August Blog Post

Dialogic Communication and Competitive Debate

Dialogic communication is difficult in almost every interaction, however when we mix communication and competition, it becomes almost impossible. Dialogic communication is engagement with someone in communication instead of on or for someone. Dialogic communication is all about interactions with dialogue. The characteristics of dialogic communication are an emphasis on shared conversation, an open-ended attitude, focus, and being in the present. The end goal is to build a relationship between the communicators.

The weaponization of communication in competitive debate leaves no room for dialogic communication. Most debaters would say that they debate to learn, but ultimately the end goal of a debate is to win. Debaters use words to fight, and whoever puts up the best fight and either speaks the best or has the most compelling arguments wins. Debaters do not go into a debate to have dialogue. Not only does the competition drive away dialogue, but debate is a roleplaying activity. Roleplaying requires the participant to speak for or on someone, which is the opposite of dialogic communication. It also requires using those experiences and statistics about other people’s experiences as a tool to beat someone else. There isn’t usually very much conversation about what the statistics or anecdotes in debate actually mean. Overall, debate turns experiences of others into weapons to use against other people and forces debaters to speak for people instead of with. The characteristics of dialogic communication are also pretty absent in competitive debate. The conversation in a debate round is not shared. It is structured where only certain people in the room get to speak during their turn. It also ends after a short amount of time, leaving some with more to say. Debaters don’t go into a round with an open-ended attitude, they go in closed and determined to prove that they are right so that they will win. The focus is there in the activity, but it is focus on speaking for others and winning. Competitors in debate do not live in the present, as they are looking forward to do they best they can to move to the out rounds, and eventually winning. The end goal of debate is to win, not to build relationships.

This is important because people who debate are shaped by the activity. When you learn that weaponizing experiences and speaking for others is okay, you lose a lot of ability to have a real dialogue with someone. It turns debaters into communicators that are always trying to win instead of trying to learn.