Time Crunch For Debate

As the time begins to wind down as we approach our first debate of the season. Oh my word everyone’s nerves are on ten and very anxious about what to expect. Everyone had so many questions about the debate they were so eager to get as much information as possible before the event so they could be best prepared as possible and know what to expect. For a decent amount of the time we went over rules, expectations, and trying to emphasize the importance of preparing for both sides of the debate because you will not know whether you are Proposition or opposition until 20 minutes prior to the debate. In addition, it was amazing to see how many of our students were so eager to practice debate and prepare for the actual competition outside of the allotted time that we spend with them. 

We All Need A Little Balance

Before I begin so many of my fellow classmates have highlighted great points about this reading. In Seneca’s essay On the Shortness of Life he tends to focus on a somewhat similar common theme like that of the previous works before that we have read. He does so by talking about it in terms of “we are not given a short life but we make it short” (Seneca 2). By this he goes on to talk about how one may live their life . Often caught up in the glitz and glam of the materialistic things such as cars, money, fame (in terms of modern day things). It is as though they find in entertainment in these things so that they can account for the lack of time that they have.

On that note, that segways great into how Seneca believes that makes it difficult for us to “recover our true selves” (Seneca 3). With this Seneca believes that there is possibly an ideal way that one can have a balance so that they are able to mix business with pleasure or  have your cake and eat it too. Similar to that of how Aristotle and Plato talked about virtue but they were unable to find a clear definition as to what they would define it as without having to in a sense go in circles trying to figure out a constant running definition for each term associated with it.

Which leads me to think about my middle school debaters and how they are so full of knowledge and the eagerness to learn but at times we have to find a balance in  how we communicate with them so that they may better learn and we may better teach. So that we may have a very successful debate season.

Day 2 Coaching

Oh me oh my! It looks like we have more students who got added to the roster for debate although we already have a plethora. With the many students that we have at times it can be a bit difficult with keeping their attention from roaming within a short span of time. It is amazing how passionate and eager they are to want to engage in debate but it is that very same eagerness and passion that they have which at times can set them back due to the fact that we still need to get the debating skills and set up down packed.  If we channel that energy in all the right places I do believe that we can have some pretty solid young debaters on our hands. Because it is amazing to see how much they know at this early of an age. Based off what we have been doing one can tell that they learn a bit more my engaging in hands on activities so that they may get the feel and experience that would in a sense simulate that of an actual debate competition. Once we continue to have practice I can only imagine how experienced they will be in no time.

First Day Coaching

On the first day that I was supposed to coach was quite interesting because I showed up to the school and I was informed that debate had been cancelled until a few days later. Therefore my actual first day of coaching was pushed back. On the day that I was able to actually start was quite a little intense due to the fact that I believe that we have one of the largest debate teams out of all the schools. However, by having 3 coaches on hand it did make it a bit more manageable since we were able to break the students up into smaller groups. Some challenges that we had was their excessive talking but we were able to manage and the size of the space to utilize.  Some highlights would be how knowledgeable these students are especially with the topic of Water and Sewerage Board.They were eager to begin talking about the things that need to be changed and how they should go about doing it. As well creating mini debate like conversations in their small groups.

What is Virtue?

After reading Meno we can conclude that they have no solid definition as to what virtue is similar to that of Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. In addition, the way the go about debating throughout this piece I would say is not a method that we particularly would want to teach to our middle school debaters. At times they both unclear about answering questions or providing information that would hold a valid standpoint. With that it would not be a good example to teach our debaters from since they fail to prove or address anyone’s points, which is a key part of debating.

Meno initially has the same questions as that in Nicomachean Ethics “...can virtue be taught? Or is it not  teachable but the result of practice or is it neither of these..” (Meno 871).With this this they are still trying to figure out how can one be considered having virtue or being virtuous. Until they are able to figure that out then one will still continue to have vague definitions as to what virtue is such as the one Meno  “the virtue of a man, it is easy to say that a man’s virtue consists of being able to manage public affairs and in so doing to benefit his friends and harm his enemies…..virtue of a woman, ...she must manage the hoe well, preserve its possessions, and be submissive to her husband…” (Meno 872).

On that note, based off of what has been stated throughout the text and those of previous readings one may be able to infer that virtue can be seen as a combination of wanting good as well as doing good. Therefore one must possess these actions in order to be deemed to have virtue. However, even this definition leaves room for debate because what one may define as good the other may not. Which makes this a very complex topic in the end to try and come up with one simple definition.

