Elaborating and Finding Philosophical Principles

I have gained this through philosophy; that I do without being commanded what others do only from the fear of law

-Aristotle

Four Elements of a Philosophical Point

Okay, disclaimer first. This guideline is not rigid. I’m not saying that you should always, all the time, 100%, adhere to these elements. This is something that you need to learn, yes. Something you may need to understand before you find a more flexible way, yes. You have to read this, yes. But in the end you decide. This method is, in my opinion, already flexible enough. In any way you want to deliver your principle, be it a linear explanation, be it a branchy one, be it a diverging or converging one, you can put these four elements into it.

Oh and this guide is something I design from watching gazillions of hours of WUDC, AUDC, EUDC and APDA debates. So it shouldn’t be that bad.

1.            Contextualization

This is where you pull a particular motion/debate/stance to a philosophical concept. You can’t, for example, just talk about freedom of speech or freedom of religion without explaining why your side has anything to do with those concepts.

Example:

“THW force Catholic adoption agencies to accept homosexual couples” [WUDC 08 Quarters]

You’re, for instance, posing as the opposition. You want to advocate for freedom of religion. You can’t just talk about freedom of religion without explaining which part of the motion harms freedom of religion.

You may firstly say:

“Homosexuals are believed as sinful by the Catholics. If you want to force Catholic agencies to accept homosexual couples, that means you’re forcing them to contradict with the values their own religious teachings believe.”

Only then can you move on to explaining why religion is something extremely important to people.

This is best done through practices and examples. But the bottom line is that if you directly talk about freedom of religion without explaining why you’re talking about it, it’s going to reduce the relevance and thus the strength of your philosophical principle.

2.            Importance for Subjects

This one is simple. Explain why the principle that you’re talking about is needed by individuals and the main subjects of the debate.

Let’s take the motion above.

You’re still negative. You’re explaining about freedom of religion.

“We can’t easily harm people’s rights to embrace their religious beliefs. Religion is something extremely important because it is a guidance, a purpose of life, it gives them peace of mind, religion is how people actualize themselves. The quality of life to most people isn’t just determined by worldly riches, but also the assurance that they gain virtue from God and go to heaven in the afterlife.”

This part is probably the most important part of a philosophical principle, although that depends a lot to what principle you’re trying to explain.

NOTE:   The subject is usually individuals and the people of one government. But in some cases like in international conflict motions, the subject may be a nation. Thus, you need to explain why one principle is important for nations.

3.            Importance for Governing Body

This part is quite similar to #2, but here you explain why one principle is important for a governing body to uphold and realize.

“By not upholding this principle, the government is being inconsistent with its own constitution which states that…”

“This is fundamental for a government because it is always the government’s duty to…”

“This principle cannot be interfered by the government because it’s in the private sphere of the people. The government can only intervene when it’s in public sphere…”

Link the principle to the constitution of one government, the laws that it adheres to, its aims and purposes, etc.

NOTE:   In international conflict motions, the governing body may be the United Nations. Nations may be the subjects instead of a governing body.

4.            Precedence

Consistency is the ground which all nations stand upon (well, almost always), so an example of a previous policy that is similar to the policy you’re proposing always helps your case a lot.

What precedence show:

-          This has been done before, thus it is CONSISTENT if we do a similar policy and otherwise inconsistent if we don’t

-          This has been done before, thus we CAN do it resource and approval wise

-          You’re smart and knowledgeable, thus what you say next would be listened more. Not to mention you might be able to intimidate your opponent and wow the crowd if your delivery on the precedence is strong. Okay, a bit of an exaggeration there

Example:

Let’s say you’re explaining about secularism.

“Some states in the United States have banned animal slaughter in the name of religion because of public health concerns. Some other states have banned the existence of religious schools for reasons of security and integration. Not to mention that religious laws are overridden by state laws in other secular countries. These precedence showed us that we can limit religious rights for the sake of public concern.”

Though you need to be careful not to implicitly say that “we want to do this just because other states have done so too.” Delivery matters and the previous three elements may need to be fulfilled first so that it doesn’t sound as if precedence is the only thing that you have without any supporting logic behind them.

 

Finding Philosophical Points

Now that you have a slight idea of how to deliver the point, let’s skim through some ways on how you can find a philosophical point.

Read. Yeah, read.

But anyway.

1.            Find out whether a proposal is in line or not in line with the principle and aim of one institution.

                - What are the purposes and duties of a democratic government? Is a particular proposal consistent or in line with them?

- What is the purpose of a public school, and is it in line with a particular proposal?

