jane Marwick

I get crabby with new buzzwords that pop up from time to time. Probably more peeved because at the time they begin as good words to use when describing things even though they get over used. Here's a few... drill down, narrative, optic, paradigm. And now here's me using them.

I really enjoy listening to the podcast called The Jane Marwick Show. Yes its great for long car trips but try as I do to save a few up for the 4 hour drive to Perth I generally end up listening to them long before a car trip. Why is it a good podcast. (enter catchy buzzwords)

Its due to the length of the show.  Which although it varies greatly its generally way longer than a radio show or TV slot, there's no adverts. That and (brace yourself...) because it's got little in the way of time constraints it has the ability to drill down past the usual sell optics, past everyone's own personal bias or narrative and crack open the shell to see the real contents.

The podcast with Jacinta Price was Walkley Award winning stuff. It was real, raw, confronting, challenging but it had to be said & done. Without full rigour in a debate, without all the facts no matter how shocking they are, without this we lose to a better prepared argument that might actually be hiding facts.
Its tough to be fair. But its right.

Now where do I disagree with Jane, well 2 places. 
Firstly, Beverley is better than York.

Secondly, debating is a great learning tool. Why did I disagree with her? 
(And yes I have changed my mind).

Well firstly, yes I did debating in school. I kind of liked it but the thing that stunned me was you could win the argument even when you were wrong, very wrong. That began my dislike of debating.

I remember the completely one sided argument of "Is breathing oxygen bad for you"
The affirmative won. Amongst it was cited research of a mouse being kept alive breathing nitrogen...not for long I suspect. A liquid nitrogen which contained just enough oxygen from memory. Then the angle of how many carcigenes are in the air, acid rain, radioactivity and on it goes. Slim pickings but the affimative won. I became very cynical. It was wrong I thought that the right premise didn't win.

I could have studied law or become a police officer. I still maintain they were two of the biggest mistakes I NEVER made. As much as they can do good, I probably wouldn't have been flexible enough in my thinking as a young person to cope with good people losing and bad people getting off.
That wiring I had meant the right & correct has to prevail, always. 
Which is not how life works sadly & I too have been as wrong & incorrect as anyone.

The English teachers back then I thought were brilliant...except for their love of debating.

On her Podcast I heard Jane speak highly of debating in school and whilst I didn't cringe I was having a real "Yeah nup" moment with Jane. 

Then I accidently drilled down as I heard why it was a good thing in her mind.
Its not that people lose because some other people are bad or compromised...well not always. Debating teaches you to prepare very well and to do that you have to find all the facts..WITHOUT FEAR NOR FAVOUR.

Now debating does mean you have 2 sides with predetermined positions and they respectively THEN have to find the facts, but whilst that happens in life a BIt, that's NOT how life is supposed to work.
To counter that interllectual bankruptcy we have to be prepared very well when making decisions, get all the facts we can and never rely solely of debating or oratory skills to outspeak the opposing view...OR OUTDO US.

It is still only about the facts, the facts and nothing but the facts...in proper context.

The penny dropped. Those brilliant teachers I had that craftily taught us how to learn and not what to think just went up even higher on taller pedestals. In my 50s I now look back & think they really were the teachers in every sense I thought they were & then some. I learnt how to learn with them & I'll stop demonising debating now.

Debating is a learning tool, it teaches what mechanisms you must use in discourse and discussion but you will never actually discuss things in real life in a debate format.

The mechanisms are all about finding the fullest facts, the proper context and extinguishing ego. Edward De Bono wrote that there was arrogance arguing, where one side will not bring up facts that will destroy their argument and that was my real problem with debating. That is what many employed.
But the way to head that off at the pass we have to be very prepared, gather all the facts we can, apply them in proper context, don't let it get personal and find what determination the facts point to. Its not my position, its just facts & truth.

So Jane unknowingly caused me to see a school activity from 30+ years ago in a different light and yes now we agree on debating.

However Beverley is decidedly the better town because home pride can be excused for over looking facts a little...so I respect her decision to wrongly choose the wrong town to love :-) 

Quite rightly, out of this whole blurb, I'm only going to get into trouble for that last sentence...fair bump, play on.