University debates- an exercise of the mind or only rhetoric?

Socrates would be very displeased to see the debating culture in today’s Indian universities and colleges. Socrates’ debates were more deliberative than argumentative. They were about enquiry and search for truth. However, in today’s time, the structure of the debate competitions in universities and colleges such as British Parliamentary and Asian Parliamentary forms have reduced the idea of debating to a mere contest of eloquence, and rhetoric.

Debating has always been considered an intellectually stimulating exercise. Debaters are considered like Marines in colleges and high schools for their knowledge in a wide variety of fields coupled with eloquence. The popularity of debate and debaters increase depending upon the type of college. Colleges of humanities and law usually put debating on a higher pedestal compared to colleges of science, which I believe is due to the higher emphasis on scientific enquiry and method in science colleges.

Debating, in school and university level, is considered to be an activity of learning and knowledge gathering. However, I believe that the structure and system of university debates such as British Parliamentary and Asian Parliamentary are not conducive to any intellectually stimulating discussion.

Why?

Let’s analyze it step by step:

This is more relevant to students from Indian universities and colleges

Motions in debate competition

The topics in debate competitions are extremely diverse and require expert knowledge. Some topics debated in colleges are so complex that PhD research scholars hesitate to comment on them. In one of the premiere debates in India, the topics of one round ranged from taxation, higher education, to public-private partnership in companies, among other diverse-convoluted topics. I believe that it is reasonable to claim that no person can have enough knowledge to speak on all the topics in depth.

So, what is the purpose of having topics which are so diverse and complex that almost no one can have an educated opinion on all of it, other than general rhetorical arguments, and mere countering of other side’s arguments based on unsubstantiated claims or sometimes even false claims?

Motions are biased from the beginning

The motions in traditional university-level debate competitions are in the format of: “This House believes…”. The debates begin with predecided affirmative view, thus making one side on the defensive position, while the other on the offensive. The rounds start with a conclusion instead of ending with one. A much better way to frame the motions would be, to begin with- “Whether….”

For eg: Instead of “This House believes that the rich must be taxed more”

The motion can- “Whether rich should be taxed more?”

Now, many may believe that the way of framing the motion is a trivial issue. However, the framing of issue reflects the object the competition tries to achieve; in this case, pitching two teams against each other, and assigning them a predetermined conclusion the participants might even believe to be true.

‘Prep’ Time

The essence of debating, that is, the enquiry of truth by dialogue is further diminished by the rules in many competitions (especially in India) which prohibit participants from using any external aid (such as the internet) while preparing their arguments right after the motion is released. The prep time is usually 20–30 minutes and the participants prepare their argument on topics which academicians write papers and do PhDs on, all without internet or external aid.

What is the implication of this?

The participants may argue based on partial information they have without understanding the nuances and intricacies of the topic. Complex topics and limited time to prepare, without the internet, reduce the arguments of the participants to only intuition, rhetoric, and eloquence. Unfortunately, everything in the world is not always intuitive, especially complex issues of society.

No scope for dialogue or exchange of ideas

In competitions which are in the British Parliamentary format, every speaker has a specific role, and the line of arguments are based on that role. This limits the scope of asking questions, analyzing points in-depth, or even exchanging ideas freely. Further, sometimes these parliamentary debates witness use unparliamentary language, as evidenced by the live blog of a debate competition.

Defend at any cost

The object of any debate competitions in Universities today is to defend one’s side no matter what; even if one does not believe in the position one is assigned. There is no scope to substantiate claims with evidence or statistics in cases where the prep-time does not allow students to use external aid. Even if a participant quotes statistics, there is no regulation in place to validate or dispute the claim unless the other side knows the statistics to be false; in such a case, both sides will quote statistics without being able to do the simplest act of googling to find the truth.

The adjudicators

Adjudicators are the rock stars of debate competitions. There are “core-adjudicators” who are either students or graduates and in almost all cases (if not all) previously debaters. Posters are released with their photos on it before the competition. It is not at all necessary that these ‘core-adjudicators’ need to be experts in the topic of the debate or any field for that matter. A major criterion to be an adjudicator is to be a debater.

The vicious combination of sexual harassment and alcohol

I happened to read a guidebook titled ‘A Guide to Consent in The Circuit’ (debating circuit, I guess) with the subheading- “how do I make a move”; My mind was blown away after reading this. However, after talking to a few of my friends and reading about incidents of sexual harassments in/around debate tournaments, I was convinced of the necessity of such guidebooks. The inquiry of such cases is conducted by the Organizing/ Debate Society, and later the decision of the inquiry is often published on the very popular Facebook page which is the hub for sexual harassment accusations and discussions thereof. The competitions often consist of the infamous ‘break night’ parties which involve use of alcohol by college-going students who even might not be of legal age.

What is the way ahead?

I am in no way saying that this kind of debating has no utility. This style encourages the participants to think about an issue from different perspectives, which is a crucial skill in professions such as law. It helps to develop the ability to reason solely on logic. However, the cons of this style outweigh the pros. Debate competitions in universities and colleges are not about finding out the truth or making a fair enquiry about an issue, but about beating the other person. It is not about listening and understanding but arguing to win. It is not about studying or understanding the topic in-depth, but forming arguments on intricate issues in 20 minutes without any external aid and finding mistakes in the arguments of the other team to prove yourself right.

As long as this style of debating is confined to the few days of the debate competition, it is harmless. But the issue becomes graver when the culture and style of debating permeate beyond the competition, and into the daily lives of the people, especially students. Arguing without evidence, on rhetoric, common sense, intuition, etc., is not sensible in all cases, especially when the subject matter is an expert field of study (which often is in debates).

In the end, it boils down to what one is expecting from the exercise of debating (university format). If it is knowledge, then I would say there are more efficient and effective ways to gain knowledge. If it is dopamine boost, and winning competitions, then debating is a good option.

Nikhil Erinjingat (Law student)