To the Editor:

Re “A Threat to Political Discourse?” (Sunday Review, Oct. 13):

Prof. Jonathan Ellis and Francesca Hovagimian, a law student, argue that “ s chool debate ultimately strengthens and rewards biased reasoning” and might contribute to today’s close-minded political discourse.

As a former debater whose life and entire way of thinking were changed through debate, I want to offer a rebuttal. In most formats, debaters approach each round not knowing which side they’re going to defend. As a result, they need to research and find evidence to support both sides. From a critical thinking perspective, this exposes debaters to a variety of perspectives and teaches them that there can be multiple valid sides to an issue, a value that is sorely lacking in much of the ad hominem political discourse seen today.

Within a round, debaters also learn how to engage an issue at the intellectual and evidentiary levels. They cannot win by resorting to personal attacks or merely dismissing an issue, an unfortunate trend that has become commonplace.

Finally, debaters learn how to persuade a wide audience of people, from professional debate judges to community members.