I was a passive member of some of these societies and went along to view a debate or two on subjects that interested me. As anyone that has every gone to a college debate knows, it is a frankly bizarre situation. Practically everyone in the room will know each other and will already have rivalries and strategies for derailing an opponent. Added to the air of self-importance and complete lack of humour, this all equates to an unusual and fairly depressing environment.
The most bizarre thing for me however, is the format of the debates. A debating team will be given a position on a subject and have to argue it, regardless of their personal opinions. Why on earth should anyone want to argue a perspective that they do not believe? What sense of accomplishment can be achieved when you have successfully convinced someone of a point of view that you do not share?
The advantage of debating societies for potential politicians is obvious. They get a chance to network, form opinions and place themselves in the political mentality. However, it also conditions them for putting across opinions that they do not believe. This naturally creates a huge amount of insincerity in the budding politician. This is obvious in countless countries, where politicians hold a contrary view, not because of their believes, but because of their career.
If we want sincere politicians, we should train them in a sincere way.
-The English Student
