|
 "This house would…"
I had a great experience two weekends ago. I was at the Pamukkale University (Denizli) Nationwide Debating Tournament, in which 32 teams from prominent universities took part, and my partner Anıl Araslı and I had the privilege to be one of the four finalist teams. We first played the preliminary six rounds, and then went on to the quarter and semi finals. This was my first tournament, and I started debating only a few months ago - therefore, making it into the finals was a big success for me; and another ring in the great chain of successes for the Bilkent University Debating Society. This past weekend, I, along with my teammates, went to Süleyman Demirel University (Isparta) to spend another weekend debating. It's now the high season. Almost every weekend, another university holds a nationwide debate tournament and debaters from top institutions travel hundreds of kilometers to participate.
One might wonder why it is that people would bear all this physical exhaustion in the midst of their academic semesters, why we at the Debating Society strived so hard to promote our "recruitment day" (our first meeting session for this term), or why anyone would ever care to discuss "virtual" problems in a "virtual" setting, only to reach a "virtual" result.
The answer lies in the irony of the quotation marks: debating, as a sport, a hobby or an academic activity is by no means virtual. It provides a practice platform for rhetoric, wit and reasoning that anyone with high intellectual standards needs to survive in life. After only fifteen minutes of preparation time before a debate starts, the two-person teams are supposed to organize their "pro" or "con" arguments on a specific subject. In only 7 minutes and 20 seconds, each speaker, before a number of judges, is supposed to refute what the speakers from the opposing side have said, neatly explain their arguments with appropriate examples, answer one question from the opposition, summarize their speech to increase the effect even more, and be witty, quick, clear and convincing at the same time, not to mention that they must be a master in language! It is a hard business indeed, but practice makes perfect.
The hardest thing about debating, to many people, is the problem of having to fiercely defend an issue that they disagree with. For example, the motion for the World Universities Debating Championship final this year was "This house [the government side] would ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy" and I'm sure the debaters defending this did not all agree with it. Or, in the quarter final I was in at Pammukale University, the topic was "This house would allow beating at schools," and I could have had to defend this proposal (which I do not believe in), had we been assigned to the proposition, instead of the opposition. Therefore, it is perfectly normal to defend what personally sounds like crap in debating, and I think that's great. It shows the multiple aspects of one issue and enables one to put themselves in their opponent's shoes. To me, this is a skill fundamental not only for lawyers, but for everyone, and it is only one of the many advantages debating brings. And then, to be very frank, I've found in debating what I had not been able to find in other Bilkent student clubs; what I might call a positively peculiar combination of recklessness, bitter humor, excitement and taboo-breaking intelligence.
One might wonder what debating is exactly. I will be happy to answer all questions about debating sent via my e-mail address and direct those who are interested to our weekly meetings.
Damla Okay(AMER/IV)
d_okay@ug.bilkent.edu.tr
|
