a week of adjudication
i have near zero formal debating experience, and as of this week, my various stints as adjudicator far outnumber the opportunities i've taken to develop debating skills.
this week, for some reason, was the convergence of all the adjudication stuff i agreed to, barely 24 hours after arriving from baguio - wednesday to friday, i was sitting on my ass watching people talk each other to death, pointing and occasionally yelling, "SIT DOWN!". i had fun, though, especially at the yakal debdeban finals - they had a REALLY funny and witty whip (why is it a whip? agh) whose argumentation in the middle of the jokes won their team the championship. i also asked my students to watch the portia debate on the erap plunder case yesterday, which they apparently liked and learned from, since they were ten years old more or less when EDSA II happened (hayayay).
in retrospect, my aversion to debate is my aversion to a bunch of things - unpleasantries, abstractions, clashes, etc. another inherent weakness of mine is my little grasp on logic and appreciation of technicalities (nyaks! lawyer pa naman hehe). i developed my public speaking skills more through extemporaneous speeches - one-sided persuasion, if you may, than through debating.
with the arcadia peeps we used to have debates all the time - from something as serious as the RGEP (prior to its implementation) to the educational system and hogwarts, debates that usually lasted for hours on end. no formal parameters, no timed constructive speeches, just all out, free for all discussion. and most of the time, no resolutions. there is no adjudicator to actually decide on the merits, and if we had one, we'd end up arguing with the adjudicator to death too. (haha)
when you debate, rationalise, philosophise, it's incredibly exhausting and stressful. however, the patience, determination and practice also helps one to structure his/her thoughts, premises, in a more orderly manner and the research that goes into the effort is well worth the time and energy. plus, it is a good confidence booster. when forced to get up, say something, defend your side, win or lose, it's still a step in the right direction.
sitting on the adjudicators' bench (or whatever it's called), i find that it's actually easier to discern the strengths and weaknesses of each side, as well as imagine scenarios how one would go about the debate. the debaters either talk themselves into a corner or are hard-pressed to rebut and argue and still put forward their case within a limited time frame, while the detached, impassioned stance of the adjudicator makes it possible to look at both sides rationally. (interestingly enough, an IRATE team that lost the debate - i will NOT name the school haha - stormed over to our table yesterday demanding to hear more of our "comments". unfortunately, they were a couple of minutes too late 'cause by then, we were in the middle of a new debate. we were actually open to answering their questions and all, but apparently they just left angrily. it was then that i realized, hrmm, being chief or head adjudicator or whatever it's called apparently has its share of 'dangers'. c'mon, i just explain the verdict and all, what gives ba?! hahaha)
or to put it another way, it's easier to be the critic than the artist. now, as a particular kind of critic, i realize that it would've been fun to learn the ropes after all. so i've decided to institutionalize debates, when appropriate and feasible, in my different classes. that way, my students benefit from the skills involved in putting together a persuasive case and i get to experience the thrills of argumentation, albeit vicariously.
this week, for some reason, was the convergence of all the adjudication stuff i agreed to, barely 24 hours after arriving from baguio - wednesday to friday, i was sitting on my ass watching people talk each other to death, pointing and occasionally yelling, "SIT DOWN!". i had fun, though, especially at the yakal debdeban finals - they had a REALLY funny and witty whip (why is it a whip? agh) whose argumentation in the middle of the jokes won their team the championship. i also asked my students to watch the portia debate on the erap plunder case yesterday, which they apparently liked and learned from, since they were ten years old more or less when EDSA II happened (hayayay).
in retrospect, my aversion to debate is my aversion to a bunch of things - unpleasantries, abstractions, clashes, etc. another inherent weakness of mine is my little grasp on logic and appreciation of technicalities (nyaks! lawyer pa naman hehe). i developed my public speaking skills more through extemporaneous speeches - one-sided persuasion, if you may, than through debating.
with the arcadia peeps we used to have debates all the time - from something as serious as the RGEP (prior to its implementation) to the educational system and hogwarts, debates that usually lasted for hours on end. no formal parameters, no timed constructive speeches, just all out, free for all discussion. and most of the time, no resolutions. there is no adjudicator to actually decide on the merits, and if we had one, we'd end up arguing with the adjudicator to death too. (haha)
when you debate, rationalise, philosophise, it's incredibly exhausting and stressful. however, the patience, determination and practice also helps one to structure his/her thoughts, premises, in a more orderly manner and the research that goes into the effort is well worth the time and energy. plus, it is a good confidence booster. when forced to get up, say something, defend your side, win or lose, it's still a step in the right direction.
sitting on the adjudicators' bench (or whatever it's called), i find that it's actually easier to discern the strengths and weaknesses of each side, as well as imagine scenarios how one would go about the debate. the debaters either talk themselves into a corner or are hard-pressed to rebut and argue and still put forward their case within a limited time frame, while the detached, impassioned stance of the adjudicator makes it possible to look at both sides rationally. (interestingly enough, an IRATE team that lost the debate - i will NOT name the school haha - stormed over to our table yesterday demanding to hear more of our "comments". unfortunately, they were a couple of minutes too late 'cause by then, we were in the middle of a new debate. we were actually open to answering their questions and all, but apparently they just left angrily. it was then that i realized, hrmm, being chief or head adjudicator or whatever it's called apparently has its share of 'dangers'. c'mon, i just explain the verdict and all, what gives ba?! hahaha)
or to put it another way, it's easier to be the critic than the artist. now, as a particular kind of critic, i realize that it would've been fun to learn the ropes after all. so i've decided to institutionalize debates, when appropriate and feasible, in my different classes. that way, my students benefit from the skills involved in putting together a persuasive case and i get to experience the thrills of argumentation, albeit vicariously.