Battle lines drawn at first national debate

By Yogita Tahil Ramani

JAKARTA (JP): Spouting off an orgy of words is one thing. Debating is another, particularly in a foreign language.

This could not have been more evident than at the Aug. 3 final round of the Indonesian Varsities English Debate 1998. The auditorium at the Japanese Study Center of the University of Indonesia served as the court of law, and the gallery was about 400 students from 22 universities.

The United Nation's reputation as a global institution that promotes peace was at stake, with the motion reading it was the biggest joke of all. Defending the statement was a three-person team from Jenderal Soedirman University of Purwokerto and opposing it was University of Indonesia team.

Battlelines were drawn.

The affirmative, in Javanese-accented, pointed out three specifics as to why the UN was the biggest joke of all.

It was the tool utilized by the United States to "contribute to" and blow out international flames over the 1991 Gulf War, they said.

"The United States had vested interests in Iraq's taking over of Kuwait... they did not do anything to help situations during the Bosnian war," first speaker Basiswanto Wiratama said.

He outlined the second with the veto rights exclusive to the U.S., China, France, Russia and Britain as the permanent members of the security council. The third was the UN's failure to rectify human rights violations.

The opposing trio came up with a "shopping list" of all the good things the world body has done for its members, and a passionate reading.

Handayani Putri of the University of Indonesia took the podium, did away with niceties and presented, in a little-less- than-perfect English, "the meat" of her argument.

She told of the World Health Organization's success in wiping out smallpox, the UN's adoption of 70 legal instruments to promote human rights, 26 peace-keeping operations to resolve conflicts and, of course, the General Assembly that guarantees member nations a vote each.

She kept on going but she was in danger of exceeding the allocated seven minutes, so she stopped, triumphantly taking note of the decision-swerving job she had done on the adjudicators.

Handayani had good English, the statistics and quoted reliable sources. But this was not always the case with the 33 teams who battled in the preliminary rounds held during the three-day tournament held at the University of Indonesia, Depok, West Java.

The Indonesian Varsities English Debate (IVED) 1998 was organized by the University of Indonesia's English Debating Society (UI-EDS), with main sponsorship by private TV station RCTI.

Participants warred over 90 topics or motions, ranging from "That mentally retarded people should not be allowed to have children" to "That size does matter".

Issues encompassed student movements, technology and science, environment, psychology, economics, international and Indonesian reform agendas, entertainment and sports.

The teams used the Australasian Parliamentary format which is one of several international formats used in debates.

Sixteen teams made it to the quarterfinals, eight to the semifinals but finally, word-warring spelled out Jenderal Soedirman University and the University of Indonesia as finalists.

While good English was vital, skill and technique, and thorough preparations on the subject matter, also counted in winning points.

This, in addition to experience, was what made the University of Indonesia team a cut above the other participants. The host team won all its debates by unanimous decisions, whether defending or opposing a motion.

On the final day of the tournament, the UI debaters -- Handayani (School of Psychology, Class of 1995), Patsy Widakuswara (School of Social and Political Science, 1993) and Agung Nugroho (School of Law, 1993) -- argued effectively in condemning the role of the International Monetary Fund in the Indonesian economy and in demanding that the military leave the political stage in Indonesia. They also defended equally effectively the role of the UN.

During the preliminary and elimination rounds, some teams dealt with topics in extremities -- good English, no argument, or great cases but bad English. Others had neither. Nevertheless, they braved contests through round after round.

One of the funniest debates held here was on the death of altruism. Diponegoro University defined it as altruism being largely dead, while Muhammadiyah University Jakarta argued it was very much alive. Both teams agreed, through their own definitions, that altruism was alive, so there was no debate.

The affirmative team went on to speak of the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and that personal needs were about everything else, particularly in terms of survival.

"Other nations will not seriously help us... unless you can name some," second speaker Syanaz of the affirmative team said.

Lufiana of Muhammadiyah Jakarta responded with, "the U.S. is... see how the IMF and the World Bank are doing their damndest to bail us out.

"They have no vested interests in us, how could they? We are almost a bankrupt nation."

While in some cases it was the lack of logic, in others there was the difficulty of conveying it. Adjudicator and lecturer at the University of Indonesia's School of Letters Nadia Madjid said that even though the rules of the game were applied effectively, a good English debate at a university-level was yet to be seen.

"In the case of the final round, the negative had almanacs on their desks, while the affirmative had only a Longman's Dictionary with them."