Mind Blogging. Mind Boggling.

Contents
In what is a first for this blog, a post has a Contents section- because this one's on the longer side. In fact, it is probably a record breaker on this blog in terms of length, and by writing that it's a record breaker, and thus prolonging this sentence, I have probably ensured it's a record breaker- talk about self fulfilling prophecies, eh?

1. Resounding Resurrection
2. Parliamentary debating; and the battles we fought
3. Our evolution as a war machine, and the three branches of the Military
4. Learnings, and how to win (NO RAMBLE SECTION)
5. Much-abused phrases, and lingo

Resounding Resurrection 

If an operative joins an illegal organization, say Mr. Ibrahim's D Company, at entry level and rises up to the top, can the journey be described as - "From NoVice to Vice Captain?"

With that signature splash of dirt, I re-enter the blog bog. 

So, speaking of novices, three novices in the dark art of Parliamentary Debating trooped off to National Law School, setting off from IIM-B - extreme BLR south- towards NLS - extreme BLR West- tracing a course North by Northwest (I gotto watch the movie).

Parliamentary debating; and the battles we fought

While I've done parliamentary debates in undergrad, that was very different from the rulebook here. All "Parliamentary" at UG meant was that the topics would be wide, such as "Good fences make good neighbors", which could be interpreted as anything under the sun by the proposition, and the opposition has to gamely fight. The proposition could interpret the above as "India should always maintain strong military presence along the LOC"  (which is like saying "Good De-fences make good neighbors", hohoho) or could declare "University campuses should have strict entry restrictions at its gate for the good of all society".

However, here, the thrust of the Parliamentary nature is not the topic- it's the format. Proposition has three speakers designated PM, Deputy PM and Whip (Frank Underwood!), while Opposition has Leader of Opposition, Dep. LO and Whip. So 3 speeches per team, 7 minutes per speech, and 30 minutes of prep time. Further, you are allowed to choose from 3 topics in each round, and the topic is arrived at based on mutual agreement. Here's the list of topics we locked horns on, on each occasion with a different university:

1. "For contesting in college elections, candidates should satisfy a minimum academic threshold" Our position: Opposition. Verdict: Win. Score: 1-0.

2. "College placements should have a one person-one job  policy" Our Position: Government. Verdict. Loss. Score: 1-1. Now this topic falls squarely in our backyard because this is precisely what we were subjected to just a couple months back, and after all it's the apex of first year MBA activity. However, very shamefully, we lost. 

3. "In post conflict nations, the resulting first democracy need not separate the arms of the state" Our Position: Opposition. Verdict: Loss. Score: 1-2. Arms of the state of course refers to Legislature, Judiciary and Executive. The debate centered around how separation is required (us) for long term good (institution building, how early errors can be horribly harmful) vs how separation would cause needless delays in providing for the immediate needs of the torn society.

4. "For violation of copyright of works of art or literature, the "Pastiche" defence should be acceptable in the courts of law" Our position: Opposition. Verdict: Win. Score: 2-2. An example of pastiche is the TV series Sherlock, which is a pastiche of the original Holmes. The "pastiche" is supposed to celebrate the original work, and should not slander. In Sherlock, of course, there is no reason for a defence, because the copyright for Holmes has elapsed. We were arguing against the validity of a "pastiche" defence- how it amounts to stealing. 

5. "Interventions in areas outside a state's effective control but within its political territory are justified" . Our position: Opposition. Verdict: Win. Score: 3-2. The motion implies Pakistan's intervention in Kashmir, or NATO's intervention in Libya, are justified. After the win here, we were in with a chance of "breaking" if we won the last two, and on the back of two successive wins, the team mood was sprightly.
6. "Governments should fix an upper limit on the extent to which foreign countries can acquire their national debt". Our position: Government.  Verdict: Loss. Score: 3-3. We fought valiantly, but the lawyers from NLUD brought us down. Our hopes of "breaking" were punctured.

