What Does it Take To Change One’s Mind?
Two Colombians, two Indians, a Venezuelan, a Jamaican, a Zimbabwean, and a Sri Lankan. A diplomat, a veterinarian, an entrepreneur, a couple of lawyers, and a few activists. Students of public policy, global health, diplomacy, biodiversity, law, finance, and social interventions. Whichever way you looked at it, the WHT Annual Debate 2021 brought an incredibly diverse group of people onto the floor of the Oxford Union.
We were there to debate an important motion – whether social media should have the right to ban politicians. Hot on the heels of Facebook reaffirming its decision to ban Donald Trump from its platform, this topic was both timely and controversial. It raised big picture questions around the right to free speech, the role of governments, and the nature of private companies – all of which were hotly contested during the debate. For some of us, it also raised deeply personal issues: Mirza has recently been on the receiving end of censorship from social media and governments, with his tweets criticising the Indian government’s handling of COVID-19 being deleted from Twitter. The dangers that arise from untrammelled power – whether it is from oppressive governments, opportunistic companies, or obstreperous politicians – are very real.
Nandita found that she personally changed her stance on this motion as a result of the research and reflection that went into preparing for the debate.
Politics aside, at its core, this experience was pedagogical – an opportunity for people with a range of experience in debate and public speaking to learn some of the skills that debating can foster. Debating is not just about getting up and speaking passionately – as Melissa pointed out, its core takeaway is learning to think critically about your arguments, those of your opponents, and about the ways they interact with each other. This process of research, discussion, and preparation can be illuminating; it can change the way we think and upset our preconceived notions about an idea. In fact, Nandita found that she personally changed her stance on this motion as a result of the research and reflection that went into preparing for the debate.
The day of the debate itself was one of both anticipation and anxiety. No amount of experience could allay the nerves that emerged from preparing to speak in the Oxford Union’s beautiful historic debate chamber – the site of speeches by so many world leaders in years past. Yet as Kai eloquently described, once we reached the debate floor, the same prestigious environment which made us feel nervous beforehand, now empowered us to deliver our arguments. It was a powerful experience in a unique location, and we collectively felt honoured for the opportunity to speak in this space.
And yet – the experience was much more than just speaking, because debating is much more than just a collection of orations. Debating is, fundamentally, a conversation – as Andres observed, the point of debating is not who wins but the exercise of discussing something and of learning to see two perspectives on any given issue. This ability to hear and see the other side is a skill and practice we need far more of in our fractured and distrustful world, and I am glad that the WHT recognises this and strengthens our abilities to do so.
With thanks to the WHT and our entire cohort – especially our fantastic debate lead Karan – for making this year’s Annual Debate such a success, all I can say is: I am excited to tune in for the next one!
Note: In the spirit of debate and collaboration, before writing this blog post I reached out to the other WHT scholars who participated in the Annual Debate for their reflections on this experience. Many of their thoughts have been included in this post, with gratitude.
