Debating and a future of a generation

The last week of October and the first week of November revealed to me signs of a great future for our generation. Two debate championships on two consecutive weekends mean a lot, they do not come monthly. Acfode (Action for Development held an inter-university debate championship from 29^th to 30^th, October, 2010 and the Open Space Forum in conjunction with the National Debate Council organized another from 5^th to 6^th of November, 2010. So what, one might ask.

My fascination with debating dates back to my primary school days when I started debating formally. Debate volunteers were always few, I almost got a role on every week’s debate as the debate chair, timekeeper, opposer, or proposer. The debating bug followed me to Kigezi High School, in my five years there; I never missed a single inter-house debating competition. As early as 2001, in my Senior Two I was named the School’s Best Junior Debater! In 2004, I was named Best Western Region Debater in the Uganda National Students Association debates, and was listed among the Top ten debaters in the country for that year at the national level! At university, I did not have enough opportunities for competitive debating, but found an alternative in moot court competitions, call them court-room debates, if you like. They have many similarities with debating tournaments anyway. That is how I “qualified” to be called up to be a judge of the two debate championships I started with.

The Acfode championship rotated on gender themes such as Bride Price, Affirmative Action, Polygamy and Abortion among others. I have strong opinions on gender equality matters, thus apart from the love for debating; this was bound to be an interesting championship for me. I was initially excited that males were in the house to debate gender issues. I have always argued that gender equality issues are not “women” issues per se but issues for both sexes. Blatant lies told by a debater always hurt but a judge of a debate has no choice when the opposite side does not point out the lie, many lies went unpunished! And absurd arguments also were left unchallenged, at some moment, one feels like joining the debate, one particular debater while arguing against affirmative action quoted the Bible and told us that woman was cursed and punished and man elevated thus to propose affirmative action for women is unbiblical! If the judge’s views on the topic/motion counted, I would have failed that debater, but they do not, his wit and excellent style earned him more than one could reduce.

But not to dwell on the negative side, the Acfode debate opened my eyes to some hope. I noted a few individuals that are a sure promise for a brighter future. Mr. Osipo Benjamin and Mr. Karamagi Andrew to mention only two left a mark on me. Not only were these two, calm and composed debaters, but they also had their facts and were ready to dismantle any argument from the opposite side. I learnt new stuff that day like the research findings to the effect that a fetus has life, because it can sustain an erection according to researchers at John Hopkins university, thus to abort is to kill! One may disagree with the John Hopkins researchers but in a debate, such an argument based on fact and logically brought out makes the debater’s speech compelling. But to only talk about the good ones is not fair, I also saw terrible debaters, one wonders whether they skipped A’ Level and joined university. Certainly, the education system needs very urgent reform!

The second debate championship was held at St. Lawrence University. The universities in attendance were many some from as far as Gulu and Mbarara! The theme was Climate change Justice, probably explaining why the passion at the Acfode debate was not in plenty here. Or let us blame it on the value as opposed to policy dichotomy in the types of debates. But this debate tournament had its share of humor.  It brought back many memories of the olden debating days. What I have not yet said is the fact that these debates follow the British Parliamentary (BP) system. In the BP debate, there are two sides, the Government and Opposition sides, each with two teams of two debaters each. On the Government side is the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister (one team), a member of Government and Government Chief Whip (second team) and on the opposition side, there is the leader of opposition and deputy leader of opposition (one team) and a member of opposition and opposition chief whip (the fourth team). Sticking to a debater’s designated role as prime minister or chief whip etc is a code to winning the competition. .

The BP is hugely different from the typical debates we had in our times in primary and secondary schools. For us, like the Ugandan parliamentary debate, we had a chairman of the debate (speaker in the Ugandan parliament), who allowed points of information, order, inquiry and some even vulgarized the interruptions to include some weird points, as point of correction etc. There were no roles save for knowing that one was an opposer or proposer. And with these debates came lots of raw humor. That is the type of humor I encountered on some occasions while judging some teams at the inter-university debate championship. Some one telling the house that the other side is suffering from “an anemia of policies and malnutrition of ideas”! That is stuff for stand-up comedy not for an inter-university debate championship! Certainly, there is still a long way ahead.

The good news though is that the National Debate Council is available and ready to lead the way. In the few years (less than three) the council has existed, it has already established a National Schools Championship for secondary schools that follows the internationally recognized formats of debating. My hope is that this generation of debaters will make Uganda a debating nation, a nation of ideas, a nation of tolerance, a nation of reason, a nation of diversity and a nation of freedom of thought. What is important now is to work towards expanding this debating generation, to encourage those already engaged to involve their colleagues and then counting on the multiplier effect have a debating nation. This, we must do aware of the fact that some of our senior leaders are rapping their way to popularity than bringing to table appealing ideas!

It is however not necessarily wishful thinking to propose that one day before February 2011 we have all presidential candidates around one table debating their ideas for developing the nation. The possibility of this happening is bolstered by the Thursday night NTV’s On the Spot show where Rtd. Col. Dr. Kizza Besigye was engaging Arthur Larok of the National NGO Forum and Emmanuel Kitamirike of Uganda Youth Network about what the citizens desire for 2011 – 2016. We certainly remember that Maj. Gen. Mugisha Muntu tussled it out with Rtd. Col. Kizza Besigye for FDC top leadership not only at Namboole but also in the studios of KFM in a face to face debate relayed live. Those are important milestones to building a debating culture in this nation. So, the time is indeed soon when ideas are tested against ideas than propaganda, trading insults, molesting and flogging opponents.