In article <6nja4n$2ku$1 at Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, finch at MCS.COM (Deirdre
Sholto-Douglas) wrote:
> The goal in confronting a student is only partially to teach them
> to think critically, the rest is to give them experience in
> arguing logically and dispassionately. To teach them to *listen*
> to what their opponent is saying and argue the points...to *not*
> respond from the gut, but rather, from the intellect. People
> who have not been exposed to 'trial by fire' tend to have a nasty
> habit of either breaking down or freezing up when they're suddenly
> hit with something outside their experience. Neither response
> does their reputation any good.
Non-confrontational does not mean the absence of debate; it infers more
about the style used. Confronting a student with meanness just results in
the questioner being considered a jerk by the majority of the audience.
> Conversely, an individual who argues strongly, logically and
> is capable of calmly answering or disproving their opponent will
> not only make their intellectual presence felt, but they will
> probably earn the respect of their opponent as well.
The same can be done in a non-confrontational style. These are not
mutually exclusive.
B. Martin
