From Scratches to Speeches: The Road to 7 Minutes of Eloquence

Aboard a post World War II C130 cargo plane are four nervous university students murmuring a silent prayer. They are seated very close to each other like tightly-packed grocery items in a small box, along with some wounded soldiers from the ongoing all-out war in the southern coast of the Philippines. Deprived of space, they were forced to sit on their knapsacks and travelling bags. Some sat on the stacks of military garments and ammunitions on board. Despite the rattling due to the turbulence and not to mention the almost dilapidated state of the plane, their faces glow with excitement and jubilation. For these students, the risk attached to the journey above the ground is better than paying thousands of pesos to get to the capital city in a much safer commercial plane. Approximately 8,000 feet below them, a war between the government troops and the group of Muslim rebels in the south is going on while the National games commence in the central part of the archipelago. Above, the passengers are bracing themselves for a different battle. Not war. Not an athletic meet. They’re up for a battle as compelling and important as the war against the violent insurgent groups, and as exciting and contested as the national athletic meet: a debate tournament.

Our university’s Social Sciences College lobby holds the annual debate varsity tryouts. This is exactly the place where the great debaters of Mindanao fought and lobbied cosmic ideas thru compelling arguments. One afternoon, I found myself restlessly walking back and forth across the covered pathway towards the celebrated lobby. After the long brawl towards a decision, I found myself in a face-to-face interview with the Grand Archon of our university’s debate varsity who also happened to be the best speaker in the entire Mindanao region.

“This house believes that Ariel Sharon is a Trojan Horse of Israel. Argue the affirmative,” he exclaimed. “That’s our motion.” He added.

I was in absolute bewilderment. I only understood the first four words of that sentence! The rest of the words appeared to be too foreign for me. Who is Ariel Sharon? What makes him a Trojan horse in a country that means nothing to me other than the native land of Jesus Christ? The silence between us had been deafening. He waited for an answer. My face swelled. It spelled crimson in a very odd “I-don’t-know” fashion.

Before I could totally humiliate myself, he spoke and argued affirmative instead. I struggled refuting his arguments. It was like a picture of the battle between David and Goliath. Fortunately, the story did not change its ending. The next day, I found my name among the list of 10 qualifiers to join the team. I was lucky! Since then, I found myself wandering in the exciting world of parliamentary debating.

The origin of formal and international parliamentary debating tournament dates back to 1981 when Glasgow hosted 42 teams from 7 nations to compete in what is now popularly known as the World Universities Debating Championship—the largest debating tournament in the world. In 2009, 308 teams, 616 debaters, and an approximate number of 200 adjudicators from more than 40 countries participated in the tournament which was hosted by Cork, Ireland. Undeniably, the WUDC is now one of the largest annual international student events in the world. Since its conception, the parliamentary debating culture has spread throughout the globe—from the powerful nations of the Western World to the developing African and Southeast Asian countries. Nowadays, the craft of debating is not confined to college students; it has also trickled down to the younger masses. Elementary and secondary students alike have already come up with their own international tournaments.

In general, parliamentary debating is reflective of the deliberative discussions in the British House of Commons where written speeches from its members are not permitted, unlike the US Congress (or other lawmaking bodies). Like the members of the House of Commons, debaters are only given 15 and 30 minutes preparation time (for British and Asian formats respectively) to write 7-minute speeches regarding the motion, which is basically a debatable declarative sentence. The term “house” in the motion refers to the debaters, the adjudicators (or judges), and the audience attending the debate, who comprise the deliberative parliament. Between the 2^nd and 6^th minute of the speech, the opponent can interrupt the speaker by raising points of information or POI’s making the debate much more exciting and interactive. Throughout the debate, debaters speak extemporaneously using the notes they have made during the allotted preparation time and during the debate itself. As my senior debater said, “It’s not about role-playing. No memorizations. No rehearsals. It is a real game—a real battle.”

