Debating: A true Indonesian pastime?
By Ruli Manurung
SINGAPORE (JP): A debate is a clash of concepts, a war of words or an intellectual equivalent of boxing. In a debate, two or more parties argue to champion their own case, while disproving the ideas of others. We all know that. But do we see it often in Indonesian society?
Some skeptics say that debating is not for Indonesians. From primary school on, students learn that holding a contrasting opinion is not encouraged. They are taught to converge towards a single point and reach a consensus. This is perhaps rooted in the long history of feudalism, hardly a fertile ground for debating.
At a debating competition, a legion of knowledgeable and eloquent orators are all geared up to out-talk each other with structured, formal and rigid methods of discourse. Such competition promotes public speaking skills, critical thinking, structured presentation of ideas and eloquence in the use of the language, in this case, English.
Competitive debating among Indonesian universities dates back to 1994, when the Jakarta Varsities English Debates (JVED) was organized by students of the School of Economics of the University of Indonesia (UI). Similar events followed but none bore similarity to how proper competitive debates are conducted. During all of them, the participants were grasping at straws, trying to speak better English than other debaters while simultaneously displaying a bit of logic, the real essence of debating.
Indonesia was far behind the Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia. Teams from these countries had begun to make their reputations at the World Debating Championship.
During the 4th Asian Inter-Varsity Debating Championships here in May, Indonesian institutions made their formal debut on an international stage. A team from UI (Achmad Nurhoeri, Patsy Widakuswara and Permata Harahap) and one from Parahyangan Catholic University (Oktarinaldi, Billy and Indra) found themselves in tough competition among 46 teams from 24 Asian universities.
How did the Indonesian teams fare? Lawyer Lim Lei Theng from the National University of Singapore spotted potential. "As a new team, UI debaters were good and performed well. All they need is a bit more practice and experience," she said. She also spelt out individual praise for UI's Patsy Widakuswara, who took the second Best Speaker award.
Adjudicator Anna Alfaro from the University of Philippines- Diliman remarked that Indonesians have now begun to be acknowledged. "The Indonesian teams are beginning to earn respect for their analysis," she said.
Besides Patsy's award, UI earned the second Best New Team position, even though it only ranked 31st overall. They did it by winning three of the seven debates in the preliminary round.
The Parahyangan Catholic University team did not fare as well. They won two of the seven rounds and ranked 44th. Both teams did not make the cut for the elimination round of the top 16 teams from the preliminaries.
Valens Riyadi from Parahyangan University said they were unfamiliar with the rules of the game. "This way of debating is still a very new and unknown experience for us. But it is very interesting".
Predictions for the future are better. "In five years, with constant exposure to international championships, the Indonesian teams should be a potent force," Lim said. "Some Indonesians I know actually pick up debating pretty easily."
Alfaro said that Indonesian teams could develop a particular style of debating. "The Indonesian teams may capitalize on their demeanor which is actually pleasant, almost non-confrontational. Given the right contrast, this can translate to coolheadedness and can be used to create the impression of composure."
We have come full circle -- is debate a natural part of Indonesian culture? If it isn't, is it pointless in trying to develop the activity? Whatever the case, the road has been paved. If there is any disagreement, let's have a debate!