- Is the idea of voting in line with the purpose and function of the army?

- What are the purposes of a criminal punishment or a prison? Is a debated policy aimed to inmates in line with them?

- What are the ideologies that a nation believes in? Is it unregulated free market?  Is it a secular state? Does the corresponding policy contradict to one of them?

Once you’ve found one of them, you can analyze the logic behind that principle or aim that the particular institution upholds, and then explain them. Then get an 80 speaker score and bask in glory. Another exaggeration.

2.            Find out whether or not a policy is fair. Almost everything in a democratic government’s context is based on take and give; well at least that’s how a particular Sydney Union debater that took a doctorate degree in Social Contract said. Everyone that contributes in the same way to the state should be given back something that is equal to each other.

                But fairness may not stop at taking and giving. Sometimes you need to analyze who’s to blame for a particular damage done, and make the correct perpetrator/doer the one who would take full responsibility, not other subjects.

 

 

ITB IVED 2010

If you were around during the last IVED at UMY, then you must probably know already that ITB won the right to host IVED for next year. We're currently cooking up our plans precisely for this, but you'll still see us around.

Until we have a tournament website, watch this space!

Ah ha!

ITB EXPO 2008 Debate for High Schools

Amidst the excitement offered by the booths and the main stage in the previous ITB Expo, I guess it'd be pretty easy to miss the completely different amusement at Plano classrooms, where the ITB Expo committee held a parliamentary debate in Indonesian language for high school students. Yes, apparently there are parliamentary debates using indonesian language. And it was indeed an honor for SEF to be able to participate in the tournament as adjudicators for the tournaments.

The tournament itself used asian format, where there are two teams in each debate, each defending or opposing a motion offered, a basic format. During the tournament, as there were no preliminary rounds, it offered the participants added thrill, in addition to the lucrative prize money available (I don't have the details here, but rumour has it it was in order of millions of rupiahs). there were lots of interesting and vigorous debate on nuclear power plants, foreign investment and so on.

On a side note, the grand final debate was an epic one, as it was a battle of sexes, boys (Tarogog) versus girls (3 Bandung); as well as battle in the manner of speaking, of fast-paced speech (3 Bandung) and deliberate demeanor (Tarogog). Finally concluding the tournament, SMA 3 Bandung speaking on behalf of opposition bench emerged champion of the tournament, defeated SMA 1 Tarogog in the motion of battle between modern market and its traditional counterpart. Congratulation!

As for us, it is very heartening to see our high school students involved in more debate competition which hopefully will then be more involved on issues surrounding them by invoking their critical thinking ability for the greater good. On behalf of SEF, I'd like to express my warmest gratitude to the committee, who had been so kind to provide the very opportunity to take part in the competition.

previously, in 2007 (part 2)

As the holiday ends, SEF were busied with preparation for OpenHouseUnit 2007, which went well and there were as many as 200-something people signing up. Talents were spotted and hopes were grown. The air of optimism leads to decision to send newbies as part of ITB contingent to Capital Market Debate at STAN, with Danti leading the newbies, Tizar and Azi to form Team ITB A while the more familiar faces of Uphie, Elfa, and Masyhur joined team ITB B. ITB B managed to advance to Grand final, having defeated team UI B at semifinal, and were defeated by UI A. However, in addition to being Runner-up, Uphie and Masyhur succeeded to seize the 1st and 3rd Best Speaker trophies as well.

Considering into account that talents in newbies should be developed, we arrive at conclusion that more tournament experience is vital, thus sending two teams to UI’s Newbie Tournament was more than fitting. Although the participation was unyielding, it was definitely a good way for Pandu, Gilang, Raisa, Nik, Eling and Nogi to grasp the experience of a varsity-level debate tournament, particularly given the coaching sessions that comes part and parcel with the tournament.

Aside from minor activities like adjudicating in some high school debate tournament and national polytechnics English debate competition at poltekpos, the last major tournament available was Founders’ Trophy at UI, where team Emil-Pandu broke to the Quarterfinal round and team Uphie-Elfa progessed to Semifinal. Pandu was awarded Best Novice Speaker of the tournament.

At last, year 2007 was concluded with participation in Worlds 2008 that starts at December 27th, 2007. As events progressed, team Uphie-Masyhur collected 13 VPs of 9 preliminary debates and broke to ESL Octos. While none all four Indonesian team who broke the ESL round advance to ESL Quarterfinal rounds, it was a remarkable achievement, nonetheless.
Hence ends part two of year 2007, a mere stepping stone. Vivat, crescat, floreat.