How effective are you?

In Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria Books 8-10 he begins to discuss his major points of the previous books. By doing so that allows for him to set his platform once again to tell us about the importance of the relationship between pupil and teacher. From there he goes on to talk about the required skills to be a successful and effective orator which can be applied for both teacher and student.

Furthermore, in order for one to be an effective orator one has to requires the ability to know how to  entertain and engage a crowd. In this sense the crowd would be the students. By doing so it allows for the students to become more indulged in what they do. So that when they are more experienced in what they know then they will be able to know that there isn’t only one way. Which begins to touch on how the energy of the students are focused. Therefore, if they aren’t necessary on the right track then it allows for misguidance to occur.

On that note, with this Quintilian states that it is “more difficult to decide what to teach than to teach it once you have decided” (Quintilian 311). By him saying this it shines light on how significant of a role one plays when it comes to the education of young adolescent mind. The young adolescent mind should have its energy focused into being “productive and mature dialogues”. Which makes me think about being a middle school debate coach. A lot of the main points Quintilian reiterates I will try to use in an effective manner so that I may develop a well rounded and a productive debater. So that they may know how to utilize all of the necessary skills that they have.

Science or Art?

To start I definitely agree with a lot of the things that my classmates have raised points about. Quite a few things of which were talked about in Quintilian’s Book II in Institutio Oratoria relates back to what Socrates talk about. “Rhetoric is the power of persuading...(What I call “power” many call “capacity”)” (Quintilian 351). Basically, having that ability or capacity allows for one to shift the frame for how they would like things to go. Which would definitely be of great necessity if you were in a situation like Socrates.

To go on he continues to focus a lot on the bond between teacher and pupil. Thus continuing to emphasize how much influence and importance this bond has and its ability to lead a student on the path to being virtuous and full of knowledge. Which leads me to talk about the second point that Quintilian focuses on whether or not rhetoric is more of a science or an art. Many of my classmates have touched on this topic and it is quite interesting to see their thoughts on this topic. With having to decide whether or not rhetoric or not leaves us with a little grey area in between because if we think about it in terms of debate you can utilize either way to deconstruct the argument at hand.

On that note, this relates to us coaching Middle School debate because for one we have to be the best teacher that we can be so that we may fill our students with knowledge. Also, it allows for us to figure out what the strengths and weakness of not only our students but ourselves asl well. So that we may have room to learn and improve for oneself and as a whole.

A Teacher-Student Bond

In Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria Book 2 he focuses on finding the balance on how one can be an ideal teacher. Oh look at here once again we strike up a conversation about finding a balance/mean on the spectrum with there being extrema on each end. Similar to that of which Aristotle talks about in terms of becoming or being overall virtuous. However, Quintilian is able to give a slightly more clear and understandable definition of what it is to be an ideal orator. In that he discusses the relationship that is shared between the teacher and his student. Which plays a significant role in the development because “as the teachers’ business is to teach, so theirs is to make themselves teachable. Neither is sufficient without the other.” (Quintilian 325).

Which leads me to talk about couple of those aspects that would qualify one to be such an ordained orator; “...they are properly taught, the pupils love and respect” (Quintilian 273). Thus basically being able to build a bond with one’s students will allow for a developing relationship, which can then influence or affect one’s ability to effectively learn.Thus by doing so it allows for clarity to be learned and entered into the picture and becoming one step closer to a sense of virtue. “Preserve the younger pupils from injury” (Quintilian 271), the teacher is able to know when it is beneficial to begin teaching or to continue teaching.

On that note, a lot of the things Quintilian mentions throughout book 1 and especially 2 apply to what we as coaches for a middle school debate team in some way, shape, or form will probably encounter or need to think about. In order for us to be a least a somewhat decent teacher/coach to these young and ever growing minds, we have to first immerse ourselves in knowledge that is beneficial to them. Then establish a bond so that they may make themselves eager learners  or  else “eloquence cannot develop unless teacher and learner work in harmony together” (Quintilian 325).

Now of course no route is ever simply easy to do anything in life. There may be a few bumps or hiccups in the road but as  a teacher this is something one would have to teach their learner. If not “the result is a swollen head and a very false idea of themselves” (Quintilian 273). Which reminds me of a colloquialism that I was told when I was younger “a hard head makes a soft bottom”. Which basically meant that if we didn’t follow our guidance that was given and we persisted on being difficult we would learn a lesson later on.   

