I'm going to write an excerpt from my journal (Yes, I did keep one. Actually, I have several journals spanning the time I got over chicken pox until the time I discovered blogging). It involves me ranting at how overrated debating is and is, admittedly, a bit long-winded (and would probably require more editing). Still, I liked the fact that this excerpt marked one of my truer and utterly spontaneous expressions of opinion. Here goes:
Storya ta ug debating. Kay kasagaran man gud sa amua mga newbies ug uban pang mga BT employees from Mindanao kay naay debating experience or naay kaila na naga-debate. Like si Kit, si Pansit. They were debaters man. And sina Lea ug si Uael...Anyways, I really am impressed how the art of the debating has made many English-fluent speakers of us all. Daghan siya ug tabang when it comes to improving the communication skills and strengthening the logic-related capacities of our students. Pero I still think that there is something not quite right with the discipline. Just like everything else in life, such as sports, career and unsa pa man dira, debating fosters competition, not cooperation. Sure, for all its worth, debating is the best training ground perhaps for future eloquent and "systematic" speakers. But it shouldn't be the be-all and the and-all (ambut lang jud kung tama akong paghuram sa cliche, anyway). There must be an art higher than debating, an art of speaking which addresses a deeper and more sincere human instinct. Siguro a lot will balk and say na debating isn't purely competition, na in any debating event, camarederie and goodwill is achieved because rival schools get to meet each other and any debating event becomes an opportunity to foster friendship. But I'm not talking about that (although that's a valid point). What I'm targeting is the process of debating itself. It is fiercely competitive and it must be for that is what debating is. "Cede no ground", "Never give in", "Chop them to pieces", "Destroy their case". These can be the slogans of debating which bear striking similarities to battle cries in battlefields of ages past. Debating is war. It seeks to divide, to entrench communities into two polar positions with no hope for a middle ground. Kay in debating, once you think of a middle ground, a merger between your opponent's side and yours, you lose. And this mentality is what I don't like about debating. Maayo sana kung sa debating proper lang ni mag-surface pero, unfortunately again, this mentality makes itself manifest in other situations as well. I've seen a lot of students exposed to debating and they make debating their life. Some debaters love arguing and love to be confrontational. Kung naa gani tao na lahi ang opinion, argument dayun. Call it friendly debate but I call it unhealthy, neurotic even. Imagine two people arguing, debating on an issue for ten minutes or more tapos afterwards, walay resolution kay both are firmly rooted to their own opinions and belief systems because both have been defending their sides resolutely. Stupid, mind-numbing exercise. There must be something better than this. And I think there is. In the Business World, they call it negotiation, the art of negotiating. Where two parties with their own respective, vested interests strike out an agreement that benefits both. Ambut lang ha. Dili man gud ko Business Administration major, AB-English man gud ko, so I don't know if there's a class of negotiation skills in college...Basically, obviously diay, negotiation is also part-debating. Two sides argue pero in negotiating, both parties attempt to craft a win-win agreement (balik-balik na lang). Kani ang ganahan nako. Cooperation, the human drive to bond and create relationships instead of divisions. This is what debating fails to address. But the question is, how do we transplant the art of negotiating to an academic and controllable atmosphere?
Written on June 29, 2008 inside the Casibang compound (or was this in Market Market?)
Storya ta ug debating. Kay kasagaran man gud sa amua mga newbies ug uban pang mga BT employees from Mindanao kay naay debating experience or naay kaila na naga-debate. Like si Kit, si Pansit. They were debaters man. And sina Lea ug si Uael...Anyways, I really am impressed how the art of the debating has made many English-fluent speakers of us all. Daghan siya ug tabang when it comes to improving the communication skills and strengthening the logic-related capacities of our students. Pero I still think that there is something not quite right with the discipline. Just like everything else in life, such as sports, career and unsa pa man dira, debating fosters competition, not cooperation. Sure, for all its worth, debating is the best training ground perhaps for future eloquent and "systematic" speakers. But it shouldn't be the be-all and the and-all (ambut lang jud kung tama akong paghuram sa cliche, anyway). There must be an art higher than debating, an art of speaking which addresses a deeper and more sincere human instinct. Siguro a lot will balk and say na debating isn't purely competition, na in any debating event, camarederie and goodwill is achieved because rival schools get to meet each other and any debating event becomes an opportunity to foster friendship. But I'm not talking about that (although that's a valid point). What I'm targeting is the process of debating itself. It is fiercely competitive and it must be for that is what debating is. "Cede no ground", "Never give in", "Chop them to pieces", "Destroy their case". These can be the slogans of debating which bear striking similarities to battle cries in battlefields of ages past. Debating is war. It seeks to divide, to entrench communities into two polar positions with no hope for a middle ground. Kay in debating, once you think of a middle ground, a merger between your opponent's side and yours, you lose. And this mentality is what I don't like about debating. Maayo sana kung sa debating proper lang ni mag-surface pero, unfortunately again, this mentality makes itself manifest in other situations as well. I've seen a lot of students exposed to debating and they make debating their life. Some debaters love arguing and love to be confrontational. Kung naa gani tao na lahi ang opinion, argument dayun. Call it friendly debate but I call it unhealthy, neurotic even. Imagine two people arguing, debating on an issue for ten minutes or more tapos afterwards, walay resolution kay both are firmly rooted to their own opinions and belief systems because both have been defending their sides resolutely. Stupid, mind-numbing exercise. There must be something better than this. And I think there is. In the Business World, they call it negotiation, the art of negotiating. Where two parties with their own respective, vested interests strike out an agreement that benefits both. Ambut lang ha. Dili man gud ko Business Administration major, AB-English man gud ko, so I don't know if there's a class of negotiation skills in college...Basically, obviously diay, negotiation is also part-debating. Two sides argue pero in negotiating, both parties attempt to craft a win-win agreement (balik-balik na lang). Kani ang ganahan nako. Cooperation, the human drive to bond and create relationships instead of divisions. This is what debating fails to address. But the question is, how do we transplant the art of negotiating to an academic and controllable atmosphere?
1 comment:
Do you normally do away with paragraph breaks in your journal entries, Pao?
Post a Comment