Instinctively, I think it's easier to propose. My school's debate team got the government side in the semi finals. And lost.
I chatted with the teacher who was in charge of the debates. No wonder we lost. This is an excerpt of our conversation.
"Mana boleh minta government untuk support topik ini? Topik itu tak betul. Kita mana boleh cakap sistem itu yang menghasilkan pelajar yang mekanikal?"
"As the government, you're supposed to support the motion," I replied.
"Yalah... Tetapi, mana boleh kata sistem yang salah. Kita tak boleh kata dasar kita yang silap."
"I don't see why not. In the spirit of debates, it's not a matter of yang mana betul or yang mana silap. If you're given a motion, and you're the government, you support the motion! Kalau nak cakap betul atau salah, then we don't have to debate already!"
The conversation continued...
"Saya sudah buat dengan pelajar. Sebenarnya, kalau opposition, lagi banyak point. Mereka takut buat government. Sebab lagi susah. Tapi mereka dapat government..."
So, what were the government's points, I wondered.
"Sebab guru dikongkong daripada memberi peluang kepada pelajar-pelajar untuk membuat soalan secara analitikal dan kritikal. Kerana guru-guru mesti habiskan semua syllabus..."
"Sebab ibu bapa pelajar yang mementingkan 'A' sahaja. Jadi mereka tak kisah sama ada pelajar itu analitikal atau tidak..."
"Sebab pelajar itu sendiri tak mahu buat kerja yang susah..."
Well. If teachers are hindered from encouraging their students to think analytically and critically for the sake of completing the syllabus, doesn't that boil down to a systemic flaw in the education system?
If parents are more concerned about A's than the child's personal development, isn't that because the nature of scholarships rests only on the number of A's a student gets? Doesn't that still boil down to a systemic flaw?
Hmmm. So students don't like to do analytical work. It's their fault. Nothing to do with the system. We wash out our hands clean. It's entirely their fault. Or is it?
The motion itself specifies the education system is producing mechanical idiots. But the system itself is excluded from the government side's arguments. The government - who has every opportunity to define the motion, set its parameters, and capitalize on their own case - refuses to talk about systemic flaws in Malaysian education. How brilliant is that?
"Kita tak boleh agree dengan motion itu. Sebab kalau benar-benar sistem kita tak baik... What are we doing here? Sebab kita sendiri adalah hasil system itu..."
My goodness. I rest my case.
Consider the irony. An English teacher, talking to me about an English debate in BM, and expounding the points in BM.
As it got hotter, I decided it's not worth it. The battlefield is at the debate round, not during an informal post-mortem chat with a colleague.
I shudder to think what her points as opposition were. "Tentulah, you tengok... Bilangan pelajar mendapat berbelas-belas 'A' meningkat..."
I mean... The onus lies on the opposition to prove that the status quo is not producing mechanical idiots, doesn't it? How are they going to do that? Was that kind of challenge thrown to the opposition? How would you throw that kind of challenge, if you don't want to talk about the system in the first place?
If the government side defines the motion properly and sets the parameters strategically, the opposition will be in deep trouble. Obviously, that did not happen.
I remember a member of the debate team telling me before the debate round that he feels it's harder to do the opposition side. But strangely, the teacher said the opposite thing.
I'm wondering if the teacher force-feeds the debaters with her own points, and makes them use her points. I wonder if she's the type that will feel offended if they use their own points instead of hers.
It's shocking. A fellow debate senior during my varsity days, Prita, told me that it's impossible to train teachers to debate. Once, she was drafted in to help "train" some teachers who were involved in a inter-daerah teachers' debate kind of thing. Motions were centered on issues pertaining to education. She said she really cannot tahan. Now I understand the feeling.
How do you train people to debate, if they refuse to analyse a topic that is not in favour of their personal opinions? You got to step out from that box, look at it from a bird's eye point of view, and dissect the issue objectively as though you are not part of it. You can't contain yourself as part of the issue if you seriously want to debate.
If you can't do that, then whoever gets the government side wins. The opposition is just a formality. What is there to argue about if you have to be gagged?
On the motion about truancy. The teachers said, "Oh, no... We cannot say teachers are not doing their job... We are teachers! Of course we cannot say that... "
My gosh. *slaps forehead*
So Prita has to come out with all kinds of other inferior and weaker points for them, because all her strong points "cannot be mentioned". Because "it's not right to say that". Imagine how "hot" it feels like to be in that position.
Let's all go home now. Why are we even debating about it? Case closed.
Debating. Truly, it is a tiring activity.
Imagine how much more tiring it is to debate about debating.
