Debating: Intellectual masturbation or a genuine forum?
Harry Naoi argues that debating circuits may not be perfect, but there are those fighting the good side.
I’ve been a debater for about 7 years. I started in my third year of high school and haven’t really stopped since. I’ve seen some shit, not quite my personal Vietnam, (the Duncan Rice coffee machine replacement last year was way more damaging) but certainly enough to break into cold shudders once in a while.
I was at Glasgow University Union’s Ancients competition last year when two woman finalists were heckled and insulted about their looks and their mentions of feminism, and I saw the horrendous response by the union. I’ve seen school kids reduced to tears, and racist arguments made just to win.
It’s a pretty grim picture no? It speaks to a community of bombastic, rude and arrogant people taking pot shots at each other for some sort of intellectual renumeration (I just said renumeration..while complaining about fancy-pants intellectualism, double standards much?)
I’m writing this to try and offer a defense of debating. Why? Because amongst the crap that plagues debating there’s also a lot of good.
The nature of debating itself means that sometimes you’re going to have to talk about some bad stuff, and you may wind up taking very dark positions in order to win. There are motions on topics that simply shouldn’t be up for debate – the University of Bath once ran a competition final on fearing Islam, which offers legitimacy to the disgusting Islamophobia that has at this point become a huge fixture in our political discourse.
Debates on abortion with exclusively male speakers have featured in the past too, along with Aberdeen Debaters own cautious thumbs up to Hitler annexing the Sudetenland in a debate during 1938.
My point is that sometimes bad things are said. Debaters have approached this issue in two ways: Some argue that debating must be about free speech, and that even the most sickening opinions must be given their platform so that they may be dissected. Others work hard to strengthen rules of good conduct (equity, as it’s called on the circuit) ensuring that offensive arguments are punished and that speakers respect each other.
The latter group is, thankfully, currently dominant and I can state categorically that this approach has been at the core of Aberdeen’s Debater’s discussions about the sort of motions we want to put on at the university.
Debating is still male dominated. The debating of 10-15 years ago was definitely a majority male pursuit, which may have contributed to the very confrontational and often abusive nature of the pass time.
But after the awful occurrence at Ancients last year, a number of debaters launched a to gauge the number of sexist experiences people had on the circuit. The results were staggering. The sheer number of bad experiences genuinely shocked many of us.
We’ve started the fight back, though. GUU instituted a new complaints procedure, established a women’s open competition, complementing Oxfords own woman’s competition. More women are getting involved and more men are being made aware of the problems and as a community we are working to redress the wrongs of the past. It’s a brilliant step forward on what is still a long journey.
Even with the improvements, many people just don’t see the point. People back whatever arguments win the case, it’s about victory no matter how odious your point is. I disagree. I think that learning about different perspectives no matter in what context helps you grow. There is a huge value in being able to defend an argument you don’t agree with, a huge benefit to being able to defend your beliefs and arguments under rigorous cross examination.
So what is debating then? Good or bad? Intellectual masturbation or a genuine forum for ideas? I guess it’s a bit of both. Before you criticise debaters remember that some of us out there fighting the good fight and working to fix the things that continue to be troublesome.
My debating experience helped me build my confidence. I had severe acne and it gave me a space in which I could be myself, a place where my appearance didn’t matter. It was one of the best things that could have happened to me and for all its imperfections, I think we can build a debating circuit that provides that space for others.