A letter to the editor- the other side of Chinese debate scene. Special thanks to Ary and Valeri for help editing the crappy original piece. Hope it provides another perspective for readers who are not familiar with Chinese debate circle. SIR – As an active Chinese debater and avid reader of The Economist, I was pleased to learn of your interest on the Chinese debate scene (“This house believes”, 14th September). I have to disagree, however, with the view presented by Mr. Gavin Newton-Tanzer, and thus portrayed in your one-sided article, regarding university debate. University debate, both in British Parliamentary and Asian Style, is vibrant across the country, after the pioneering efforts by many foreign and local debate coaches such as Mr. Loke Wing Fatt from Singapore, and Mr. Zheng Bo from China, who constantly hold debate workshops and tournaments reaching hundreds of students every week. Most universities have debate societies and or at least active debate teams, especially in areas like Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Canton. There are regular domestic competitions (such as FLTRP Cup), and some of the largest international debate competitions in the world have been hosted in Chinese universities (Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics is hosting the 5th China Asian BP, the biggest regional BP tournament). Almost all these organizations are entirely run by students, and the debaters working for these organizations are trying to provide fellow debaters with high quality debate events. Even if they were to be run by teachers and professional coaches—who are as well dedicated in helping our debaters —university students are very likely to attend international competitions abroad or Chinese-hosted events attended by foreign students where uncensored topics are inevitably going to come up. In such tournaments, they exchange not only arguments during rounds, but also cultural values and practices. In debate trainings, university debaters are trained to question the single party system, a possible democratic transition, and the sovereignty over Diaoyu/Senkaku islands. Apart from that, university debaters are also trained to embrace differences and not rush to a conclusion without thorough thinking. Even under the spotlight, university students debated the motion, “This house would forgive the Rape of Nankin” in the Grand Final of the last China Debate Camp – a motion similar to the one that Mr. Gavin Newton-Tanzer’s students refused to debate. There is truth in the claim that it is not suggested to debate controversial issue, but being unable to choose the side you are tasked to defend gives students the ability to speak freely under protection of the ambiguity—it is impossible to determine if they mean what they say. All we know is that debaters would remain critical and are able to defend both sides of a topic. What debate, in our case, parliamentary debates to be specific, has taught us is that to have an open heart to embrace all kinds of differences, to have a critical mind to examine whatever is being presented, to have dare to disagree. We may not be able to change where we stand, but we are confident that we would be a part of the change when it shall happen. SHAO Yuxin President (July 2013 till Now), Beijing University Debate Association, Beijing CHAN Choyi Former President (September 2012 – June 2013), Beijing University Debate Association, Huizhou
Posted on: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 04:51:53 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015