Nothing but filler
Why the masterdebate column sucks
Matt Abra, Volunteer Staff
I like the “masterdebation” column and I also don’t like it. I like these debates because they are fun to write and often fun to read. I don’t like them because, well, the Manitoban told me not to. I have been handed the task of writing the negative side of this week’s debate, by which I will be denouncing the subject we have chosen. As it happens, this week the subject is the very words I am writing. I am meant to convince you, the reader, that this weekly debate is in fact a bad thing. Not because I want to but because I have been assigned the task (OK, maybe I want to a little bit.)
Therein lies the main problem with the Manitoban’s masterdebate: it is far too contrived.
Even its title, “Masterdebation,” is a straight-up gimmick. From what I heard, our comment editor, Michael Silicz, only thought it up after making a typo while updating his status on Facebook.com. From there, a weekly column was born; one that ended up focusing less on actual debate and more on cheap shots and “theatre-esque” propaganda.
Each week, the first thing we do is decide on a topic. This is usually done within a two-minute time-frame over coffee and donuts. If, after those two minutes are up, a decision has not been made, then the room is surveyed and whatever type of candy we lay eyes on first becomes our automatic topic.
Next, two writers are assigned opposite positions to argue. More often than not, neither writer has any opinion one way or the other on the question, resulting in a lot of intense manufacturing of ideals and, for lack of a better term, a lot of bullshitting. As I explained earlier, I personally don’t think this debate is a bad thing; I’m arguing against it for pure vanity. Basically, I just like seeing my name at the top of articles.
Naturally, the true art of debate is not meant to be about opinion or bias. As a competitive medium, a debate is really supposed to be judged on the basis that one person presents a superior argument than the other. You don’t need to believe what you’re saying; you just need to be able to sell it. That’s fine, and as much as we at the Manitoban attempt to approach the masterdebate in this fashion, the system is unsuccessful because the reader often fails to make this connection. A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine told me how appalled he was by the words of Mr. Silicz’s negative stance regarding the 100-mile diet. “He doesn’t actually believe that, does he?” my friend asked. The answer was a quick and resounding “No,” but he still said it; because through it all, Mr. Silicz had to say something, whether he agreed with it or not.
Thus, it is very apparent that our readers of the masterdebate have typically made up their minds about the topic before they even finish the first paragraph. Often, their allegiance is predetermined by what they already believe. Therefore, when people write in to cast their vote on who should win the debate; it comes down not to who has presented the better argument but to who was given the better side.
It is for this reason that I believe our debate would benefit from the opposite approach. If every week we were able to co-ordinate the battle between two thinkers with truly opposing outlooks, not only would we be reading more heated debate, we’d be reading words of true passion and not just the first thing that comes to mind.
But ultimately, this week, it is still the same old contrived masterdebate; this is just the first thing that came to my mind, and I’m writing this because we just needed a debate for this issue. That is why our weekly masterdebation is a bad thing: because I said so. If you don’t agree with me, fine, go and vote against me. But if you agree, don’t vote for me for that reason; vote for me because I was better than whatever old Mr. Silicz has to say this week. Otherwise, you’re only adding to the shortcomings that I’m trying to fix.
Matt Abra is a third-year Arts student.