Previously, in 2007 (part 1)

The first tournament of 2007 was IVED UnSoed Purwokerto, where ITB team of Uphie-Tyson-Masyhur finished 18th, while Aino was accredited B. Little did we know how the IVED encounter leads to one of many surprises revealed at JOVED. The tournament was so-so, and there's a large room for improvement at food and ceremonies department. However, we did found a place that served a very delicious grilled chicken. Deep fried chicken was also available at that restaurant, where it was surprisingly cheap.

NTU Dorothy Cheung, as the debaters sought for more competitive yet affordable training ground. Norman was the DCA, Will tried tab for the upcoming AUDC, Bahana scored 4 at the accreditation test, and both teams performed poorly; Team Ella-Safir-Emil managed to steal a VP higher than team Aino-Elfa-Masyhur. The result did scar us. Lots of good debates to be seen, though.

Even so, it was not until the end of the tournament when we found ourselves re-enacting the amazing race, when four out of seven people who left Singapore earlier, all Industrial engineering students, misses the Citilink flight from Batam to Bandung. The three who made it, Ella-Emil-Masyhur were filled with survivor's guilt for at least fifteen minutes. We did have a taxi race, running breathless and lots of panting on the plane.

ALSA UI E-Comp: the plot thickens, some bans the others from being in the same team. Which lead to decision to acquire Dito SBM after Aino's endorsement, who then sent to ALSA E-comp as adj, along with Uphie, while Ella-Safir-Elfa represented ITB as debating team. Sadly, similar result with IVED was seen again.

Amidst the hubbub, along came a request from LPKM to debate and represent ITB at NEUDC Semarang. Fueled with hope of securing a seat at WUDC funded by Ministry of Education, confusion that follows afterwards should come as no surprises. Nonetheless, good surprises came when both teams of Wil-Tyson and Emil-Safir broke to the quarter finals. Rumor has it that the ITB teams, with Martha as adj had a lot of talk with teams from Jogja. UGM emerged as the champion at this tournament.

Finally, May come, and for the first time, an international debating tournament was held in Indonesia. Three teams for ITB finally were arranged: Safir-Ella-Dito for ITB A, Wiliam-Tyson-Elfa for ITB B and Aino-Uphie-Masyhur for ITB C. ITB C broke to EFL Semifinal and faced a five-love defeat from Nando-Engel-Novel from UGM. In addition to Bahana ,Martha and Norman who was the DCA, Faiz and Ragil also adjudicate under ITB umbrella. History was in the making as UI broke to the Octos and later Ateneo crushed NUS at the final in Gedung Merdeka. the T-shirt business, however, was a fiasco, and currently there's still some XS-sized female AUDC Slug T-shirt available. Interested? Contact us.

As event progressed, more tournaments were coming, and we found ourselves busy preparing for JOVED UII, and eventually we sent two teams: Norman-Aino-Masyhur as ITB B and Elfa-Tyson-Uphie as ITB A, while Safir was sent as adj and Wiliam was invited as adj. Both teams advanced to the Semis, and unfortunately, UGM ruined the hope of all-ITB final. However, ITB A emerged champion, and Uphie stood[1] as the 1st best speaker while Norman trailed in 3rd position.

Rushing to PIMNAS, we--Aino-Uphie-Masyhur--were disappointed with the lodging, and most of all, the adjudicaton. more on the bizarre adjudication can be found here. We did manage to advance the semifinal, though, before we were defeated by UGM.

Hence ends the first half of 2007 with three semifinals, two quarterfinals, two best speakers and one champion title. A good first half, that is. Appareo decet nihil munditia?

---
[1] or sit, actually. he was in the taxi to Tugu Station with me and aino when the results were announced.

First Post, Help This Blog Grow Please!

At Founders' Trophy, Master Masyhur messaged me and asked me to create a blog for members of SEF. "Blog keroyokan" he said. So here it is, Master. Your humble apprentice is honored to have once again fulfilled your wish. It's a simple and free blog, but sufficient to be a "blog keroyokan" I guess.

By the time any of you SEF members are reading this, I've already messaged most of you the password and id needed to modify and write anything you like in this blog. It's a "blog keroyokan" after all. Every members are welcome here, of course, debaters or non-debaters, new members or old members, or even alumnies alike. Just to add, I think proper grammar would be required to write here. I don't mean to scare off any English beginners or to complicate your writing process. But I believe this blog can be a good place to practice our written English.

Oh and it would be nice if any of you could provide this blog with a SEF Logo  (do we have any, anyway?), or any 'SEF' writing with a good design.

Now start writing something, guys!

Best regards,

MPandu