been held, it is doubtful that participation in debates that occur in such forums is
built on a sufficient understanding of the issue at hand. There also appear to be cases
when debate is based only on information that fits the administration’s agenda. The
information is simplified, and any exchange of views is debate in name only,
without substance. It is necessary to look for effective ways to discuss issues to
make such workshops and public debates productive and to change the explanatory
meetings from superficial gesturing into something more substantive.
Moreover, in spite of the fact that many of the social problems we face are not
just a concern for now, but also for the future, many of those interested in social
issues and who vote in elections are elderly. Listening to the voices of the elderly is,
of course, important, but, for a healthy democracy, it is necessary for young people
to engage in debate and be involved in making decisions that affect their society.
But how can such engagement by young people be promoted? The way that the
author would like to suggest in this chapter is through debating lessons in school.
In a narrow sense, debate can be defined as follows: “discussion on a specific
issue involving two groups of speakers, with one group taking a position of
supporting the topic and the other arguing against it. Each of the groups seeks to
persuade a third party.” [1] (e.g., Yomiuri Shimbun 2013:2). Many of the topics for
discussion are chosen from policy issues. To encourage participants to approach an
issue from new and multiple perspectives, they are allocated (usually by the
teacher) to either one of the groups, that is, they do not choose for themselves
which side of the issue to support. This chapter describes a case study of a debating
course, taught by the author, and examines its effects and any issues that emerged.
Aimed at undergraduate students in a university, the topic of debate in the course
was “the problem of high-level atomic waste disposal.”
25.1.3 Deciding the Topic
The founding of the All Japan Educational Debate Association, of which the author
is a committee member, was the catalyst for a national debating contest, which was
started in the Tokai, or central region, of Japan. This contest, having been sponsored
for some years by Chubu Electric Power Company, debates energy-related issues.
High school students have faced each other over topics such as “Japan should
abandon nuclear power: for or against?”; “Television broadcasting time in Japan
should be limited to save energy: for or against?” Although the topic of energy, as
well as many other policy issues, needs to be thought about by the next generation,
it is just such issues that the younger generation does not appear eager to tackle face
on. This is where debate, with its game-like, competitive element can serve an
important role. In the context of debate, young people have been shown to engage
seriously with such issues.
With this in mind, the author organized a debate for her class of university
students. They debated the following motion, suggested originally by Chiba
University’s Assistant Professor, Daisuke Fujikawa: Japan should scrap the plan
25 Considering the Geological Disposal Program of High-Level Radioactive. . .
291
built on a sufficient understanding of the issue at hand. There also appear to be cases
when debate is based only on information that fits the administration’s agenda. The
information is simplified, and any exchange of views is debate in name only,
without substance. It is necessary to look for effective ways to discuss issues to
make such workshops and public debates productive and to change the explanatory
meetings from superficial gesturing into something more substantive.
Moreover, in spite of the fact that many of the social problems we face are not
just a concern for now, but also for the future, many of those interested in social
issues and who vote in elections are elderly. Listening to the voices of the elderly is,
of course, important, but, for a healthy democracy, it is necessary for young people
to engage in debate and be involved in making decisions that affect their society.
But how can such engagement by young people be promoted? The way that the
author would like to suggest in this chapter is through debating lessons in school.
In a narrow sense, debate can be defined as follows: “discussion on a specific
issue involving two groups of speakers, with one group taking a position of
supporting the topic and the other arguing against it. Each of the groups seeks to
persuade a third party.” [1] (e.g., Yomiuri Shimbun 2013:2). Many of the topics for
discussion are chosen from policy issues. To encourage participants to approach an
issue from new and multiple perspectives, they are allocated (usually by the
teacher) to either one of the groups, that is, they do not choose for themselves
which side of the issue to support. This chapter describes a case study of a debating
course, taught by the author, and examines its effects and any issues that emerged.
Aimed at undergraduate students in a university, the topic of debate in the course
was “the problem of high-level atomic waste disposal.”
25.1.3 Deciding the Topic
The founding of the All Japan Educational Debate Association, of which the author
is a committee member, was the catalyst for a national debating contest, which was
started in the Tokai, or central region, of Japan. This contest, having been sponsored
for some years by Chubu Electric Power Company, debates energy-related issues.
High school students have faced each other over topics such as “Japan should
abandon nuclear power: for or against?”; “Television broadcasting time in Japan
should be limited to save energy: for or against?” Although the topic of energy, as
well as many other policy issues, needs to be thought about by the next generation,
it is just such issues that the younger generation does not appear eager to tackle face
on. This is where debate, with its game-like, competitive element can serve an
important role. In the context of debate, young people have been shown to engage
seriously with such issues.
With this in mind, the author organized a debate for her class of university
students. They debated the following motion, suggested originally by Chiba
University’s Assistant Professor, Daisuke Fujikawa: Japan should scrap the plan
25 Considering the Geological Disposal Program of High-Level Radioactive. . .
291