Whose’s job is it to learn teacher or student?

In Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria he focuses primarily on the importance of teaching. We can definitely see this as a slight shift from what our previous readings were. “As soon as his son is born, the father should form the highest expectation of him” (Quintilian 65). Which makes me think of the psychology of the adolescent mind and how it can be looked at as a sponge absorbing everything it comes in contact with. Which makes sense as to why Quintilian would see it as necessary to begin with high expectations and teaching from the beginning.

On that note, Quintilian goes more into depth about how the process of teaching would need to be in order to have an effective impact. He also tends to focus more so on the specifics of the teacher rather than the student. Which places more emphasis on how important it is for “how the pupil’s mind should be handled” (Quintilian 99).

A few aspects of Institutio Oratoria still apply to the modern school system across the nation. However, there are differences that Quintilian would more than likely have a disagreement with due to the simply fact that they focus more on reaching goals(e.g., graduation rates, standardized testing, placement, etc) instead of producing students/young children that will grow up to great intellectual thinkers. Similar to that of “weaker teachers, conscious of their own defects, who cling to individual pupils” (Quintilian 91).

As many of my other classmates have stated this can definitely apply to our service learning aspect of the class which is to coach a middle school debate team. Although they are not necessarily the ideal age that Quintilian is referring to when he talks about starting to teach as a child. It can be inferred based off of prior knowledge of the Orleans Parish schools many of the students have not been exposed to debate. Therefore, there will be a lack of knowledge that we as coaches will have to account for and make up. Which makes perfect sense as to why this reading would be included as a course reading assignment. As it help aid in how effective our teaching as a coach can be or I can say should be.

On a side note, interestingly it makes me question whether if what Quintilian suggests was implemented into the education system across the nation and even before that how effective would it be in developing young intelligent intellectual pupils? Would our education system still be in the sense of shambles that is in certain areas? All one can do is wonder.

Virtuously virtuous to an extend or not…

From happiness to virtue. So now of these which is the ultimate end goal? Let’s see...

In Nicomachean Ethics Book II, Aristotle goes into great detail to define what virtue is which he initial draws attention to in Book I. When it comes to virtue we all have the potential to become more virtuous in our life. “Nature gives us the capacity to acquire them…”(1103a 23). Briefly, virtue is derived from the Greek word arete, which means excellence. Aristotle states that it comes in two forms,  “that of intellect and that of character (ethos)” (1103a 23).

The initial would be that acquired by instruction and the secondary (moral one) would be that acquired from habit/practice. Aristotle argues that all have the capacity to acquire both forms of virtue regardless of birth status unlike in Book I. Anywho, in order to actually acquire both one must exert habitation. Meaning that a person of virtue does not only just think about what would bring good to the world, but actually performs actions that would bring about that good they want. Which in a sense relates to the quote “faith without work is dead” and in relation to Buddhism “ if you can’t change the world, then change what you have control over” (Gowan).

Aristotle proposes that there are three criteria to distinguish who is virtuous: that anyone who is virtuous behave in a manner that they know is right, the second criteria is to behave in that just manner because it is what is best to be virtuous, and three is a virtuous disposition.

On that note, how can this be related to the ideal person of everyday life? If one honestly thinks about it, it is quite complex in the sense that the mere person is nearly always seen as imperfect as a few of my other peers have agreed and mentioned. So if we look at it for face value as Aristotle gives it to us than in actually it would be merely impossible for anyone to ever be virtuous. Yet then again it can be looked at on spectrum which Aristotle somewhat does by talking about having a somewhat balance between “deficiency” and “excess”. Thus by being on a spectrum it allows for there to be room for error when one is trying to walk down the path of virtuousness.

Happy or just plain wealthy?

Many people simply just want to be seen as good in life, because being good in life means that you have reached one of the greatest peaks of all in your life or life in general. Simply because of the fact that not many have been able to walk down that path that you have and achieved this validation of being good. So in order for one to be ultimately good then one would have reach happiness. So in that case what is true happiness? That's a great question!

