On Debating

We have just started on debating as the latest part of our English curriculum. We are formed into groups and assigned topics to debate on. All this is fine. Here's the part which I do not like nor understand about debating. We are told whether to support the topic or oppose the topic. Why are we told whether to support or to oppose? First of all, I never actually get to sincerely and honestly mull over the topic in my head and come to a decision. I just have to accept it that I am supporting this or opposing this. Perhaps, by some luck, if the side of contention which we are directed to coincides with my personal opinion, I will be able to put my sincere arguments on the motion. Otherwise, I would have to brainstorm, create seemingly convincing arguments for my side, or do research on what other people say or argue that is in favor of our side of the argument.

While I agree that every motion, proposal or decision will have multiple faces, each one of us would have our own personal opinion on this motion unless we have yet to come to a decision or are sitting on the fence. However, when the arguments we present in a debate is not a true reflection of our stand or our point of view, then the debate is no longer a platform for honest discussion, in which there is a certain desired outcome such as a search for some sort of truth or beneficial solution or an understanding of understanding of an issue from certain angles and what is it that we are concerned about. In this situation the result of debate will depend on the debating quality of an individual than to the motion.

The danger of this is that a creator of good arguments will able to swing the motion in the any direction. It is also true that the event the most righteous side also need the argument. Arguments, which are crystal clear and convincing. So if the idea of this exercise is to train individuals to create and deliver convincing argument by their fast and critical thinking then I am fine with this. But if it just for creating arguments without any belief on the motion, I have my reservations.

Political Issues

"Democracy creates stability in a society"

A society is socially stable when its citizens or people are at peace and there are little or no tensions and conflicts among them that may cause the society to deteriorate.

Democratic government is formed by representative of people elected at regular intervals. For a democracy to work properly in country, there are certain requirements that need to be fulfilled. To give a few examples, there must be equality among people regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, language and religion; there must be understanding of democratic principles by the citizens of that country; the country must have professional army that does not have any political ambitions and no one must be above the law.


There are several examples of instability happening under the democratic system. One example is the civil war in America. The slavery system where fellow human beings were not treated equally caused that unrest. In Pakistan, attempts have been made to impose democracy many times since her independence which has failed miserably. Recently in Thailand, the elected government of Thailand was thrown out by the army over corruption charges casing instability in that country.

Analyzing these situations, we discover that one or other requirement of democracy was not met. The reason for the American civil war was inequality and discrimination among fellow citizens whereas in case of Pakistan there are reasons were like non professional military having a huge political interest. Their repeated ambition to take over the power is further fueled by the corrupt politicians with lack of transparency in the government. In the case of Thailand the executives starts undermining the authority of judiciary making the people nervous of possible anarchy. This forced the security forces to take control. This shows that democratic system, if boundary conditions are no met, may not be the ideal system providing stability in all the countries of the world.


On the positive side, democratic system does have provided great stability in many countries. In fact only a very small number of countries, e.g. Bangladesh, Uganda, Philippines, Thailand, East Timor etc. have experienced instability under democracy. Democracy being a system of inclusion addresses the concerns of every individual of society through opposition and proposition. Finding solution while addressing difference not only gives out best results, it also satisfies everyone. The main reason for instability is dissatisfaction causing uprising. This definition “of the people”, “for the people” and “by the people” gives the freedom to communities to choose the way they want their system to work making them responsible for their own actions. They enjoy the freedom and get a chance to change it in case the things are not going the expected way.

Democracy promotes competition which helps innovation leading flourishing in economy and wealth creation. The improved economic scenario improves the quality of life of people increasing the satisfaction level; another reason for higher stability.

There are several ways of governance like, monarchy, dictatorship, communism, socialism, democracy etc. Based on results, as of today the democracy is out performed all the others in terms of lifting the standard of life and most importantly providing stability. But how long this will last, still has to be seen. Democratic system is fuelling the capitalism and hence consumerism so much so that it starts to harm the very nature where we live in. The global warming, pollution, economic imbalance in the society etc, if not checked will create more harm and instability than good. The other systems of governance with all their deficiency at least left nature intact. This freedom coming from democracy will provide all the comfort but no place to enjoy it. This is the reason for being non committal on the future of democracy.

Political Issues

"Democracy creates stability in a society"

The above motion will be discussed by Liu Jiahua, Sang Shaofei, Cui Jianqiao, Soham Ghosh and Shayan Mahfooz Ansari ( author of this blog), in the comments section, which can be accessed be clicking on "comments" at the bottom right hand corner of this post. Please do not comment unless you are one of the persons mentioned above.

On a side note, I do not understand how is it that Soham Ghosh's and Sang Shaofei's comments were deleted as I certainly did not delete or attempt to delete them. However, they can still be viewed by clicking on "comment deleted". In case they are completely removed, I have saved them on a word document.

Social/Teen Issues

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/28/style/rmake.php?page=1

'Never too young for that first pedicure'

This I article that I got from The International Herald Tribune is about how cosmetic products are being targetted at little girls, how girls have started to play with cosmetics and use beauty products even before they have reached the age of maturity and voices concerns about how these girls are getting matured at too young an age.

I personally share the views of one the parents interviewed for this article, in which she says, "I'd rather my girls try it (cosmetic products) and decide they don't need all these products to be beautiful, and then do something more vital with their time and money and efforts, like write a poem or take a walk or save the world."

In today's world, many women, teenage girls and in this case, little girls are obsessed with their outer appearance and spend lots of money, time and effort trying to make themselves look more beautiful. They buy many cosmetic products, spend time in front of the dressing table, go for manicures, pedicures, make overs and in some extreme cases, plastic surgery and use stuff like botox.
Such things are extensively advertised and glorified in the media and they are constantly bombarding females with the message that they should try to look as attractive as possible. I find it very disturbing when I hear that chinese women try make their eyes wider and bigger in an attempt to look more westernised and to look more beautiful. To me, one disliking the way she looks and wanting to adopt the looks of another race is taking things too far.

Haven’t we heard the quote 'beauty is only skin deep'? Yet the only value that is being given to women and girls is that of skin deep. In the fairy tales, prince must be brave, strong , handsome and a symbol of good against evil. The princess is beautiful and that is pretty much her role. The triumph of the prince is to be married to the beautiful princess.

The role of cosmetics and other beautifying elements, as I see it, is to make princesses for men. Of course I have not forgotten that the criteria of a prince is also to be handsome, and men also do similiar things but it is just that it is more common in women.

Going back to the newspaper above, I feel that the girls' fascination for beauty products and their innocent wishes to try them out will evolve into an obsession and they will become the next generation of women who will undervalue themselves if they do not look beautiful or if they do not meet the standards of beauty as advocated by the media or the public. I think that women should avoid over doing 'the whole "self-beautification" thing' so as to protect themselves, their daughters, sisters and in general, 'femaledom' from being beauty slaves.