BY EDISON MARTE SICAD
THE CHAMPIONSHIP match (held on Feb. 28, 2023) was between The College of Pharmacy and Medical Technology (PMT) and the College of Liberal Arts, Sciences, and Education (CLASE).
The proposition was the legalization of abortion: the PMT on the Affirmative side and the CLASE on the Negative side.
To clarify, this column is not about the discussion of the Modified Oxford-Oregon Debate Format nor the details of what transpired in the competition. This is just my general impression—as well as appreciation—of the continued advocacy of the University of San Agustin (USA) in organizing debate competitions as an avenue for student expression and participation in academic discourse involving social issues.
The USA is known for its debaters (from High School to Law School) who have won in various competitions—including international recognitions and awards. Alumni debaters also become coaches or judges. Moreover, they share their knowledge of Debate to other schools and organizations. I am proud to say that the culture—and tradition—of Debate in “San Ag” goes hand in hand with the university’s motto Virtus et Scientia (Virtue and Science): the search for truth—as a process or pedagogy—is both dialectic and didactic.
What do I mean by this?
It means that Augustinians are taught to be discerning and humble in refining their knowledge for personal development and social contribution. With this in mind, the yearly Interdepartmental Debate concretizes such goal. In a sense, we don’t impose the truth; we allow the students to traverse and probe social issues to sharpen their analytical skills and develop professionalism in discussing “divisive” topics.
The Art of Debate is also a lifelong learning experience. There are issues with overlapping concerns (like abortion) that could shift its gravity depending on the thesis-antithesis-synthesis process or outcome as society responds to the “signs of the times.”
As the moderator—and former debater in my college days—I have learned a lot in the championship round. Learning in the sense that the issue can be seen in different angles depending on the objective or plan of action of the team members.
The proposition has the tendency to cling to aspects of morality. For to talk about abortion is not just a matter of procedural concerns. Somehow, the question as to right to life and “my body, my choice” logic touches on the scientific definition and the religious belief of as to when life begins.
The contentions become more interesting when we include constitutional provisions and Supreme Court decisions. And the question—or the burden of proof—to the Affirmative side: What necessitates the legalization of abortion? And the Negative side will defend the status quo—that the present system is self-correcting.
During the debate, the Negative side questioned the constitutionality of the Affirmative’s proposal: meaning legalizing abortion is against the Constitution. But as one of the judge’s pointed out, there was no “interesting” clash between the two sides. In short, there was a clarification as to definitions—which should have been agreed upon before the debate.
But as a whole, it was a good match. The debaters were able to respond to the challenge and present their arguments with passion and conviction.
To legalize abortion is really difficult to justify. Somehow, I learned how to see it in another angle based on the arguments of the Affirmative side.
Why legalize abortion?
The main goal is not to create a state-supported all-out abortion. The focus is on pregnancy and all the personal and social problems it creates (financial, criminal, spiritual, among others) and the possible help the government can extend to address all these issues. We see it not as a mother asking for abortion; but as a mother asking for help.
For it is possible to help both the mother and the unborn child. And so, in asking for abortion, maybe the mother is asking for guidance, support, justice, or options. But this can only be done if the government will initiate the first move of reaching out. For indeed, there can be “allowed” abortions. But even this requires government action for health and social reasons.
There are personal problems that have social components. Meaning, the society somehow contributed to the person’s problem. With this in mind, it is not enough to just moralize the issue of abortion to solve it. In a society—made up of individuals—with an almost perennial problem such as this, we need to legalize abortion in order to address it properly. We bring up the issue into the limelight to see it in all angles to provide “case to case” solutions.
What about the Negative side? (This is just for another column.)
IN CONCLUSION, Speaking and Writing Skills are two sides of the same coin: critical thinking.
One side may say: “With words we govern men.” The other side may reply: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me.”
Either way, we need a framework to support our rationale, give value to our judgements, and justify the hierarchy of our goals: the Why and How of the Self.
As an academic activity, Debate inculcates in the student confidence, humility, and perseverance: qualities that can help a person survive and thrive in the School of Life.
*Congratulations to the College of Pharmacy and Medical Technology for being declared as Champion of the St. Augustine’s 2023 Interdepartmental Debate and kudos to the teachers and students who organized this exemplary activity./PN
