We shall instruct you in the art of SLAUGHTER

Slaughter of arguments, that is.

I had my first graded debate a while ago, with Nina (Bahjin). To think that she deferred last Friday and then showed up today... well, just goes to show that it's not over til it really is over. Anyway, I'm just glad that the Tina-Nina (or Nina-Tina) team is alive and kicking again. Pangalan pa lang, panalo na! HAHAHA. It's an excellent conversation piece, mind you, and it helps people remember us two, though sometimes they can't remember which is which.

So, to the debate. I was feeling anxious about this over the weekend, to the point of pleading to my family to pep me whenever I'm on the verge of deferring. And I have to tell you, I was THISCLOSE to deferring because Nina's deferment last Friday was rather deflating for the morale. But whatever. I have the firm belief that someday, I will be ready for everything; it's just a question of whether the time is right. I mean, I do believe that I was old enough to take on the Speechfest during my senior year (and I was right, to my relief). And now I think, after three years of swearing off debate, that I'm ready to try debating again.

The motion:

This house would legalize abortion only for rape victims.

I was Government Member, Nina was the Whip.

This would be the first time I took on the role of GM. I honestly don't get what they mean by "elevation" [of the debate], which supposedly would come from the Closing side (meaning us!), but Mels told me that the usual tactic was to zero in on one perspective in order to differentiate the Opening Government's contributions from the Closing Gov. I was a little nervous when it was my turn, but after I did my arguments, everything became a hundred times more amusing-- to the point that the debate was actually funny. To me at least.

Anyway. Enough of the debate jargon.

In the end, our team was ranked

FIRST. (Gov won overall, though Opening Gov came in second.)

It was totally unexpected; we were partly lucky and partly good enough, I guess. But I'm quite relieved to know that I'm not totally bad at debating, as I had previously thought. Debating, more than winning an argument, is like Proving in Geometry: you start off with a banner statement, give a premise, and then wiggle down to your conclusion, which will support your side's stance. I think I'm getting the hang of the logic thing.

If we came in third, it wouldn't have been so bad (though of course, it would have been a nip on the ego)-- I mean, nobody has to be brilliant the first time. Like me for example. If my arguments were insecticide, their toxicity level would brand them under "Organic Insecticide". It's not the DDT of arguments, but it's getting there. It will get there.

It comforts me to know that everybody starts from scratch. It gives you the hope of being better next time. :)