We Debate, Therefore We Are

四川外语学院 陶曦、张卓、银伟

    From Dec 27, 2004 to Jan 4, 2005, 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, 14 rounds, together with 930 participants of 312 teams from 256 famous universities around the world (including Oxford, Cambridge, Yale and Harvard), learning more about the art of rational debating, representing Sichuan International Studies University and China after winning the runner-up of FLTRP CUP National English Debating Competition, we, Sichuan A, unprecedentedly survived the preliminary 9 rounds in the sense that we did not quit in the middle of the championship no matter how hard it was, and that we achieved the highest rank ever as Chinese students debating in the World Universities Debating Championship (of the 312 teams, we ranked 219).

    The 9-day debating experience was more than special, if not dramatic, our hard journey keeping pretty company with dramatic discussion about us within professional adjudicators for the 3 days of the preliminary rounds. The comments on our performance varied day by day: On the first day, we were regarded as complete amateurs, who made those honorable adjudicators shake their head, “Without clearly knowing the rules, without knowing how to give case extensions, and without any experience in British Parliamentary Debate, you, Sichuan A, came to the Worlds!” They were absolutely right on that point---we were amateurs. However, one day later, a positive statement came out from Deputy Chief Adjudicator Kevin when he was speaking to our chair of the sixth round, “Go to Sichuan A’s debate and come back to tell us how you think of those two speakers” As far as we were concerned, those words opened the new chapter where our progresses, Chinese debaters’ progress were seen----we were debating under the western rules, in the western style, in a western language and we were learning so fast that even the native speakers were impressed. Afterwards, at the end of the third day, although we regretted that we were only 3 points away from our goals of breaking into the quarterfinal, we knew our efforts were not made in vain when we heard the following statement for an adjudicator, “Sichuan A? That is a good one”. Again they were absolutely right.

    Calm thinking lies beyond the excitement for progress and remorse for failures. Worlds Universities’ Debating Championship, a game of logic, knowledge and response, is by no means similar to the word games we used to play. The core principles of the debating itself---Matter and Manner are critical goals that every debater should seek to fulfill.

    In terms of Matters, it refers to the content of the speech, or the arguments a debater uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience, including reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other material that attempts to further the case. It is no easy task for Chinese students, for the motions of the Worlds cover a wide range of fields, most of which are I. R. (International Relations) issues. Examples are: This house would attack North Korea. This house believes that Malaysia would recognize the state of Israel. This house believes that EU should open its door to North Africa. This house believes that NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) should include South America. This house believes that anti-terrorism is new McCarthyism. There are also social issues which draw the world’s concern, such as the issue of AIDS (This house would force people with HIV to disclose their conditions to any sexual partner.), the issue of legalization of prostitution (This house would not intervene between bedroom sheets.), organ transplantation (This house would prioritize organ transplant to those who lead healthy lifestyles.), and the right of Celebrities (This house would have harsher sentences for celebrity criminals.); and also a culture-reloaded issue on vocational training (This house would not teach vocational studies at university). It may seem that some Chinese debaters know something about everything, but that is far from being enough. The Worlds requires us to know nearly everything about everything.

    In terms of matter, it refers to the presentation of the speech. It is includes both the style and structure a member uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience. Here what we would like to share with other Chinese debaters is that special attention must be given to improve the way of thinking when constructing and deconstructing a debate. During a debate, what westerners do in practice are as follows: they focus on one or two specific points and provide detailed case studies, including exact data and descriptions of the facts, similar to what lawyers do in court, whereas we Chinese debaters usually prefer to begin with theoretical analysis and broad definitions, without providing specific case studies and clear demonstration. Debating would be perfect if debaters could cover each and every part of the issue. However, in the debating competition with limited time, it is more important to probe one point downright before moving on to another.

    As to the element of style, it includes eye contact, voice modulation, hand gestures, language, the use of notes and any other element that may affect the effectiveness of the presentation of the member. In the Worlds, it is only natural to see diverse manners in the debates, for debaters come from different parts of the world. However, what we saw was a massive copy of the western style, almost the same but not quite. People call for individuality—the distinctive feature of each individual at a time when individuality is on the verge of extinction. The case is the same with the Worlds, and that is why the handbook of the Worlds intends to encourage different debating styles by stating that diverse manners in debating should be considered appropriate. Nevertheless, it is sad to see that in the Worlds, those non-westerners are being gradually assimilated or rather, being made almost the same, but not quite as the westerners, blindly following the suit. The problem is serious enough when culture diversity is faced up to be wiped out; and people’s unawareness of the situation will make the problem even more serious than ever. So here we would like to stress that appropriate manners should mean respect for the debaters, their diverse individuality and culture, because the ultimate aim of our debating is to preserve our freedom.

    This year we were halted by our failure, but our efforts are by no means over, as long as we are clear in mind, as long as we carry on. We persist with learning, therefore we survive; we persist with debating based on what we have learnt, therefore we are.