brief recurring moments

when i graduated from high school and entered college freshman year, i resolved to not enter the debate world again. i told myself that i wanted something more gounded (with no offense to the craft).

but as they say, once a debater, always a debater.

then came council, where one's ability to sway also mattered, but not just in winning a round, but in swaying votes and even policies that would affect a lot of people. it was in the GASC that that part hit me to the full. there was prep time that took days and weeks instead of minutes and one observes brit par decorum the way they do it in the UK parliament. indeed everything was more grounded. it's debate in real life.

this is not to degrade, as i said, the craft and the world of debate. i owe most of my skills to it. but this time, awards didn't matter... and sometimes, even the soundness of your argument.

if there is one thing i still miss about debate (and by "debate" i mean the craft and the academic competition), it's the fact that the adjudicators (well, at least most of those who judged me during my time) come to debate rooms to listen, with clean sheets of paper to take down notes about the debate with the aim of coming with rankings according to just standards and flows of logic required in the craft. "talk to the adj like s/he's an innocent seven-year old," as i was instructed. in some schools, it went as far as the adj being the most ignorant person in the world whom one has to enable to comprehend the issue. as much as this has its pros and cons, this is the only way so far to secure that arguments are taken as is and judged with the merits presented in the debate and in the debate alone.

that's something you really don't get in real life. in real life you have people who follow the whip of parties (i now know what the "whip" is for in real life parties, to steer partymates in the same direction, not to directly inflict pain to the opponents--- which is only a consequence of the former); people who claim superiority of logic and already has bias even before entering the debate room (like their score sheets and papers are already written with notes and the winners); people who'd present specific case studies instead of trends to debunct a general trend; people who'd even resort to appeal to pity just to sway votes. it is well and good that in real life one has to use prior infromation to come with sound decisions, but for such to close their minds defeats the purpose of the debate gathering... it is even an insult to the art of debating.

UP is indeed a microcosm of Philippine society... down to its politics. there is this stubborness for improvement dictated by lines that often disregard logic. this stubborness in the larger Philippine scenario is strongly opposed by student leaders who clearly resemble this stubborness in UP student politics. what was this saying again about people resembling their enemies?

i made this comment at http://historyador.multiply.com/journal/item/100/GASC_fun . you may want to check it out. i don't think this is being sour, but "being disappointed" would better describe these brief recurring moments like the one i just shared.

i have everything to be proud of my council and also my training as an officer and debater. on the other hand, i have a lot to be disappointed about in the GASC, both as a venue for debate and a body for the students' welfare.