‘Everything happens for a reason’ is more than just an arbitrary crutch phrase to justify one’s misfortune. 

We find ourselves clinging to a silver lining, inevitably searching for meaningful ways to adapt and explain an unwanted circumstance. Every bit of it is an attempt at consolation, and we do it so instinctively that we do not even notice how fundamental and intrinsic this self-talk is. 

Unbeknownst to many, this form of bargaining within the halls of our heads is already reasoning with our own subconscious. We argue with our preconceived notions, use reason to rationalize our situation, and offer counter-solutions and alternatives that serve as our north star moving forward. In this case, we are already ‘debating,’ maybe not with an opposing team across the room, but with ourselves in order to come up with a sound and favorable decision.

Suggesting that there truly is an absolute reason for everything would push the agenda a tad too far. Acknowledging the foundational role of debating and the conscious effort to know the rudimentary principles of good argumentation, however, are an appropriate and noble endeavor.

Six years of varsity debating was made more fulfilling in retrospect now that I realize the application of sound argumentation and good-quality conversations with people outside the debate room, especially those holding different dispositions. Below is my comprehensive account of certain principles I got from debate, and why I think they should be enough to persuade you to join your debate club now.

UPPING UP YOUR ‘BS (BULLSH*T)’ METER

Debates depend on arguments like life does on blood. Arguments are made up of words, and words can be fabricated. Our innate desire to win a conflict or discussion often prompts us to go to extreme lengths just so we can sound dominant and seem powerful relative to our opposing party. 

What debate teaches is not that the world around us is pure ‘bs,’ nor does it advocate for reasoning techniques that punch through the noise even at the expense of quality. Instead, debate essentially increases our natural tendency to question. In this day and age where all sorts of information are only a series of clicks away, it is crucial that we know when to question what’s being said, and precisely what questions to ask. 

In debate, we are taught to dedicate a good chunk of our seven-minute speeches (British Parliamentary Format) to what’s pertained to as ‘rebuttals.’ A good introduction to rebutting effectively is to first recognize what part of the opposing argument you agree with, followed by a mention of what you don’t, and then clash it with what your side wants instead. This way, you are able to appreciate holistically every dimension of the argument without losing sight of your proposed resolution. 

This is important because real-life conflicts, more often than not, turn to theatrics more than actual logic. Deception through fabricated information has become more commonplace, leveraged by architectures of fake news and agenda-seeking machinery. 

Possessing the basic skill of responding logically to arguments won’t shield us automatically from all disinformation attempts, but it stretches our capacity to slow down and absorb what is only necessary, and our ability to use a series of filters before acting like sponges to information. This is an invaluable aspect of our participation in public discourse, especially in the face of polarizing views and divisive belief systems. 

HALF OF ‘DEBATING’ IS LISTENING

A common problem beginners in competitive debating encounter is the irresistible use of an imposing demeanor. Debates are won by the overall merit of a debate speech, and although part and parcel of its criteria is the manner by which the speech is delivered, content is still king. 

Debaters often misconstrue intimidation as an integral winning trait. This is a perfect microcosm of how society operates. The power dynamics between the powerful and the voiceless are perpetuated intentionally so much so that those who have influence retain their stronghold of that position. In reality, a productive and healthy debate is one where parties involved are ready, willing, and able to give time to one another to elucidate their prepared cases, and where interruption and intimidation are left out of the equation deliberately. 

Election season is always a prime opportunity to apply the listening aspect of competitive debating. Family gatherings are an inevitable hodge podge of varying schools of thought, separated by any and all kinds of identity gaps - age, generation, SOGIE, and political leaning, among many others. I’ve heard countless anecdotes from friends about how one unassuming family dinner would morph into a hostile conversation about the election candidates, that would later translate to severed ties and pent-up anger. I know how it must’ve felt for my friends, I got into a couple myself.

Often, the listening part is overlooked and taken for granted. When we refuse to listen, we sacrifice the opportunity to appreciate our family members’ concerns genuinely in exchange for surface-level panache - thinking egoistically that there is nothing else to extract from their claims (thus jumping straight to our own arguments without listening). This is detrimental not only to our own arguments but more importantly to the ensuing debate resolution. If it is true that debates are hoped to produce a meaningful outcome, then underappreciating the opposing side’s claims would be totally counterproductive to the objective.

CALM DURING THE STORM

Calmness should not just be found before a storm. Debate is the perfect discipline to show how essential calmness can be in the face of adversity. My college coach would always remind me of the ‘Jedi mentality,’ referencing the masterful ability of the Jedi (from “Star Wars”) to enter a mode of extreme concentration and meditation using the force, which would allow them to see through the enemies attacks as they’re able to slow things down massively. Debate rounds, especially in high-pressure tournaments, can be extremely emotional and overwhelming. The same can be said for the many tasks and challenges within the realms of journalistic practice. There’s pressure in deadly deadlines. We risk going against powerful entities in the constant pursuit of justice and parity. There is news coverage where there is danger. 

All these require tranquility and levelheadedness, for nothing good is ever borne out of panic and chaos. Our calmness during the storm allows us to see through the thick cloud of distractions, providing us with the ability to function properly, respond well to any situation, and ultimately deliver even in the craziest environments.  

In an increasingly digitized world, where the democratization of information has produced more and more armchair experts who have gained an unprecedented level of confidence, it is imperative that we take it upon ourselves to safeguard high-quality conversations. 

Debates are always a good avenue to exercise the fundamentals: to explore the myriad of ways we can justify and be presented with justification; to question and be open to disagreements; to remain silent not for the sake of remaining silent but to intently listen to things we may never have heard before. If we are to believe that our misfortunes happen for a reason, then it might be worth considering that every conflict may be worth every argument.