Battle lines drawn at first national debate<\/p>\n
By Yogita Tahil Ramani<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Spouting off an orgy of words is one thing.
\nDebating is another, particularly in a foreign language.<\/p>\n
This could not have been more evident than at the Aug. 3 final
\nround of the Indonesian Varsities English Debate 1998. The
\nauditorium at the Japanese Study Center of the University of
\nIndonesia served as the court of law, and the gallery was about
\n400 students from 22 universities.<\/p>\n
The United Nation's reputation as a global institution that
\npromotes peace was at stake, with the motion reading it was the
\nbiggest joke of all. Defending the statement was a three-person
\nteam from Jenderal Soedirman University of Purwokerto and
\nopposing it was University of Indonesia team.<\/p>\n
Battlelines were drawn.<\/p>\n
The affirmative, in Javanese-accented, pointed out three
\nspecifics as to why the UN was the biggest joke of all.<\/p>\n
It was the tool utilized by the United States to \"contribute
\nto\" and blow out international flames over the 1991 Gulf War,
\nthey said.<\/p>\n
\"The United States had vested interests in Iraq's taking over
\nof Kuwait... they did not do anything to help situations during
\nthe Bosnian war,\" first speaker Basiswanto Wiratama said.<\/p>\n
He outlined the second with the veto rights exclusive to the
\nU.S., China, France, Russia and Britain as the permanent members
\nof the security council. The third was the UN's failure to
\nrectify human rights violations.<\/p>\n
The opposing trio came up with a \"shopping list\" of all the
\ngood things the world body has done for its members, and a
\npassionate reading.<\/p>\n
Handayani Putri of the University of Indonesia took the
\npodium, did away with niceties and presented, in a little-less-
\nthan-perfect English, \"the meat\" of her argument.<\/p>\n
She told of the World Health Organization's success in wiping
\nout smallpox, the UN's adoption of 70 legal instruments to
\npromote human rights, 26 peace-keeping operations to resolve
\nconflicts and, of course, the General Assembly that guarantees
\nmember nations a vote each.<\/p>\n
She kept on going but she was in danger of exceeding the
\nallocated seven minutes, so she stopped, triumphantly taking note
\nof the decision-swerving job she had done on the adjudicators.<\/p>\n
Handayani had good English, the statistics and quoted reliable
\nsources. But this was not always the case with the 33 teams who
\nbattled in the preliminary rounds held during the three-day
\ntournament held at the University of Indonesia, Depok, West Java.<\/p>\n
The Indonesian Varsities English Debate (IVED) 1998 was
\norganized by the University of Indonesia's English Debating
\nSociety (UI-EDS), with main sponsorship by private TV station
\nRCTI.<\/p>\n
Participants warred over 90 topics or motions, ranging from
\n\"That mentally retarded people should not be allowed to have
\nchildren\" to \"That size does matter\".<\/p>\n
Issues encompassed student movements, technology and science,
\nenvironment, psychology, economics, international and Indonesian
\nreform agendas, entertainment and sports.<\/p>\n
The teams used the Australasian Parliamentary format which is
\none of several international formats used in debates.<\/p>\n
Sixteen teams made it to the quarterfinals, eight to the
\nsemifinals but finally, word-warring spelled out Jenderal
\nSoedirman University and the University of Indonesia as
\nfinalists.<\/p>\n
While good English was vital, skill and technique, and
\nthorough preparations on the subject matter, also counted in
\nwinning points.<\/p>\n
This, in addition to experience, was what made the University
\nof Indonesia team a cut above the other participants. The host
\nteam won all its debates by unanimous decisions, whether
\ndefending or opposing a motion.<\/p>\n
On the final day of the tournament, the UI debaters --
\nHandayani (School of Psychology, Class of 1995), Patsy
\nWidakuswara (School of Social and Political Science, 1993) and
\nAgung Nugroho (School of Law, 1993) -- argued effectively in
\ncondemning the role of the International Monetary Fund in the
\nIndonesian economy and in demanding that the military leave the
\npolitical stage in Indonesia. They also defended equally
\neffectively the role of the UN.<\/p>\n
During the preliminary and elimination rounds, some teams
\ndealt with topics in extremities -- good English, no argument, or
\ngreat cases but bad English. Others had neither. Nevertheless,
\nthey braved contests through round after round.<\/p>\n
One of the funniest debates held here was on the death of
\naltruism. Diponegoro University defined it as altruism being
\nlargely dead, while Muhammadiyah University Jakarta argued it was
\nvery much alive. Both teams agreed, through their own
\ndefinitions, that altruism was alive, so there was no debate.<\/p>\n
The affirmative team went on to speak of the Maslow's
\nHierarchy of Needs, and that personal needs were about everything
\nelse, particularly in terms of survival.<\/p>\n
\"Other nations will not seriously help us... unless you can
\nname some,\" second speaker Syanaz of the affirmative team said.<\/p>\n
Lufiana of Muhammadiyah Jakarta responded with, \"the U.S.
\nis... see how the IMF and the World Bank are doing their
\ndamndest to bail us out.<\/p>\n
\"They have no vested interests in us, how could they? We are
\nalmost a bankrupt nation.\"<\/p>\n
While in some cases it was the lack of logic, in others there
\nwas the difficulty of conveying it. Adjudicator and lecturer at
\nthe University of Indonesia's School of Letters Nadia Madjid said
\nthat even though the rules of the game were applied effectively,
\na good English debate at a university-level was yet to be seen.<\/p>\n
\"In the case of the final round, the negative had almanacs on
\ntheir desks, while the affirmative had only a Longman's
\nDictionary with them.\"<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/battle-lines-drawn-at-first-national-debate-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}