Wow, don't take it wrong. it's true that I like debate but it doesn't mean I'm good at it. Yea, that's also true that I've won several competitions here and there but as a matter of fact, I SUCK at debating. That's right. Go on and ask my coach(es). They will tell that I speak too fast, I made too many defensive rebuttals, my case usually lacks of elaboration, I am frantic, unqualified as a 3rd speaker, no structure on speech, etc etc. I'm not even kidding. Yah, but I have to admit that these all bloodshed and tears on our practice lead us to the "crown" (kind of) in the end :p Even in Indonesian debating competition, I suck even more. I'll mess Indonesian words and mix them with English; something like "meng-touch grassroots level",, or whatever.
Anyway, as I was about to die on my debate class (actually it's *mati kebosenan* :p), I realize that I actually did enjoy listening to these all phrases and words that I used to say every day back then when I still have my "normal-debate-world". here we use some different terms though.
Preposition is basically theme line. Resolution is the same as This House Believe That (THBT) or (THW). Instead of saying THBT every country has the equal right to develop nuclear weapon (motion from semifinal ALSA :p), here we write it Resolved : Every country has the equal right to develop nuclear weapon. Yaaa, they're basically the same. And Ms. Leahy also explained about the terms "Affirmative" and "Negative". In affirmative case, there must be 3 things:
1. JUSTIFICATION to change (hahaha that's my favorite word)
2. Plan on action (like the proposal and mechanism)
3. Inherency (the same as "effectiveness")
4. Topicality (same thing as "feasibility)
Affirmative has the advantage of defining the topic. Negative usually defends the status quo, or stick in status quo and make some changes (a.k.a. contra proposal). Neg can also attack on the effectiveness of affirmative plan because apparently affirmative has the BURDEN OF PROOF (haha my other favorite terms. Lol.). Definition of burden of proof : term used in formal debate and in law refer to the duty or responsibility to prove something.
Hmm, we also read about argument and evidence on the text book, as well as about case and constructive. There are 2 kinds of responds : refute, and rebut. Refute is more to defensive, asking if argument or statement provided by the other side of the house is true. Rebut, is more to offense and to rebuild argument. Well, in most cases, some many people (and adjudicators) will be freaking out if I refute too much so I guess I'll just try not to do that :p
As everyone may have noticed, this debate class is more to teach policy (proposal) debates than the philosophical one. Policy resolutions follow certain guidelines:
1. The resolution should focus on a current, controversial issue.
2. the resolution is started in a way that forces the affirmative to change policy
3. Resolution should contain only 1 topic.
4. Resolution should avoid ambiguous language.
Hmm. I'm relieved. Seriously.
I know it was not a policy debate, but it just remind me to Erry's motion on Phyxius : THBT Love is the answer. Yaa, at that time I was the negative team and I have no idea what case will the affirmative bring so during the case building time, my teammates and I were just eating and gossiping. I still remember Erry's other motions: THBT in cock fighting, THB in Peter pan. Well at least I know I'll never get this kind of motions in my debate class here. hahahaa.. Those motions are actually funny. I guess I'll tell my teacher about these motions and she how she'll react.. ;)
In the text book, there is a part with the title of EVALUATING EVIDENCE, which is basically a bunch of question a GOOD debater should remember before taking an evidence to the debate:
1. Is the authority qualified?
2. is the authority cited?
3. Is the person a reluctant witness?
4. Is the evidence independently verifiable?
5. In statistical studies, are supporting reasons given for the conclusion?
6. Is the evidence recent enough to support the claims made?
GYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA.....
I tried real hard not to laugh to death. I was in the class so I think it'd really weird if suddenly I just laughed beacuse of reading a freakin huge textbook, which is NOT supposed to be funny anyway. Yayaa, if you are my teammates, Marsha Faradina of Marini Nur Izzah or have been in the same team with me, or if you were my opponents or my adjudicators or my coach or if you are Norman Febrian or Masyhur Hilmy, I bet you know why ;)
Now, problem.
I suck even before I came here. I suck still even when I practiced debate everyday. NOW, I've been not debating for almost 6 damn months, and surprise! I'll be super dumb. Nah, on the 1st semester, I told my debate teacher that I did English debate in Indonesia back there, and she remembered that till now. And guess what? My teacher believes that I'm a master of debate or something like that; she said in front of the class that I can be a freaking expert on the class, and at the and of the class, she told the class that if anyone need further explanation about debate terms, they can go and ask me. HAHAHAHAA. Ask me? SURE. Me, Egalita Irfan, an ESL student, a debater that frequently got lost to SEF ITB students especially to her coaches, with the "honorary" name of Chernobyllia Lapynda, and did get 0 speaker point and did lost with margin -140? SURE.
Anyway, that is now my burden of proof. However stupid I am, I am still carrying the pride of winning ALSA, and some other competitions. Yayaa, ganbatte then! I need to refresh my brain.
Wait, why the hell do I write these all?
0 komentar:
Post a Comment