Open to debate
DEBATING rules require two sides to argue an assigned proposition, taking the affirmative or negative position and propounding its merits; or, tearing down the arguments being proffered by the other team, even resorting to ad hominem attacks — it is clear from your arguments that you are not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. This kind of sarcasm leads to a deduction of points.
These days, debates are seldom staged, except in academic settings. Note that the last televised presidential debates turned out to be too scripted, rehearsed, and boring (you have three minutes to answer that), with zero effect on the election results. Win the debate and you lose the election. Articulate expressions on the state of the economy tend to alienate the voters.
These days, there are no rules for discord. Debates have taken the place of conversation in social gatherings, blogs, columns, and tweets. There’s really no effort to persuade one side to switch his opinion. Even in social or traditional media, the tendency is to follow only those who hold the same opinion that is already fully formed. Anyway, the arguments are not intended to sway critics, only to add more reasons to dig in.
It is refreshing to find in the expected alleluia chorus some voices of dissent. In the proposition of the day to change the charter (previously also designated as a dance number, the cha-cha) the gasp of disbelief from the legislative panel in a contrarian position from the choir, so straightforwardly declared (absolutely!) did not invite a bolt of lightning from the top. Nor was there a back-pedaling clarification the day after — Did I mishear the question? Absolutely.
Instead, there was a soothing assurance that the issue was open to debate.
There was no gauntlet thrown down by the authors of the draft to invite critics to a televised discussion. One opted to throw a tantrum asking the school principal to discipline the dissenters. Probably there was a problem of who would constitute the panel for taking the affirmative side — “the working constitution should be radically altered, just for the heck of it.” Will the designated communicator join the group of defenders and rub elbows with