Patricia Mukhim
One has written reams of articles on issues that are supposedly of public interest. Often writers tend to have delusions of grandeur that they can change the world, impress governments or influence public opinion. After nearly a quarter century of churning out articles of all kinds, one realizes that one has not written too many articles to build young minds and toss around ideas that could be of some import in their quest for life skills. Over many years of being a teacher one also realizes the power of articulation in trying to convince people to buy into your ideas. Communication skills are unfortunately a much neglected part of our education system. And yet communication skills coupled with logical arguments are what empower people not just to win a business deal by convincing their clients about a product they are selling but also to sell ideas and influence minds. Marketing skills primarily rest on good communication skills. This is an art that young management graduates are taught. But communication skills need to be taught early in life. They can then be honed in colleges and universities. This is where debating as an activity is so important. I am writing on the importance of debate after having attended two debate competitions as judge on a single day and my mind is still riddled with what constitutes a good debate.
It was Robert Sharpe who said “The skills a person learns through good debates is crucial for modern life.” With social media, debates are reduced to cagey positioning and irritable repudiation that leave a bitter taste in the mouth. But public debates are important in the construction of logical arguments and rebuttals based on facts, figures and reason. Debates also necessarily imply that we listen attentively to what the other side has to say if we are to refute the points put forth by our opponents. Debating is about persuasive arguments, good oratorical skills and body language. A debate need not be dry and humourless. Good debaters find humour in the most boring of topics and connect with their audience and the jury not just through the route of reason but also through emotions.
Having participated in countless debates sometimes as judge and at other times as moderator one has learnt what to expect and what debates should not be about. In a debate you don’t come with a prepared text and read out from it. You are not delivering a speech but arguing on an issue that you have educated yourself at length on and collected all relevant facts about. Hence a debater can write down points so that she/he does not slip up and go blank on account of stage fright. I have seen many debaters clamping up completely after the first two sentences and unable to get their wits together, until they have to be told to resume their seats. When this happens it’s a lost opportunity for the debater and it can sometimes scar the person for life because it is like an admission that the person developed cold feet. To such debaters I must say, “Never give up and never say die.” Not everyone is an accomplished public speaker but we can all learn the art of public speaking.
Debate is about communication. ‘What’ a person says is as important as ‘how’ she says. This is why I feel that a debating forum should always ensure that the microphone is good and that prospective debaters are taught to use the microphone effectively. This too is an art. The best of speeches can go flat if the audience has to strain their ears to get what a person is saying. And this has happened once too often. Some people speak too close to the microphone and their words jar. There is cacophony instead. Others even while holding the microphone speak away from it and are not audible.
On Thursday, September 14, two debates were organised at two different institutions. The first debate was at NEIGRIHMs on the topic, “Public-private partnership in health care is a boon for a developing country like India.” Normally moderators/speakers for a debate are carefully chosen on the basis of their experience and stature. A Speaker moderates the debate and lays out the rules of the game at the very outset. After that the Speaker only calls out the debaters one by one. The Speaker does not comment in the middle of a debate or try to correct the debaters or to tell them what is right or wrong. There are judges to do that. At the NEIGRIHMS debate the audience was never asked to vote for or against the motion. It was tailored to be like a mock parliament where the participants questioned each other after the formal debating was over. Therefore it should have been called a mock parliament instead of a debate since each has its own format. Besides, the topic itself is very technical and those not from the medical profession would have found it hard to argue why health care should be solely in the public sector or why public-private partnership in the health sector is desirable. In fact the first speaker from the treasury bench began by stating upfront that he has no experience of a private-partnership in the health sector.
At St Anthony’s College, the theme of the debate was on a very current topic; hence the debate was fiery and much more participative. This could be gauged by the spirited response from the audience. The theme was, “Right to Freedom is Under Threat in India.” This is a difficult topic to argue against considering the current climate of intolerance we are living in, but, those who opposed the motion did a commendable job. Of course there was repeated mention of Kanhaiya Kumar of JNU fame and his clamour for “Azaadi” and the shouts within India’s leading university of, “India ko tukre tukre karenge,” etc., being examples of how the line between freedom of speech and expression and the call to sedition needs to be drawn. The question is who draws these defining lines between freedom and license because there are clear distinctions between the two.
In a debate chosen for a topic every word needs to be expounded and played upon to get the best out of the topic. Not much is done on this important aspect of debating. Debaters need to internalize the topic so that they appear confident when they speak before an audience, no matter how daunting the audience or jury is. Body language actually fetches a lot more marks than debaters know. You can easily make out someone who is tentative and lacks confidence. That sort of debater has already lost the first round. Initially every person will be diffident about public speaking but practice makes perfect. This is one reason why schools and colleges should provide space for their students to articulate their points of view. It is unfortunate that most students pass out of colleges and universities without having acquired the skills of articulation which serves them in good stead in the long run. It is a life skill since clear, concise and precise communication of an idea is what most employers look for in their employees. Few employers have patience for a person who bumbles and is unable to communicate what she/he wishes to say. Usually this is because the person lacks clarity of thought and was never taught how to communicate effectively right from her/his early childhood days.
In a debate we have often watched with dismay how debaters with the most stunning content lost the game because their delivery was poor. However, delivery alone does not help. A lot of research must go into a topic. A passionate argument based on strong factual content and a positive body language is what wins a debate. In fact, some amount of drama is welcome. Some incisive questions at opponents and intelligent rebuttals to their claims makes a debate interesting. It shows that the debaters are able to think on their feet! And that is what a debate is all about! It’s about being quick-witted and well prepared after soaking oneself in the topic for several days.
You can make out a debater who is well prepared and one who comes into the debating arena trying to filibuster around with rhetoric and hoping to impress the judges with their flair for language. Judges are not easily impressed. Let’s hope more debating societies come up in schools, colleges and universities for then we will have an informed citizenry.