I went to the grand finals of the World Universities Debate Championship (WUDC) here in Manila and saw the finalists/teams (Monash University, University of Oxford, University of Sydney Union, and Stanford University) go head-to-head for the coveted Mabuhay championship trophy for this year's competition. Ultimately, Monash University Team B of Australia won this year's championship for the Open Break Category alongside Ewha Debating Society of Korea (English as Foreign Language Category) and Tel-Aviv University of Israel (English as Second Language Category).
It was interesting because I was listening to the debate and I haven't fully absorbed any of the points they were saying. The final motion: This House supports nationalism. I listened to the points, got it, agreed, and with a split of a second, information just flew away from me. That was ridiculous. I laughed, if there's something said that was funny. But, yeah whatever. However, I thought Monash B really got that in the bag. The other three teams did well, too, one of the Oxford B speakers won second Best Speaker overall.
 |
| Government Bench: University of Oxford and Monash University Photo by Jenirose Lozano |
 |
| Second Best Speaker for Oxford B Photo by Jenirose Lozano |
But Monash B really made sense to me with their arguments about nationalism being the collective identity of a nation which is not brought by any ideology of religion, race, or class. This collective identity serves as the binding form of a nation to act together on things that may concern the nation itself. However, the counter arguments were also sufficient such as that the people comprising the nation is not one in same interest, thus making nationalism just an imaginary tool of conceptualizing union and unity, forcing people to do what they do not want to do; and so is a lie planted to people's mind to escape reality of the situation that each individual is different from the other. They presented example like Tanzania, Yugoslavia, and even the Americas, Australia, and Great Britain. But I didn't get to follow that. Information really got to my head so quickly I had a sudden headache, literally. Like my skull was being drilled side by side. It was seriously painful.
Anyway, I tried to explain the points I got from the debate in my own understanding; sorry for any discrepancies. I know theirs are really more substantial and with much more depth than what I've just written above.
Well, after the debate, I thought deeply about it and then thought Monash has it, and I was right. I can't put it into words though as to why they deserved the crown. I just based it to gut-feel and what I've seen in the stage - how they presented themselves and delivered their arguments - and Monash really got those over standards. They were not cocky, they were not angry; they were just presenting arguments and debating. But if I continued training for adjudication before, I could've said a single reason, argument content-wise, enough for them to win the whole thing.
 |
| WUDC 2012 Champions MONASH UNIVERSITY - Team B Photo by Jenirose Lozano |
I am so happy for them, back-to-back championship on a five-consecutive-year stint in the finals. I hope there was a Philippine team in the finals though. It would've been more wonderful for the country.
I was not really excited about going to the Philippine International Convention Center to witness the battle of the fat brains. Maybe because I knew I am going to regret not continuing with my journey as a debate society member in my college years. And yes, I regret it now. This is a huge event the debate world has - like the Olympics for the geeks and nerds, kind of. Remember what I've written before about the LSPCon thing? WUDC is way bigger than that. If I'd continued with the La Salle Debate Society (joined last 2009-2010 but became inactive after a few meetings), I definitely would be a volunteer for the event, or more likely to be one of the adjudicators if I only took the risks and gave trainings a shot all the way. But I did not, since I am not comfortable speaking in front of so many people that intense and controlled. I would've gone all over the place while speaking in public. Also, my critical thinking skill is not as fast as debaters should have. Give me a motion, I'd get back to you after two days. Maybe I'm just more of a writer than being a speaker. So, I went there just as an observer. Sadly, another big "what if" of my life.
 |
| APP at WUDC 2012 L-R: Gregory del Carmen, Joselle Mariano, Gerard Contreras, and Wilma Diguangco Photo by Jenirose Lozano |
WUDC was an experience I'd never ever forget, though I was just an observer. A memory that will really last a lifetime, even if it was just a quick one.