We're sitting down at one of the tables in the Swinburne auditorium, waiting for the start of the Kuching League. Justin and Sophia are cuddled together at a seat in front of us, Paul is looking at the other teams, Ashik walks around asking "So where's the free breakfast?"
I'm a little jittery. I've been brought in as a 'guest debater', as Mdm Christina puts it, and I'm debating as first speaker - something I've only done four or five times to epic failure. I remind myself that National Judo tournaments are far scarier than any debate league. Paul applies for a name change for our team, because I'm not a Swinburne student. We reject Team Jihad, laugh off Ashik's Team Al Qaeda, consider Team Gemilang and finally settle on Sungai Sarawak. All the other teams are busy opening metafiles and looking through motion notes and they huddle in small groups all over the floor; I pass by an IPBL team and hear one of their lecturers explaining the mechanics of hydroelectricity to them and feel a little strange, considering that both Swin teams are sitting around and talking about food, and I know from experience that such knowledge is almost useless in debate.
We wait. A couple of minutes later Choulyin goes up on stage and briefs us on the rules of the debate tournament, and it's remarkably similar to the other debate tournie I'm painfully preparing my teams for (ie: the Swinburne high school tournament) with the 3 motion system and the uber-air-conditioned rooms and the wall-to-wall vomit coloured carpet and the black shirted runners with little signs who lead you to your rooms and demand that you hand over your handphones to keep in large white and yellow Swinburne paper envelopes. And there's this little spike of deja vu as we copy our lineups and our first motions; and as my team sits on the steps between floors 2 and 3 to prepare I remember St Thomas and my first debate and a small lump forms in my throat.
But that doesn't last. The Kuching League gives all teams 15 minutes to prepare for a motion we've never seen before, and Paul and I quickly work out a prep system. 2 minutes of silence while we marshal our thoughts, 8 minutes of chaos as we outline the problem, pre-empt the other team, consider and then discard possible arguments, create a policy, let Ashik eat fries and hammer a case together. We do this very quickly - and looking back at it now I realize how much trust we have to place in each other: when Paul suggests something that I say won't work, he accepts it and moves to an alternative within the space of seconds.
The first motion is THW pay morbidly obese people to lose weight. We are against three very nice young gentlemen from IPBL A, who joke with us about the no-handphone envelope when we enter the room. We are opposition and our case is simple: we support the need for Government intervention in cases involving morbidly obese people, but we question the ethics of using a monetary incentive. Paul is extraordinarily witty and he opens one of his points with "the fat become fatter"; Ashik, however, closes his speech with profanity.
We win the first round with a huge point difference.
The second round pits us against INTI 2, on the bloody long motion THBT sporting bodies should penalize teams when their players commit criminal acts off the field. We are government, which worries me incessantly - I'm a third speaker by training and I do best when I open with rebuttal. Being gov means that I've to open up the whole debate on my own - something I attempted to do in Form 4, failed, and immediately got switched to 3rd because Cikgu Orlnda thought I handled my POIs quite-nicely-thank-you-very-much and wondered if I'd be good doing rebuttals as a full time thing (she was right). But anyway. I take the floor and frame the debate as value-judgement, and I keep 'sporting bodies' broad (no specific sports) and 'penalize' narrow (no suspension, just fines and point deductions) which turns out to be right thing to do. The opposition doesn't understand what we're getting at, shoots blanks for most of the debate, and scores us another decent win.
Come third round, we're feeling rather pleased with ourselves and we find Sungai Sarawak up against UNIMAS 1, the best team in the tournament. Paul and I are happy to get this challenge; Ashik on the other hand - with only 3 weeks experience in debate - is rather jittery. Things go badly soon after.
The motion is THW protect the rights of smokers, and it becomes clear that UNIMAS is puzzled with our take on the debate. We define the topic as about whether or not smokers are entitled to the same rights as other citizens of a democracy, considering they harm other people with their habit, but UNIMAS defines the topic as whether or not smokers have a right to smoke. I'm worried. I lean over to Paul and tell him we're in a definitional debate, and then I try to brief Ashik on what to do.
A definition debate is a horrible thing to participate in. There is a complex, multi-pronged strategy to tackle these little beasts, but it's very difficult to communicate that strategy in the middle of a debate to two other equally stressed teammates. Paul gets the drift and pulls the thorny carcass of a definition onto the table, but Ashik doesn't and he kills us.
"What are you talking about DUDE! Smoking is the latest trend - what's wrong with being trendy?"
I tell Paul that I'll be doing the reply speech, and he agrees because we're in deep shit and I appear to know what I'm doing. I go up after the barrage of Opp 3rd speaker and reply; I look up: by then all the adjudicators look pissed and frustrated with the debate. Things cannot be worse. "Go on," the chief adjudicator says, waving her hand at me, "I've got nothing to say."
I begin. I have only a distant memory now of what my reply speech contains, but I remember that the words flow easily and the structure I put on paper leap and take shape in the air as I speak. I thread the fine line between lecturing and debating, telling the opposition what they should have done, and where they could've done better. The room grows silent; UNIMAS shift in their seats like schoolboys caught playing truant, the chief adjudicator slowly looks less and less pissed at the whole thing. I remember closing the debate with a quiet, conciliatory tone,
and my last line went, after a long pause: "So, in the end, there was no debate." and an even more quiet "Thank you very much."
There is a split second of silence. And then the whole room explodes into applause: the adjudicators, the opposition, the UNIMAS supporters; Ashik is banging the table and Paul's face is glowing as I return to my seat; the moment is beautiful, powerful and I don't want to lose it because I feel like
frigging Obama for God's sakes; and later I tell Paul that it's the speech of my career and if I stop debating now I'd be happy.
And I would. Sometimes in life you want nothing more than a second chance to prove yourself, to close up on the bitter scar of never doing what you believed you could. This was my second chance, a chance with Paul to create as far as was feasibly possible a Thomian team and I know now that I am good, that I am not a fraud, and that I can win in a debate. And I'm contented with that; contented to hold it in my hand, a perfect thing, for just a little while longer.
N.B. The title of this post is an inside joke. When we first started debate we used to collect a list of names of psychologists, economists and researchers. B.F. Skinner and his work on the behavioral psychology was one of our favourites, and we'd attach him to whatever child-related study we could make up in a debate. Paul used him again on Saturday, in a debate we won. And what a wonderful circle that was.