“I’ll begin in 3,2,1…”
So panel, through the course of this article I’d like to build my case on what seems to be the idea of debating versus what it comes out to be. What I essentially mean by the term ‘debating’ is the homework that goes into it, other than the practice and people themselves. I’d like to structure my work in a way that first features the characterization/ background and further encapsulates it through arguments.
One of the first experiences that I remember of college was my orientation for the debating society. It started with the members giving us a small and playful illustration of what a debate looked like, it ended with one side heckling about why they didn’t win. P.S. The motion being THBT(this house believes that) blue lays are better than green lays.
Although I came with the mindset that the possibility of world war 3 will be discussed, the blue lays supremacy took my margin of victory, and rightfully so. Seniors were gods to me, these were the people that I wanted to imbibe, the people that I wanted to be. A word out of their mouth, and I’d be the first person to believe it. After the auditions and introductions, the debate was a war zone, the motion: terrain, and my speech: the weapon.
Romanticizing the whole trial feels empowering when you think of yourself on the lofty perch for those pre-decided minutes, where you get to tell the story and reaffirm your ideals. Just like any other skill, debating takes time, you won’t be able to paint a landscape without knowing how to hold your brush first. The satisfaction and drive emanate after accepting a few virtues of what debating stands to be.
“Turns out, it’s a Lifestyle.”
How do these 7 or so minutes spiral into a lifestyle exactly? Acquiring a skill usually means adding to your personality as a whole, a ‘plus’ to put into practice if and when needed. At least that’s what I thought initially. Turns out, debating seeps into your mannerisms, jargon, and thought process to the point you view a conversation with your friends as a debate and their counter questions as POIs (Point of Information). Gossips are assertions, disagreements are rebuttals, and thinking about the topic: case prep.
You won’t notice your thought process transpiring into a mechanized hierarchy of prioritizing what you and what you don’t. Your first instinct to any piece of information present is to critically analyze it and store it into the analogy shelf of your brain so it can be used to exemplify any argument in the future. Further re-iterating my team’s stance, it’s a lifestyle.
“Scrambled worldview integrated into an analysis, not an ideology”
It’s not about what you debate, it’s how. Ideologies don’t impel your case lines, and neither do facts. Analysis does. Stating great theories of economists, philosophers or keeping a thesaurus handy will do nothing to align your worldview or your speech. It will always be about how you explain things and make sense out of them.
When you come to think of it, the skill is somehow about being aware of the happenings, the characteristics of the echo-chamber we’re living in, although a human encyclopedia doesn’t translate into a good debater. Why and How comparatives are answered by the mechanization you conduct to prove your stance, making your worldview, however skewed it may be, into a sound statement and verdict.
“Debating is just bluffing”
You don’t debate what you believe in, you debate what’s given to you, you defend whatever side has been given to you. Doesn’t matter if it’s morally wrong, exists in vacuum or just won’t be beneficial in general, for eg: THP (the house prefers) a world where religion is prioritized over poverty. It’s not about believing in the stance that you’ve been given, it’s believing in what you say to defend it. Self validation is what drives this skill, not belief. Bluffing the panel into conceding to your worldview automatically means either side owns the debate.
“Case lines and Constructives”
Debating allows one to think about a particular situation or topic, that you would have not thought about otherwise. With themes ranging from pop culture to minorities, it makes you reflect on a variety of opposed ideas at the same time and still retain the ability to function soundly. Not to mention, the thinking-on-your-feet aspect of it. Intimidating as it is at first, one cannot help but manipulate how they’re going to portray their speech rather than focusing on how the case lines are to be presented.
Speech style and fancy jargon have little to no role to play other than delivering the content of your speech. Getting your point across still remains the primary concern of the debater. If a case is a building, the constructives are the bricks and the style is the paint – it won’t matter if the building isn’t concrete itself.
The far side i.e. the other side of this skill that usually isn’t visible is well in front of your eyes. And right after crossing these bridges, you’ll be at the starting point of the competitive circuit, well-articulated reasonings, and the shades and aesthetics of debating.