I was first introduced (more like being forced by my best friend so we can go on a paid trip to Bangalore) to debating in my third year of law school. You read it right, it took me three years to figure out that damn this is a fun activity that I would actually like to pursue.
There are a lot of stereotypes when it comes to debating, especially at NALSAR, where it is considered super exclusive, time consuming, or “just not for me.” As a person with no public speaking experience and extreme stage fear, debating was a farfetched reality. I still remember doing my first practice debate and giving a speech of 4 minutes and then crying in the bathroom because of how humiliated I was, but every other debate after that (even when my debating partner and I prepared for the other side and realized mid debate that we prepared for the wrong side) built my confidence step by step.
As an outsider to debates, I always thought it was for the cool kids who can pull off the gestures, body language and create an intimidating effect which is not a very introvert thing to pull off. But in reality, when it comes to varsity debating it’s the substance and not the form that matters. You can be the most aggressive, or as I would call it, the “cool debater”, but at the end, what matters is whether you made a point and no matter how bullshit it is, whether you believe in it enough to sell it.
When we talk about getting introduced to debating in law schools there is an entirely different set of challenges that come with it. There is this misguided notion that debating is heavily focused on policy or law, and that you need to be extremely knowledgeable in order to participate. In truth, debating has nothing to do with law. If anything, law students tend to be the most overconfident debaters because a debate is won based on principles and technicalities, not on how many “fucks” or legal terms you can incorporate into your speech. In fact, it’s a waste of time because instead of presenting your case, you end up spending 7 minutes and 20 seconds trying to impress the panel with your legal knowledge, which might be useful if you are seeking an internship, but in debating, it’s basically a losing strategy.
When debating is made so restrictive because of the kind of stereotypes that exist, it becomes impossible for one to test the waters and as a consequence most people don’t see debating for what it is. For me debating has been a “competitive hobby”. After every speech I can feel the blood flow through my body and my adrenaline is off the charts. The power of changing a person’s perspective in 7 min 20 seconds with your arguments and leaving them with a new perspective (your perspective) everytime you debate, is what debating for me has been. To be honest, debating circles (I am talking about people who call themselves the “seasoned debaters”) are extremely toxic, very elitist and exclusive, who consider debating to be “their game”. It is complete bullshit and I believe breaking stereotypes is the only way forward. Let’s turn debating into an open, inviting, and fun community, where everyone’s perspective is valued. After all, who needs an exclusive club when you’ve got the power to change minds?