Debaters: stigmas, paradigms, and the reality

Humans are never an objective living being. No matter what rules there are to prevent subjectivity, people still do it anyways. There are a lot of reasons for that, too. Some people do subjectivities because they have connections with another party, thus making them “morally guilty” for not giving that party a “slight advantage”. Some others do subjectivities on the basis of norms, that they uphold certain values. Thus, making them already have a perceived perception or mindset towards a particular thing, which we usually refer to prejudice and stigmas. These two things have a negative connotation, it refers that a certain group has a lower position compared to them, and this is based on irrational basis, like personal hatred, differences that cannot be bridged, etc.

Stigmas exist in every single society, in various aspects. People have biased perceptions of others with racial, ethnic, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, and profession differences. This in fact, becomes the foundations of discriminative actions within our society, such as hate speeches. But my note isn’t going to talk more on discrimination. As debaters, we’re used of putting aside differences and try to be as objective as we could. Also as debaters, we ourselves have stigmas running above our heads. Am going to discuss and analyze the stigmas that the “muggles” *am being discriminative myself, LOL!* or non-debaters has upon us.

1. Debaters think of themselves as smart-asses and know-it-alls

Most people believe that debaters are annoying because they are smart-asses; they seem to know everything that happens today, in economics, politics, etc. Well, that is false. We never know everything. Heck, we’re not wikipedia! But if people say that debaters know lots of things, then that might be correct.

This is due to the fact that debaters, when they’re going to compete in a tournament, they prepare themselves by searching and reading up current and even past issues, and by doing so, they become matter-loaded, that they even know details of things that muggles don’t know! Is it wrong that debaters know about the 2 versions of Heath Care Reform in the USA (the Senate and the House’s) or the existence of special schools, such as Harvey Milk schools and vernacular schools, and muggles don’t? Debaters engage themselves with issues and that’s how they know it all, whereas muggles tend to be ignorant of those things.

The idea of debaters being know-it-alls is also false. Know-it-alls are people who indeed have extensive information and use it unnecessarily to show that they are knowledgeable, that they will be deemed smart and stand out. Unnecessarily here means that the information has little or no significant link of what is being discussed (i.e.: discussing about Luna Maya vs. Media case, then suddenly an info about the Middle East is brought up). Debaters, on the other hand, know and uphold the idea of relevance. If what they know, although deep and thorough, is unrelated to the topic, they won’t use it.

2. Debaters always rationalize everything, therefore has no beliefs, they always become either an Agnostic or Atheist

This is also a sad assumption that muggles put upon us. It is true that we mainly think by using logic, but that doesn’t mean that we rationalize everything. We still consider things that are important, such as being politically and morally correct, ethics, and code of conducts. I mean, we do acknowledge that we often champion the idea of “little sacrifice for the greater good”, but that cannot be taken just for granted, because that idea is well considered, following the ethics that we have. I mean, when we give Death Penalty to criminals, we also consider this policy, we do a cost-and-benefit analysis as well. It’s not like we woke up one morning and say, “let’s give sexual offenders a Death Penalty!”

Secondly, on the idea of debaters are mostly agnostic and atheist. This is true, that there are debaters who chose to pursue such stances regarding their religious beliefs. But there is no link between debaters thinking logically and becoming agnostic-atheist! We do think critically, yes, sometimes we even ask about the teachings or truths that religion offers us. But that is not mutually exclusive to debaters only. Even non-debaters also question the idea of religious beliefs. It can be concluded that everyone is capable of questioning religion, regardless debaters or not. There are lots of debaters that have been debating for ages (and we refer them as bangkoters, dinosaurs, even fossils, LOL) and they still uphold their religious values!

3. Debaters has no social life, their social circles are only among debaters

Aha. One of the classical stigmas. People think that debaters only have each other as friends, and that debate is the only thing they do and talk about. This is soooo wrong, on every level! First of all, it is a nature of human to make cliques. What are cliques? It is a form of peer grouping, based on the sense of similarity. In high schools in USA, we can see that cheerleaders tend to only mingle between cheerleaders. The same thing applies to football jocks and “nerdy” library book-worms. What does this show us? It shows us that people have huge tendencies to partner up with people who have the same interests as them, because that’s what makes them “connect” one another. For example, people who like to play golf tend to make a group among themselves. Try finding a group that consists of people with very different and contradicting interests. I’d be surprised if there is one.

Second, on the idea that debating is the only thing we do. This is also very wrong. Well, if it was correct, our lives would be totally and universally pathetic! Debaters also go to malls, have socials, watch movies together, go karaoke-ing, and have sleepovers: basically, the same like anyone else! It’s just that most likely, the topics that would pop up when these people meet up are debating topics. And that is perfectly fine! Try to see politicians when they meet up at Starbucks, what are they most likely going to discuss about? If they happen to discuss the couture dresses going to be shown in Paris this spring, then that’s the time we say the world is going to end.

4. Debaters are egocentric, they don’t want to lose

Haha. The last classical stigma. People perceive debaters as selfish, ego-centric, they always want to win, and never wants to lose. Well, let’s ask the question back: who wants to lose in life? No one! If there is, am so going to become a vegetarian (which is both philosophically and practically impossible)! It just happens that debaters engage in competitions more than other people do. And in competitions, there are always wins and losses. In order to win over the other team, of course, we must be persistent and consistent enough to show that we’re better.

And it also happens that debaters are very well trained in terms of coping with losses. People who have a hard time accepting defeat are those who never experience one. Debaters, on the other hand, must’ve experienced losses, either small or painful, many times. This indirectly shapes the character of debaters. They learn to be competitive, they learn to have targets, they learn to strive hard, and they learn to accept realities.

Well, basically, this note is just my two cents on the stigmas other people have towards debaters. At first, am personally offended knowing that we were perceived that way, but then, after writing this note, am feeling waaay better!

Inspired by : Boby Andika Ruitang, Faculty of Psychology 2009 in University of Indonesia, one of many great debaters I know