Debating: A true Indonesian pastime?

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!