Since it is extemporaneous, debaters do not have an idea of their side prior to the debate. They are not allowed to choose either, so debaters sometimes defend something that might be totally against their values like that monk from Assumption University of Thailand who argued about the need to provide materials of pornographic content in school and public libraries. Bald and wrapped in orange draping, he eloquently spoke about the value of Playboy and Maxim magazines—as if he ever reads them. Nevertheless, he pulled it off. This is the beauty of parliamentary debating. It creates an atmosphere which allows debaters to see the intrinsic values of both sides of the issue.

When motions or propositions go as hard and as complicated as the “cross-legs” policy of the wives of Latin American leftist groups, debaters—good and bad ones—rely on their critical, shrewd and not mention close-to-reality fabrication of facts and situations. Sometimes, they even talk about things they hardly know. In round 7 of the 2006 Asian Universities Debating Championship, my team debated against the National University of Malaysia. The motion was about whether Oprah Winfrey better forwards black empowerment than 50 Cent. Our rebuttal speaker elegantly delivered his speech and suddenly probed, “Mister Chair and members of this most august house, what can a coin which cannot even afford a Hershey’s chocolate do to the black community?” He did not know that 50 Cent is a popular African American rapper in the United States. During adjudication time, the judge commended his use of “analogy” in his speech. We won that round.

In my three years of debating, I have written extemporaneous speeches for diverse motions that stretch as far as the genocide in Darfur, the rise of “gayborhoods” in Canada, and the nuclear proliferation of Iran; as obsolete and recurring as prostitution and abortion; as weird as allowing pedophiles to hold children parties; and as exciting as debating whether Harry Potter should be leaner or whether the Disney princesses forward women empowerment.

The opening and break nights are one of the highly anticipated highlights of a debate tournament. The opening night showcases an exciting exhibition debate from a selected pool of debaters among the participating schools, followed by an adjudication exam based on the exhibition debate which ranks the adjudicators according to the level of debate they can handle. After 7 grueling, sweating and shout-all-you-can rounds of elimination, the announcement of the crème of the crop or the teams and adjudicators qualifying to the final series happens during the break night. But to most debaters, break nights mean stowing away their almanacs, magazines and other reference materials. It’s the time when men put away their reading glasses as women wear their ravishing cocktail dresses. To the debaters who endured the physical and mental exhaustion of debating, break night means a reward; it means partying like crazy.

I was in awe as we entered the patio where the break night for the Philippine Inter-Collegiate Debating Championship was held. There was a DJ on stage, and countless number of debaters already on the dance floor grooving to the tune of Usher’s latest beats. From the far end of the area, the teams that mercilessly thrashed each other’s arguments in the previous rounds are now enjoying a casual conversation with bottles of beer and wine clamped in their hands. Coming from a conservative Islamic city in southern Philippines, the sight of the one of the deputy chief adjudicators lip-locking with a beautiful debater disturbed me for a minute. The scene in the party completely refutes the growing notion that debaters are nothing but “geeks” who can’t even tell the difference between tequila and vodka. Debaters can actually deliver 7-minute speeches dichotomizing the difference between the two. Don’t get them started on that.

During the championship dinner, the “Four Ultimate Awards” are given for the winning team, the best adjudicator, the tournament best speaker, and the final’s best speaker.

Personally, debating is done not merely for the sake of arguing and for the sake of settling a dispute. Sometimes there just isn't a settlement ground. Most of the times, debating allows me to find the answers within myself. I have been intensely scared of debating because I didn't really read a lot and I didn't know much about the issues. But debating made me realize that I could learn to love anything I am scared of. I also learned that everything can be made right by justifying it. This doesn't mean my values are bent because in debate truth is relative; it depends on which side you are assigned to. I learned that not all that is good is right because in debating, you can defend something that's totally against your values and you still could pull it off. It encouraged me to make my stand not only in the debate circle but in the real schemes of life. I would definitely follow the footsteps of my senior members who took that C130 cargo plane ride.