Everyone is anticipating about the debate challenge originated from DS Anwar Ibrahim towards the prime minister, DS Najib Razak.
Which to me, of course, is pointless.
Though some pointed out that by initiating a debate in between the two great minds, the people may become instantly educated and therefore be able to choose wisely in between the two, I beg to think the otherwise.
A debate, first and foremost, is "a formal method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examines consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic" (source: Wikipedia).
Mind the word mentioned up there: persuasion. Debate is an art of convincing by means of superiority. The point is to make the opponent to shut the hell up. This technique, though quite hard to master, can be very beneficial in winning arguments. As long as one is able to condemn the opponent to an end of silence, then he shall be announced as the superior winner. But just how accurate that the arguments can be?
Provided that DS Anwar Ibrahim is already a bewildered speaker, his talent mostly revolves around his words. He has the advantage of advancing his moves by mobilizing his entire speech. DS Najib Razak on the other hand is not quite a speaker. This difference in debating ability in both sides has already determined the ending outcomes. And if I were Najib too, I would have done the same.
Take me for example, I am quite an established writer. I have wide range of vocabulary and tactical ways of writing. With this talent I am able to do many things; all of them mainly depending of what my intentions are at the time. Therefore, if I ever to challenge a person in a writing contest, and provided that I have adequate knowledge that the person I am challenging has moderate, if not poor, ability in writing, I would have done it, just because I can already predict the outcomes of the rivalry contest. This situation can be clearly visualized in the effort shown by Anwar by challenging Najib into a duel, which he convincingly knows that Najib would have completely declined, hence his winning prizes were granted once Najib did.
And therefore Anwar can gain more supporters: a solid move to collect back all the supporting losses previously, especially for the incoming general election.
The unknowing minds will portray that Najib happens to be a coward and that Anwar is at the right side. It is commonly typical, given that mostly the Malaysian ways of thinking are partially to completely funny. Malaysian loves provocation very much for still unknowing reasons; a trait that generally consumes the bearer once he or she is challenged into a similar kind of duel.
Because some Malaysians are just like that: they love conflicts that occur between any interesting parties, be it in politic or socially-derived events, but chicken out when they themselves become the involving parties. Furthermore, it is not very hard to convince a large group of poorly-informed people, especially those who are poorly educated, ignorants, and not able to get their hands to informations. This too depends on how the convincer acts upon them, be it with provocations, facts and some other methods.
Therefore too, I think that the debate will not only project into a catastrophic ending but as well missing the real pictures in local political scenes and whatnots. It will be more productive if both parties can come out with factual statistics and data rather than debating on stuffs that perhaps will take years to debate on. That way not only real facts (better be certified facts before each party asks about its originality), not only statistical and analytical review can be done perfectly but also justifications can be done independently and realistically.
|The only guy with the coolest reaction.|
Who would you have trusted; the cooking oil price you see on the shelf at Tesco for yourself, or the price of cooking oil overheard from a heated argument in between two strangers you bumped into on the way there?
Think about it.
p/s: Malaysian ways of thinking are really funny, don't you think?