In debate we can usefully distinguish at least three different and very general dimensions:

1) the logic and epistemic dimension,

2) the rhetorical and dialectical dimension, and

3) the behavioral and moral dimension.

So debate education is very valuable from epistemic, methodological, ethical and social point of view: debate encourages the pursuit of truth via free research by members of a social community, all equal. Perhaps no study equals debate in the acquirement of the power of logical thinking combined with clear expression and social skills.

– Logic and epistemic requirements and implications

There are two theses and two opponents confronting a rational investigation.

Confrontation occurs at the epistemic level.

– Rhetorical and dialectical requirements and implications

There are two parties, both employing all their reasoning tools to win the debate.

We apply the rules of persuasive reasoning and argumentation.

Confrontation occurs at the dialectical level.

– Behavioral and moral requirements and implications

A debate takes place in conformity with specific behavioral rules.

This rule has been formulated as negative too: “Do not do to others what you wouldn’t the others do to you”.

But contemporary debate training is open to debate; it is not a model that is beyond dispute.

«The debate is inherently, and inappropriately divisive because if one has to “win” by marginalizing other participants» (D. Tannen, The argument culture 1998)

«The world of individualistic competition is experienced every day; the world of harmonious unanimity is fully realized only in sporadic flashes of togetherness, glimpses of what might be if only people would cooperate and their purpose reinforce, rather than undercut, one another» (Robert Bellah, Habits of the hearts)

The positive and negative traits of debate education are connected with the virtues and the vices of rhetoric, which is considered intrinsically vicious in his epistemic, methodological, ethical and social grounds. Namely rhetoric would be:

·        A vicious reasoning because it is groundless or based on a-rational/irrational elements.

·        A fallacious method based on superficial, enthymematic and aphoristic formulations.

·        Blameworthy for being deceitful and responsible for simulating pseudo-truths.

·        Dangerous because of its partiality, demagogy, and seductive tendency.

Furthermore, when rhetoric applies to the debate, many people fear that the debate creates very smart persons who have always an answer for all questions and in every circumstance, namely someone who is able to find argumentations and untruths, who knows always how to answer and how to lie.

But today, beside his faults, to the rhetoric are recognized also some values.

·        From an epistemic point of view, it can offer ·        From a methodological point of view, it is associated with critical open-mindedness.

·        From an ethical point of view, it is associated with prudence and anti-authoritarianism.

·        From a social point of view, rhetoric represents and promotes broad-mindedness, anti-dogmatism, democracy and tolerance.

I’ll emphasize two distinction based on historical, theoretical and linguistic considerations. The distinction

- between two different ways of inducing a change of mind, that is persuading and convincing.

- the distinction between two different ways of proving, that is rhetorical argumentation and logical-experimental demonstration.

The difference between the two terms appears clear, and it is a distinction developed theoretically by many authors. It can be summarized in this manner:

–        Persuasion refers primarily to the realm of actions; conviction refers primarily to the realm of thoughts.

–        Persuasion concerns mainly manipulation, it has to do with the idea of ‘mastering’ which seems to be absent in conviction.

–        Persuasion is an act which makes use of emotions, while conviction does not involve any pathos.

–        Conviction appears to be stronger and more powerful than persuasion.

–        Unlike ‘to persuade’, the verb ‘to convince’ is synonym for ‘to demonstrate’, ‘to prove’, ‘to verify’, ‘to induce someone to do/think something by means of verification’.

–        Unlike conviction , persuasion has a sophistical nature.

–        Persuasion is centred chiefly on the speaker, it enhances one’s will and ability to modify other people’s opinions and behaviour; conviction  is centred chiefly on the addressee, focuses on one’s capacity of being convinced and evaluating rationally. The convinced addressee is more active and enterprising than the persuaded addressee, who remains more passive and receptive.

In short: conviction is a more crystalline, more rationally supported and more firmly guaranteed notion. The standard exemplification of the persuasion/conviction dynamics, according to the way they are used in English and Italian, is clarified in the following table:

Persuasion and conviction

Persuasion	Conviction
action	thought
manipulation	no manipulation
pathos, ethos	logos
weakness	strength
uses any means	relies on proof and evidence
sophistry	no sophistry
more speaker’s action / less addressee’s involvement	more addressee’s action / less speaker’s involvement

Persuasion is often attributed to sales and promotion: politicians, advertisers, leaders, teachers all use forms of persuasion to make us to believe or to do something.

Persuasion is a key element in debate process that ultimately is persuasive in nature, because its goal is to persuade the audience or the judge to vote for your argument.

Certainly, the tone of voice and the body language can be persuasive.

Emphasis, stressing key phrases, words can be persuasive.

Saying the words correctly, saying the words clearly, emphasizing the right words can have a persuasive impact.

Persuasive speech may include rhetorical structures (repetition examples, paradox…) and irony/humour.

Confidence and calmness are positively persuasive techniques.

The emotional means appeal to emotional-persuasive responses.

But the central part of any debate are good arguments, that appeal to intellectual means and responses: the sound reasoning, the ability to argue on behalf a position, the evidence, the examples are convincing.

Briefly, the training in debate can be a good defence against persuasion and ethical issues of persuasion. The good ‘discussant’ knows and employs s both logical tools and rhetorical moves.

Logic is usually considered as being the science of the correct reasoning. Rhetoric is commonly considered as being the art of persuading. On the mere basis of these two definitions, logic and rhetoric appear to be opposite notions and faculties: first, because science and art are very different practices; and second, because the notion of ‘correctness’ highly differs from the notion of ‘persuasion’.

Using the word of Alfred Snider and M. Schnurer (Many sides. Across the curriculum, 2002, p. 43): «Debaters become inoculated against the use of persuasive techniques in exchange for good arguments because they are aware of the tactics that persuader use to win the mind of their audiences. More important…along with these skills emerge defences against being persuaded and an ethical understanding of the possible negative elements of persuasion. These methods can have negative effects and thus the debaters may gain a realization that “cheap” avenues of persuasion should be avoided».

In debate, the problem does not concern the use of rhetorical moves (which seems to be unavoidable), but the fact that people attending the debate can possibly risk not detecting and counterbalancing intentional and/or unintentional fallacies, mistakes and tricks: if, using logical and rhetorical tools, we succeed in counteracting and neutralising them from a purely theoretical point of view (i.e. in terms of purely intellectual categorization of strategies and techniques), we would greatly improve “dialogue analysis and practice”.

“The proper use of language is the surest index of sound understanding” said Isocrates. The proper use of debate is the surest index of sound society, we could say. “Because Socrates was right about the truth, the orators were right about the society” (Kimball, Orators and Philosophers, 1995, Foreword, p. XIX).