7. Long topic, the gist of which is: "The immigrant should return home to the developing country", or as we read it, "Dr Mohan Bhargava should come back to Swades". Our position: Government. Verdict: Unknown.

Laser Guided Precision vs. Carpet Bombing Hailstorm - Speed Reading aka Spreading.

3 of our 7 opponents were law schools, and when we went to war with them, there was a clear difference in the art of war. While we B-schoolers, trained in the art of MECE, shot carefully aimed laser guided missiles, each a 20-kiloton monster, into enemy territory, our opponents let loose a hailstorm of low yield missiles. Throughout, it was a battle between the two strategies, and in the first two debates, carpet bombing prevailed. Our air defence systems were built to intercept a few, big missiles, and were overrun by the hailstorm of small weaponry. And I tell you- I am NOT stretching the analogy- these lawyers, they talk so bloody fast! However, there is a limit to what they do, which we saw in the last debate- when we ourselves had evolved and ended up stretching to weakness our opponent's strategy. At the end of this last debate, one of the adjudicators called our opponents' bluff and actually pointed out that the word speed was so high that the speaker had become unintelligible, and and many of the points made were just the very same thing in different words. We felt vindicated and gratitude swelled in our hearts for this wise judge. 

However,  what I described was just a milder form of "Spreading", a common practice in Debates in the US. Spreading is short for Speed Reading, and seems utterly ridiculous to me. Just watch for 10 seconds the speaker from Harvard spread it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZeDq90Ar4k

Our evolution as a war machine, and the three branches of the Military

As I said, we evolved our attack and defence strategies- Our attack consisted of many more salvos, even while compromising a bit on the power of each shot fired, while our air defence systems developed a higher sensitivity so as to seek and destroy fast enemy fire. Ad nauseam analogies apart, we understood the roles of the three speakers better, and our rebuttals were much more refined- we ensured we picked up every point which the opponent made, and tore into them. And now coming back to Ad Nauseaum analogies to demonstrate how we understood the the roles of the three speakers: the First Speaker was the Air Force, who did a reconnaissance in terms of contextualizing the topic and carrying out surgical first strikes in the enemy territory- Shock and Awe, baby! The Second Speaker was the Navy, armed with with aircraft carriers, which surrounded the enemy and sent sortie upon sortie of fighter aircraft and missiles, while simultaneously intercepting and destroying enemy sorties and missiles using anti aircraft guns and missile defense systems. The Whip was the Army, who did the final job after the Air Force and Navy had completely handicapped the enemy- the ground troops stormed in, wiped out any remnants of resistance, established our rule on the ground, and finished off the war.

Learnings, and how to win (NO RAMBLE SECTION)
1. Complete an argument to the fullest extent. Ok, your partner raised a point during prep time, even if it makes some sense, question. Two questions are important, "Why" and "So what". Always drill down to the ultimate elemental level- Why to check relevance, and So What to check import. That's during prep time, and when speaking, too, connect all the dots. Dots connected by the judge do not count in your favor.
2. To repeat- seek and destroy. Isolate every argument in the opponent's speech, and be sure to knock 'em down. Ensure you "engage" with the opponent, build "clashes" and towards the end- the Whip's speech- show to the judge how you won the clashes. The whip is a "biased adjudicator".
3. Secret to surefire Opposition win- Show how the govt's proposal is WORSE than the status quo, and put forth an alternate solution that is BETTER than the govt's solution.

 

Much abused phrases (1,2), and lingo (3,4)

1. Checks and Balances - Debate 3 and Debate 6 , about Arms of the State and about Debt Limits- you can easily see why this phrase could easily end up being used 50 times in each debate.

2. Selling your soul - Debate 6, about how foreign debt might mean Selling Your Soul.

3. Constructives, Substantives - One and the same- new points, as against rebuttals.

4. Proud to Propose/Oppose - Many a speech end with this proclamation.
5. Clashes, and Engagement- Clash- when there's a clear issue on which both teams have locked horns with vigour, and engagement is the process by which you create a clash.