By: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Adelina Asmawi
Anwar Ibrahim, Syed Saddiq, Mohd Rafizi, and Khairy Jamaluddin have something in common – they are leaders who were debaters. They were accomplished debaters in school and university, before moving on to the political arena. In the international scene, President Lyndon Johnson, also a debater, led his university’s debate team before entering into roles as a U.S. representative, senator, Senate Majority Leader, and Vice President, finally succeeding Kennedy in the USA.
Another debater, Reagan, also known as the Great Communicator, delivered a rebuttal against President Jimmy Carter that began with the now famous phrase, “There you go again” and completed his win with the question, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” – made President in the end.
Debates are an integral part of both the political process and higher academia. It is designed to allow both sides of the coin to be presented equally in terms of time and the ability to respond to counterpoints.
As the 48th Prime Minister’s Challenge Trophy Debate Competition 2023 final round has just completed in July with the finals scheduled to be held in September 2023, let’s open a window for others to peep into the Malaysian schools’ debate scene.
Firstly, these debaters debate about almost everything! This means a lifestyle change where reading is required almost 24/7. Topics range from science, technology, philosophy, economics, geopolitics, law, social rights, and pop culture. A typical debater spends about 5-8 hours per week training. This may be doubled leading to big debating competitions. Training means, reading, sparring with team mates and club members, organizing online friendly matches with other schools, competing in public debate competitions for experience and refinement of debating skills, and even visiting the parliament and meeting senators to observe how the parliamentary debate works.
Like in every other sport, there is no short cut to success, in debate too, there is only endless hard work – a lifestyle of no slacking.
Secondly, the beauty of debating from a school age is that it polishes and produces critical thinkers and confident advocates earlier. It creates leaders who are tolerant amidst diversity, with a wider perspective on issues and a strength of mind to react in a mature manner to differences in opinions. This is because debates allow for a more well-rounded exploration of a subject. As both sides of an issue are presented, any potential bias that a single presenter may have is effectively countered by the opposing arguments. The fact that these sides are presented in a peaceful manner is also a major advantage to settling disagreements through debating, as debates replace aggression and confrontation with reason and logic.
Thirdly, debate has also become a pedagogic approach for teachers in school. Research has shown that students who were assisted and encouraged to debate as a study method were able to present their arguments better in essay form compared to peers who did not. This could be because the process of debate forces each individual debater to fully understand and organize his topic in a way that is not only clear to himself but also expressed just as clearly to others. Researchers thus concluded that this study method allowed students to better understand opposing and various viewpoints, identify faulty logic and weigh evidences.
However, circumstances have appeared where debate may not just be useless but downright counterproductive. This is especially true in issues such as racism or other hate-related topics where debating someone just gives a platform to offensive or harmful views. Although rules and regulations prohibit such motions to be presented to these school children, there have been cases, fresh too, of these rules being broken. In May 2023, a national debating competition organized by a reputable public university in Selangor has coerced debaters to moot LGBT when at finals, school debaters had to propose and oppose this motion: This House as the LGBT movement, would oppose the use of neo-pronouns. There was no way around this motion for the students as both began with ‘This House as the LGBT movement…would oppose or propose”. As a witness to this debacle, a few questions came to mind, Why this motion? Why at the finals? Why feed this into the children’s mouth?
A similar national debate competition recently held up north also had a motion on ethnicity that caused discomfort among school debaters at Octo final round. Haven’t we learned from history? In 2013, there was a motion that was about the election of a pope which caused a furore in Malaysia. Of course, it is understood that debaters debate even the most controversial issues, and challenge their own beliefs as their job is to keep questioning and challenging the mind. However, such motions are worthless and shouldn’t be debated at all because they give credence to issues that otherwise would not be in the spotlight. They are worthless issues that impose values and cultures which are not for Malaysian students, what more potential leaders. With such incidents, it is important for debate organizers to be absolutely thorough with screening of motions for debates among school children and youth.
Another issue that is worth highlighting is the very subjective manner in which debate is adjudicated. There needs to be trustworthiness in the adjudication process and procedures. Although there are guidelines in place, these can be further improved for quality adjudication and fair judgement. To cut things short, first, adjudicators should sign a declaration like an examiner does before examining at universities. At nationals, school teachers are appointed as adjudicators. While their knowledge and skills are undeniable, it is rampant that school teachers know each other. They are friends with teachers from the competitor schools or have a son or daughter from a competing school. The declaration would allow the adjudicator-teachers to acknowledge this and simply not take part should they be placed in an unfair competition scenario. Next is to have five adjudicators at knock out rounds. Knock out rounds are when the accumulated points each debate team has acquired are no longer counted. The case would be when the Top 16 debate teams compete in a knock out round for the selection of the best eight teams. At such a gruelling stage, with only three adjudicators, there have been cases of 1-2 jury votes and clear subjectivity present in the results leading to the better team losing. The practice of having five adjudicators in quarter finals through to finals should be extended to the knock rounds as well to ensure reduction of subjectivity. Third is to record all crucial debate rounds. In school national debate competitions, no photography or video recording of any session is allowed. Organizers then, should record these sessions for the purpose of reference should there be any contest or refute from competing teams. Upon request, should there be any raised issues on the results, a review of the recording by neutral parties would improve the quality of adjudication procedures. Finally, feedback should be provided to both teams for all sessions as practiced at most international debate competitions. This helps them improve their knowledge on technicalities as well as subject matter – which are the most worthy aims of debate championships.
There is thus a need to maintain the quality of debate competitions nationwide because it is a platform that creates capable and intelligent young leaders with skills that translate to the workplace and the capacity to make positive changes to the nation.
A good leader can engage in a debate frankly and thoroughly, knowing that at the end he and the other side must be closer, and thus emerge stronger
Nelson Mandela