In Book One of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle is not quite clear in the methods is chooses to use when he talks about the science of politics being superior to the other sciences because they all fall under it. As well as what is the purpose of the human life. Also, if we think about Plato's Crito, Aristotle does not necessarily use the same approach as Crito or Socrates does. We can see this because of how he chooses to precisely ask questions using reasoning to get to the point of what is "good", but not in a way that would make us automatically agree with him. " For while the good of an individual is a desirable thing, what is good for a people of for cities is nobler and more godlike thing" (4). In a sense he is saying that it is best that you look out in the interest of the group or city versus one's self. From the many can begin to think that he was thinking like a communist, etc.

However, Aristotle then goes on to say "happiness obviously needs the presence of external goods as well..." (14). Which makes him seem as though he is classist. Quite interestingly it is surprising because it resonates with society today. Many people want to reach the ultimate goal/end which would be happiness. Now the way to achieve that may come in may paths. Yet Aristotle interesting states something that can be taken as a general assumption, which most people already take it as. That based on where you born it is unlikely that you will be truly happy. But in actuality it tends to be those that find the ultimate goal of happiness before others because they don't link materialistic things to or as a means of happiness. Which is greater that any social class barrier.

On that note, it in a sense can be seen that one should be virtuous and that can coincide with the end goal of happiness.

Let’s debate? Or not!

Just to touch basis briefly in Plato's Apology we were to see Socrates fail at what it seems to be an attempt to make an apology which in the end does the exact opposite. Which is how it gets us to where we are now in Plato's Crito with Socrates awaiting his final judgement of execution in his prison cell.

Now in Aristotle's Topics, he begins to outline the tactics and logic which can or should be used in dialectical contests (debate). If we reflect we can see that quite a few of these methods are things that Socrates used in Plato's Apology. In addition, we can see Crito try to implement these methods as a tactic to convince Socrates to escape. Similar to Socrates, Crito tries to "...but instead it is through them that you should try to build up your argument and devise questions" (Aristotle 155b).He can be seen trying to appeal to Socrates using ethos, pathos, and logos even though the attempt was in the end unsuccessful. He does this through by stating "you are betraying your sons by going away and leaving them..." (Crito 45d).

On that note, with Crito's arguments ranging from Socrates' disgracing his friends to abandoning his own children to the Laws of Athens. Socrates in a sense still seems a bit unwilling agree with what Crito suggests. He begins to personify the Laws of Athens " if we were planning to run away from here, or whatever one should call it, the  laws and the state came and confronted us an asked: Tell me, Socrates, what are you..." (Crito 50b). By him doing this he is comparing in the sense as if he were to do something wrong to a person. He simply implies that evading the law, unjust, wrongdoing, or doing harm to a person falls all in the same category. Which ends up solidifying his choice not to leave.

Also, briefly it is quite interesting to me that when it in a time of most importance for both Socrates and Crito to succeed they both are unsuccessful at achieving their goal to convince the other party involved. In addition, in today's society you can still see a lot of these tactics used in debate and especially with lawyer or laws in general.

Apology or Defense?

Before I begin many of my fellow classmates agree that Socrates does not necessarily apologize but more so begins to debate why he he should not be on trial and chooses to do the things he does. They also talk about his debate style particularly that he is neither overly emotional or complex in his way of speaking even in a setting that he is more than likely unfamiliar with. "And I must beg of you to grant me a favour:--If  defend myself in my accustomed manner..." (1). In addition, his honesty he shows despite the  circumstance at hand.

On that note, all throughout society we are taught from the start as a young child that when we do something wrong we are told to say an apology. By doing so it will show our emotion/feelings and also evoke that in others. Interestingly the word apology is derived from the Greek word apologia, which means to “to speak in one’s defense”. In Plato's Apology, we as readers are able to see how Socrates' apology or I should say more so defense is used to aid in his greatest moments which can determine life or death for him in this case. In this setting Socrates is seen as "an evildoer...who searches things under the earth and in heaven, and he makes the worse appear the better cause" (7). He is seen is this light merely because he chose to follow the will of the Gods but it somewhat rubs a few Athenians the wrong way.

Which leads me to question the legitimacy as to why Socrates is actually on trial. Because if it is in fact for him not believing in the Gods of the state that is actually quite ironic. Simply because Socrates states "necessity is laid upon me:'I must obey God rather than man.'" (24). Which means he puts the will of God(s) before any man because they are of higher power. Therefore, the fingers all point towards his accusers who ultimately put him in this situation due to the fact that they lack the awareness of their knowledge as Socrates does. However, in the end it seems as though Socrates chose his fate because he does not fear death and he chooses not to evoke empathy from the judges by having others there to help make his case.