 |  |  |  |  |  | |||||||||||||
|
archive |
about
us |
links |
contact |
current | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Institute of Ideas Schools Debating Competition 2002 Sample debates: |
Debating
Matters - Tom Ogg, Graveney School |
|
Think for a moment before proceeding: ·
What is the point of debating? These are some of the questions present in the minds of the producers of Debating Matters. This is a new competition, the pilot of which I attended for a glorious day of debating at the British Library on 2 December 2002. It is organised by the Institute of Ideas (IoI), and sponsored by Hodder and Stoughton. It is based upon a series of books published by IoI and Hodder which form the basic framework for each debate. The day was without a doubt an enormous success; from my school Graveney being the runner up by the closest of margins, to personally winning the prize for best contribution from the floor! However, the clearest winner was, as intended, debate itself. Previously, certainly in my experience, debating has been too rigid. What was deemed to matter was the performance, and the use of rhetorical instruments - words rather than ideas - in order to beat the opposition. To win such a debate, it was necessary to win over the audience by making the opposite team look foolish. Consequently debate became very negative; teams aimed at destroying all possible ideas, rather than trying and get at the truth. The ideas, the principles, and indeed the very subject of the debate were far too often lost in the flurry of fur between the two teams. Debate was for the sake of people's reputations rather than the ideas being debated. It was John Stuart Mill (this is what A level philosophy does to you) who famously said that free speech was crucial to the development of society, because opinions based upon error would inevitably be put against truth in debate, and society would benefit from 'the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error'. It is this principle, among others, that this competition attempts to embody. In the grand collision with error that was the Debating Matters day, it was the collision of ideas, rather than of orators, that counted. This, primarily, is what makes Debating Matters special. The focus on arguments and ultimately truth, meant that everyone in the competition had a clearer idea of whether alternative medicine was a con; or whether the internet should be regulated; or whether animals were as important as humans; for rather than glorifying in the spoken word and its uses in stigmatising the opposition, this competition enlightens and contributes to the human knowledge pot. Debate is a tool that sharpens knowledge. It pits truth against falsehood, and the audience and the world gain in understanding the essence of the subject. A debating competition should not be about producing politicians well-heeled in the art of talking a lot and saying nothing. One should participate to learn to refine arguments, to defend and review them in the light of the evidence and arguments of the opposition. How is this done? Firstly, and crucially, judges reward the use of arguments rather than just words. This means that a team that defines itself into a comfortable corner and sits tight without worrying about the aim of the debate, or debating in general, should not proceed further in the competition. Most irritatingly, though (perhaps showing the legacy of the old school of debating), a team that deployed such tactics won the pilot competition. The judges, in my view, seemed to be using the old criteria. But I am probably just bitter since my colleagues at school did not win. There are practical and procedural changes too. Judges are given a specific and prolonged time to grill the speakers, so that regardless of the ability of the opposition to provide the 'collision with error', the judges can do it themselves. Speakers must respond to questions - it is not acceptable to do a Michael Howard and talk about the weather instead, and the judges can (and did) press them if they are not satisfied. Furthermore, the audience also gets to have a go at the speakers. Moreover, there is an additional incentive in that shape of the floor prize, which I won through a combination of saying what the audience wanted to hear, flirting, and what I hope were relevant, searching criticisms. I hope I have gone some way to answering the questions I began with. Even if I have failed in that respect, I imagine you have your own ideas by now, and please feel free to provide me with my very own collision with error.
|
|