Debating Can Bridge the Divisions Among Us
The Scholars’ Debate has been a key element of the calendar for over 10 years. During this time there have been a great many memorable debates focusing on a wide variety of issues from free speech to human rights, climate change to terrorism and everything in between.
Whatever the topic, the aim of the Scholars’ Debate is to generate a unique, interdisciplinary and policy-orientated discussion of topical issues of international significance, as well as developing the Scholars’ skills of collaboration, organisation and initiative. This year, the scholars debated ‘This house believes that gender should be abolished’. Pablo Marzocca (Argentina, Master of Public Policy, 2020), writes about the experience.
Every year, the Weidenfeld-Hoffmann Scholars engage in a public debate. This activity has a distinctive characteristic that differentiates it from the rest of the leadership programme: it is entirely student-led and organised. As a cohort, we choose a topic, decide the teams, work on logistics, plan the advertising, and see that the event is successful.
Pablo Marzocca (Argentina, Master of Public Policy, 2020), here standing, was the first speaker for the proposition. On the left, Sir Trevor McDonald, renowned British broadcaster and journalist, was the Chair. In the middle, Usuta (Namibia, Master of Public Policy, 2020) was the Master of Ceremonies.
But, what makes a debate a success? Is it the public engaging in the topic, or taking strong positions? Is it people changing sides in light of the arguments presented? These are undoubtedly relevant aspects, but in my personal experience, the process of debating, the practice of it, is where the real success lies.
Debating is a significant aspect of college life in many countries; the Oxford Union is one of the most famous debate chambers in the World. But in Argentina, where I lived, studied and worked before coming here, it is nearly non-existent. That is part of the reason why I volunteered to be one of the speakers: if I did not try debating now, I would most likely never get another chance.
The topic we chose was difficult (This house believes that gender should be abolished). At first we were excited: it was provocative, appealing to many current discussions and issues, and it allowed for interesting arguments to be presented from both sides. However, it was also challenging to define precisely and to narrow down to a concrete proposition.
A good definition of the topic, we knew, was crucial to have a good debate. And working together on it made us closer as a cohort and as friends. Since our first Leadership Programme activity, the Moral Philosophy Seminar, it was clear to me that discussing complicated topics, hearing others’ opinions and positions and trying to understand where they come from was an essential element of building real bonds.
During this process, I came to realise that the success of a debate cannot be measured just by looking at its outcome, or at how the public engaged. Those are important factors, tied to the defence or questioning of the proposition and the arguments presented. But for me personally, the success of the debate was related to how we engaged with each other, how we tackled the fact that both teams wanted to win, but at the same time have an open and fair confrontation of positions.
The importance of this cannot be overstated, especially when we look at the world around us right now. We would benefit from having a more serious and respectful discussion about the difficult topics that divide us. And we should start by accepting that if some issue is effectively generating a divide in society, hearing both sides respectfully may be a good start. The key to debating is in listening as much as it is in speaking.
The debating team from left to right: Nikolas Kirby (WHT advisor and debating coach), Keith Mundangepfupfu (proposition), Bivishika Bandari (proposition), Arlette Nyembo (opposition), Pablo Marzocca (proposition), Sir Trevor McDonald ( Chair), Martina Lejtreger (manager), Usuta Kavari (facilitator), Oksana Matiyash (opposition), Minah Faiz Rashad (opposition).
And, finally, debating is hard. There is an art to it, with people who have been honing their skills since high school. Not doing it in your first language is even harder. And doing it in front of more than a hundred people, on a complicated topic, explains why we were nervous about it. However, looking back, standing up and choosing to do it was one of the best decisions I made since I arrived in Oxford. Now I know some fantastic people even better, and I learnt the value of always striving to have meaningful conversations, no matter how hard they are.
