By Tony Samson
DEBATING rules require two sides to argue an assigned proposition, taking the affirmative or negative position and propounding its merits; or, tearing down the arguments being proffered by the other team, even resorting to ad hominem attacks — it is clear from your arguments that you are not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. This kind of sarcasm leads to a deduction of points.
These days, debates are seldom staged, except in academic settings. Note that the last televised presidential debates turned out to be too scripted, rehearsed, and boring (you have three minutes to answer that), with zero effect on the election results. Win the debate and you lose the election. Articulate expressions on the state of the economy tend to alienate the voters.
These days, there are no rules for discord. Debates have taken the place of conversation in social gatherings, blogs, columns, and tweets. There’s really no effort to persuade one side to switch his opinion. Even in social or traditional media, the tendency is to follow only those who hold the same opinion that is already fully formed. Anyway, the arguments are not intended to sway critics, only to add more reasons to dig in.
It is refreshing to find in the expected alleluia chorus some voices of dissent. In the proposition of the day to change the charter (previously also designated as a dance number, the cha-cha) the gasp of disbelief from the legislative panel in a contrarian position from the choir, so straightforwardly declared (absolutely!) did not invite a bolt of lightning from the top. Nor was there a back-pedaling clarification the day after — Did I mishear the question? Absolutely.
Instead, there was a soothing assurance that the issue was open to debate.
There was no gauntlet thrown down by the authors of the draft to invite critics to a televised discussion. One opted to throw a tantrum asking the school principal to discipline the dissenters. Probably there was a problem of who would constitute the panel for taking the affirmative side — “the working constitution should be radically altered, just for the heck of it.” Will the designated communicator join the group of defenders and rub elbows with legal luminaries? Maybe the age gap would be too jarring and make the scene a bit too biblical — like Susanna and the elders.
Anyway, it is not even certain if all the commissioners that drafted the document are in the same canoe, paddling in the same direction. In the photo op turning over their thesis to the teacher, the participants did not all look like successful climbers planting the flag at the top of Everest. At least one of them looked lost with a what-am-I-doing-here smirk on his face. Okay, maybe he just bit into the remnants of the tocino for breakfast.
Because the subject is boring to begin with, except for the consequences it is likely to visit like the plague, most people will probably not even engage in a debate. The challenge is easy to throw at the critics’ faces — have you even read the draft? No sir, it is not at the top of my to-do list, higher only in importance to cleaning the attic. Anyway, I still have a pile of unread books, thank you.
But how can you have an opinion on something you don’t understand? Okay, I don’t need to taste monkey brain extracted from a live animal under the table to know that I prefer to have mushroom soup. It is enough to get a few details of the draft to know that I will not be one with Susanna. Anyway, that poor girl has been too maligned. Psst…she’s helping our side.
Debate is part of freedom of speech. One can hold a contrary opinion as long as I’m not forced to have lunch with him. It’s not healthy to secrete bile on an empty stomach. Besides, lunch needs to be pleasant and done in good company. One does not need to be always in agreement with a dining companion, only to allow a free flow of ideas in a spirit of camaraderie.
Does being negative undermine civility? That is open to debate.
Tony Samson is chairman and CEO, TOUCH xda
ar.samson@yahoo.com
