Debate

Debates are defined as formal methods of interactive and position representational argument. Whether televised or online or real debating, the exchanges travel the entire range from being researched to opinionated, angry to comforting, personalised to ganging-up, hurt to hope, old wounds to new dreams.

The churning, created by the exchange of well thought out points and counterpoints, helps facilitate a broader understanding of an issue, situation or even an attitude. In an increasingly polarised and argumentative world, there is a growing need to connect and communicate – and arrive at multiple dimensions.

There can be many dimensions to any issue. And more often than not, we stand positioned in a stationary manner and hence see a singular dimension. When we share our opinion, somebody else can confirm or dispute our prejudice by sharing another dimension. This gives opportunity to shift one’s position and perspective.

A debate may start with differences but it can eventually move to a discussion that explores varied dimensions. The journey from conflict to consensus needs communication, not indifference. However, we must ensure that we do not turn disagreeable when we disagree. After all, the intent of every debate should be to ‘express’ rather than ‘impress’!

Worthwhile dimensions can emerge from debate
If we leave prejudice and indifference at the gate!

~ Pravin K Sabnis

Heirs

Imagine a huge amount of ancestral land that is inherited by many heirs. The land is naturally blessed with a stream that has nurtured vast fields and splendid orchards. However, since the area is vast, it is a challenge to protect it as well as maintain it. The harvest too requires considerable efforts and singular focus.

The heirs are many and their preferences are different. They have built homes, careers and lives elsewhere. They think it is a risk to relocate and take on a tough life. Hence, they decide to divide the property and leave it to each recipient to make their own choice from selling the land to giving it out on lease or ‘develop’ it.

The land is now smaller sets of different types. The fewer fields are now grasslands. The trees are being cut to make way. The stream is drying up. The naturally blessed land is losing its original splendour and character. The value of the land has dwindled and future heirs have diminishing benefits.

Consider the above analogy for Mother Earth. Wendell Berry said it so well, ‘The Earth is what we all have in common.’ It is our common inheritance. If our future generations have to enjoy this legacy, we must collectively ensure that we not only preserve the present but also add positive value.

If we don’t take on collective responsibility for the collective ownership, we ensure a collective failure for our generation and collective doom for the future generations. We must see the larger picture and rededicate to a collective resolve to sustain our planet through responsible and responsive actions.

Heirs who consume what they inherit will never leave a legacy. The fruits we eat are the efforts of those who planted the trees and ensured they grew. Legacies are built over efforts of many persons over many years.  We must not only safeguard what was nurtured by our ancestors, we must add to the value of the inheritance.

Let’s be responsive heirs who truly know

…that legacy needs inheritance to grow!

~ Pravin K Sabnis

Gloves off

The term ‘gloves off’ rises from the image of removing the boxing gloves. With the gloves off, the rules no longer apply. The contestants stop being calm or civil. They begin to behave in a more hostile manner. The sport now turns into a fight without rules. The game gets vicious and violent.  

Indians are in the midst of a national election for representatives to the Parliament. We see politicians taking the ‘gloves off’. Parliamentary etiquettes are shed for fake posturing, character assassination and regressive abuse. Interestingly, the one who decries the violation of decency is often guilty of a similar misconduct.

It is pertinent to note that most supporters of different political parties are taking their ‘gloves off’ too. They are taking the fight outside the ring. The blows are not based on real issues. They are careless swings of aimless attacks that seek to fight rather than debate, condemn rather than convince, lynch rather than disagree.

Sports without ethics and dignity are crude, violent variations where might is right. It turns into a bloody battleground where the savage intention is to draw blood. We must recognise that such behaviour is stripping us of our humanity. To save ourselves, we must put the gloves back and get back into the sporting ring.

When everyone is with the gloves off, it becomes a crazy free for all. It leads to hurtful divisions that will lead to worsening of interpersonal relations and to our collective peril! We must choose to put back the gloves and fight by the rules within the parameters of the ring. To behave otherwise is dangerous for all.

Putting the gloves off is surely dangerous

Where humanity is on a brink precarious!

~ Pravin K Sabnis

Argument

20 years ago, as participants at the National Train the Trainer Seminar of JCI India, S Kamal Kumar and me teamed up for a debate. One of us had to speak ‘for’ the topic and the other had to speak ‘against’ the premise. We were asked to argue on the topic - Non Vegetarian food is not good for human beings.

I asserted that our digestive system was meant for herbivorous intake. Besides, we did not possess the fangs and claws of carnivorous animals. Kamal Kumar argued that if we did not eat the sheep, their growing numbers would dislodge us from our homes. Hence for our survival we had to eat them and save our living space.

Our passionate arguments surprised everyone. Kamal Kumar was a vegan by belief while I enjoyed my fish and mutton delicacies. We were putting up arguments which were convincing but they did not reflect our actual beliefs and practices. We were debating not based on our perception but on the chosen conclusion.

An argument is a series of statements called the premises intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion. In today’s world, (especially on social media) we see violent debates because they employ a reverse process of declaring a conclusion and defending it with a closed mind.

Kamal and I treated the debate as a sport and worked together to bring up all pros and cons of the premise. While we seemed to disagree strongly, deep down we respected the choice and beliefs of each other. We were open-minded about the right of the other to differ even if we had strong convictions about our argument.

It is pertinent to note that the word ‘argument is derived from the Latin root ‘arguer’ which means to make bright and enlighten. Debates are wonderful exercises if they are done with an open mind. We may disagree but we should not become disagreeable. Our argument should be based on not just clarity but also scrutiny.

Arguments need more than conviction and clarity

Be open-minded and test the premise for scrutiny!

~ Pravin K Sabnis

Flattery

Flattery is the business of giving excessive compliments. As in any business, there is the anticipation of barter. The expectation could be to ingratiate. It could be to create a positive impression. It could be to initiate a relationship. It could be to receive desired returns. It could also be out of unrestrained affection.

Appreciation is a good thing, as is praise and encouragement. But, flattery is excessive praise. More often than not it is an insincere admiration or a motivated stimulus begging for an expected response. Hence flattery can be often misleading and creates illusions that deceive.

However, it is pertinent to note that flattery is not just born out of the expectation of the one expressing it. So often, so many of us expect and desire to be flattered. So often so many of us are disappointed when we do not receive immediate praise. Especially on social media, such expectations are seen distinctly.

All these have led to the increase in the tribe of flatterers. They write lavish verse or effusive essays or gleaming posters to shower their flattery. And the recipients are happy to be flattered and eventually even be deceived. For the flatterer has a vested interest. And in the virtual world, people are more prone to detach from reality.

We must learn to differentiate between genuine appreciation and fake flattery. We must value candid feedback that may be critical. It is okay to feel nice with adulation but we should not be deceived by it. Like the chewing gum, while we may enjoy flattery, we must not swallow it. And like the chewing gum, it is not a good habit.

Those who shower you with flattery…

Craft an unreal screen that is illusory!

~ Pravin K Sabnis