As some of you guys know (or do not know), I was (and maybe still) a debater. I love to debate for number of reasons (tho I joined debate when I was 14 not fully because in love with debate).

But as boring as it might be for other people, we, debaters aren’t the only one debating. This is where people often get it wrong, even the debaters themselves!

Normal people (as what debaters refer to the non-debaters, kinda like ‘Muggles’) are frequently saying or disseminating the thoughts of to stay away from debaters because frantically the debaters are nerds, boring and always wanna win.

Of being nerds and boring, I’ll skip that part because it’s every people’s judgment that we cannot change such as how rugby players are usually the problematic students, the popular kids play football, the hot girls and guys are often the orchestra members and so on.

I’m going to touch upon the how debaters always wanna win in this entry therefore people usually would stay away from debaters because they (debaters) would debate on everything, including the small, petty inaccuracy of facts of origin of French fries to the big issue of the role of UN in the world right now.

For starters, I believe this is particularly misleading. Because having a debate is not always about competition where you win or lose. Sure, there are some people who will always want to win, not giving any chance to others. To begin with, if it is not a debate competition, he is just an annoying person. An annoying person can be ANYONE, regardless if he is a debater or some muggles.

But more importantly, debate happens anywhere, anyhow. Debate is not always a competition. This is where people are often deluded and misguided. When they talk about debate, it is always a competition and stereotypes will say there is no point of talking with the debaters because debaters will always see the things to talk as a debate competition that they can never win just because there is/are presence of debaters.

IMHO, I always feel that debate happens anywhere and it is not about right or wrong. Hitherto debate could happen from a friendly chat in a coffee shop or at mamak about how Lisa is more beautiful than Amelia, why Liverpool would win the EPL, who should Arsenal buy in the January transfer season or how suck the government is in the rise of everything. ANYTHING is and can be a debate!

It is, in fact a subjective matter where you will never see a direct rightness or wrongness of your or your peers’ opinions. Any discussion, with facts or not (though made up facts or no facts could end up in two: shot down or believed in).

But that’s the whole idea of debate existing in every context of discussion! You give out your opinions as best as you could and you tackle your peers’ opinions as if it is the worst you ever heard of but in the end, you will never know (or even if you know, who are you to judge?) the winner or the loser. Because there is none! And you concede to the fact of it by still having the friendship intact and not ending it with shouts and yells.

Discussions, chats, convos are all a form of give and take. If you only give or take, there can never be any form of discussion let alone a conversation. Thus, it is parallel to a debate.

Maybe, there are some debaters who will always treat every thoughts of discussion as a real life and death debate. Some would even argue endlessly or dismissing the issue since there is no judge or juries, as if it is a real debate competitions. That too, has some problems in it.

In the end of a day, debate is not about win or losing. It is about having a discussion, a trade off of knowledge. It is sad that some people mostly feel (usually debaters) that if there is a debate in twitter or such, there could only be one winner. That’s wrong in my perspective. Because if there is only one winner, means other people’s opinion that are presumed lost are dismissed and dumped. Hence, if that is the case, why need to have a debate or discussion in the first place if in the end, only one opinion matters?

In debate competitions, there are various measures on which teams that win or lose i.e. manner, matter and method (body language, time management, facts, presentation etc). In normal discussions, these measures are not considered.

So why should there be a loser?

*The writer was also once the annoying few [or still is? You judge! ;)] in spite of that, he realized that debate is never about win or lose. Because if it is, people will always have a one-direction mind, to win and there will be no peace and harmony in the society…Maybe that is the reason why our society, our world is never at peace. Everyone just wanna win*