Fragmentation and rapprochement: the case for paradigm collaboration

ABSTRACTPolicy debate has radically evolved in recent decades, fueling tensions between the values of civic engagement and argumentative innovation. The result is a rapidly shifting landscape of formats and organizations with different pedagogical orientations. This fragmentation poses a dilemma to many debate educators, fueling a vicious cycle in which dissenting elements are marginalized and stakeholders sort themselves into relatively homogenous subcultures. We interrogate the schisms – between “innovation-focused” debate and civic engagement, argumentative sophistication and accessibility, laissez-faire and regulation – and suggest a remedy. By empowering competitors to collaborate in drafting the standards by which they will be judged, we foresee the potential for productive encounters between debaters with diverse views on the purposes and appropriate practices of debate. Such encounters can become opportunities to rebuild bridges in a fragmented debate community.