Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Takács Viktória: Think in 3D!
I spent half of my life with debating. Almost for 25 years I had been a political journalist,
and there were a couple of years when
I was dealing with political debates –
I was the moderator of for example presidential election debates
or mayoral debates.
Then I realised, that it is pointless, these debates don't lead anywhere.
Hungarians are bad debaters, and the audience also can’t deal with debates.
However, not everyone thinks this way, of course, neither do I.
For example Viktória Takács says that debating doesn’t separate but connects us,
and now she is trying to prove it.
Hello! During my presentation I would like to share a message with you.
This message is that the world needs people who can think in 3 dimensions.
I know it seems too abstract for you, but I hope by the end
of my presentation it will be clear,
what is the connection between debating and thinking in 3D.
But let’s start with who I am.
I work for a 10 years old NGO, called DIA,
I’m the leader of a debate program.
I teach young people, how to debate.
I teach them that debate is not only about quarrelling, wrangling and conflicts
so it is not about all those expressions you can find in a dictionary under the appropriate word.
What I’m now talking about is the formal debate.
It is a ruled game, a learning opportunity,
an intellectual sport.
In formal debate rules determine who, when, about what and how long can speak.
Don’t have illusions, for the most people
these rules mean a lot of problems, they hardly handle the situation.
But those who study and use formal debate learn a lot of other things
such us effective communication, argumentation, self-knowledge
they learn how to protect their interest, how to tolerate the opinion of others.
I was thinking a lot while preparing for this presentation
what would be the best way to explain, what’s happening with the debaters.
Finally, I’ve decided to make it visual and bring: a cube.
Imagine, that the debate topic is similar to a simple cube like this.
During a general argumentation
everybody sees only one part of the cube.
It can happen, that they don’t even realize, what they see is part of a cube.
Problems are arising when people start to insist to their own particular detail of the cube.
But when you debate - in the real sense, you start to see the cube itself.
You become curios about the other sides of the item
you did not realize before.
Those who debate, learn to think about a conflict or a controversial question
from several different viewpoints.
They explore further aspects or dimensions of a single topic.
Obviously those who know every side of the same cube
have more confident knowledge about reality.
Regarding my topic it means that those young people
who know all the dimensions of a debate topic can make
more confident decisions, have more confident opinion related to that issue.
And now you could rightfully ask: okay, but why is it good for them?
Wise people say that if you want to learn about the life of a community,
then you should study their laws. I would add that
if you want to have an insight into a community’s life then
study about what and how they talk,
what is the given community’s debate culture like.
My important experience about how true it is was the experience of the Speakers' Corner.
When as a high school student I first heard about this possibility,
I hardly understood the point of it.
I imagined stump orators and occasional crowds
gathering in parks to talk about different things.
It seemed very unrealistic for me.
Then three years ago I had to realize that it is far too real when I found myself
in Amsterdam at a Speakers’ Corner inspired by the British models
giving a speech about the importance of intergenerational dialogue.
I wouldn't say that it was the best speech of my life there in the Oosterpark.
I was terribly excited, I think my knees were shaking more than they are shaking now,
even though there were more pigeons than humans amongst the audience.
However I learnt something really important.
I learnt that there’s need for places like this. Where people can meet,
where they can talk about problems freely and in a democratic way,
where everybody can add his own side to the cube,
and where they can see the perspectives of others.
So what if everybody would start to debate and think about debating in a different way?
I consider myself to be a moderate optimist so I wouldn't say that
it would solve all problems of humanity. I dont't think that social problems would disappear, but I think
that finally we could speak about these problems from different perspectives and freely.
I do not think either that intolerance would disappear from our communication,
but I think more and more people would be able to see
what is the hidden meaning of others' opinion.
I wouldn’t say either that populism and radicalism would go away,
but more and more young people would become protected against it
as they learn not to accept the ready-made answers.
To change the way people are thinking and achieve that they are able to
think in 3D about problems is a very difficult and responsible task.
But change comes in small steps.
The change begins when in Sajókaza the local Roma community organises a public debate,
and for the first time they introduce rules into the debate, by which they learn how to let each other to speak.
Or when at the same place a 14-year-old girl says that now
she can imagine a debate without quarrelling,
what’s more, it’s useful when somebody later wants to be a lawyer.
The change is there when a university student in Budapest for the first time
thinks over opposing points of views and
realizes that it is useful to see both sides of the coin.
And the change is here in this room
where amonst other inspiring thoughts my message starts its way as well.
My message, which says that the world needs us
to discuss problems and conflicts in an open and democratic way.
For this we need people who can think in 3D about these problems.
Remember it when you are debating.
Thank you for your attention.
“Let's debate about it, okay?” “Fine!”
“I don't agree with you, at least in some points. You say that it’s a cause that we can’t debate,
but I say it’s a symptom, a consequence of something.”
“It’s the consequence of the wrong assumptions about debating, our general experience
says that debate is a negative thing.” “But why?” “Because we got used to it,
because we see only a few good examples. What I’m talking about is
that there are good examples.” “I have the feeling that the problem is deeper and bigger.
In Hungary or in the Easter-European countries the suspicion amongst people
prevents them from real debate. For example, you say something to me and I take it ill instantly.
Here that's debating, isn’t it?” “As a general thing, yes, but it’s your
problem if you don’t know how to debate!” “Thank you!”