‘The art of arguing is the art of living,’ says trial attorney, Gerry Spence, in his book, How to Argue and Win Every Time. “We argue because we must, because life demands it, because, at the end, life itself is but an argument.” Spence makes a compelling case for cultivating and honing our debating skills: the burden of his song being that we may have split the atom but still haven’t mastered the art of splitting hairs peacefully with our fellow beings. The ultimate danger, he claims, lies in placing the power of technology in the hands of savages whose ability to communicate can be compared (unfavourably) to the grunts and growls of the alpha male in a pack of gorillas. Think Trump and his Saudi friends. Mohammed bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince dealt with the troublesome journalist Jamal Khashoggi by having him chopped up into little bits when he landed up in the Istanbul embassy to have his passport renewed.
After a fortnight of speculation, the Saudis blandly stated, “Discussions between citizen Jamal Khashoggi and those who met him while he was in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul led to a brawl and a fist fight, which led to his death. The investigations are still under way and 18 Saudi nationals have been arrested.” So that’s ok then, although argumentative types may have inferred that the Saudi embassy may not be the best spot to pick a bone, pun intended. But the best was yet to come. Asked whether he found the explanation credible, Trump replied, “I do.” When confronted with US intelligence reports that the ‘discussion’ might not have been conducted in accordance with Queensbury rules, Trump finally conceded that it was, “bad, bad, stuff,” and that some sort of sanctions may be called for, but not the upcoming $110 billion arms deal which would create, “jobs, jobs, jobs.”
Leaving aside the spurious jobs claim, Trump’s fundamental reluctance to face up to the barbaric methods employed by his Saudi friends is peculiar, to say the least. A debate filled with the ‘sound and fury of a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing,’ is better than indifference and a business-as-usual approach. Whatever happened to, ‘Honey, we need to talk.’
Spence’s views on the noble art of debate are particularly relevant in the Indian context. As a nation, we love to argue: it is meat and drink to us and as integral a part of our daily lives as breathing, eating or sleeping. Some of us manage to combine all these basic activities with a good argument, while a talented few can argue in their sleep. Sabarimala is currently a trending topic but as is often the case, our blowhards tend to generate far more heat than light. Call it the Arnab effect.
Obviously Alex Clarke’s views, “And yet the art of debate involves mastering skills of obvious intrinsic value: the confidence to speak in public, and make sense; the construction of a logical argument; the ability to read an audience’s reactions; and, perhaps most importantly, the willingness to hear others’ arguments, and to respond to them,” are virtually unknown, more’s the pity. This is what should be made compulsory reading in our schools where the ratio of i-phone usage and competitive debating is seriously disproportionate. Tragically, this mindset undermines the importance of nuanced thinking, persuasive argument and the development of oratorical skills that can appeal to both our rational side as well as our emotional side. These are the prime requisites for a rich and emotionally rewarding life.
To paraphrase Jim Morrison, how else will our children develop the ability to “break on through to the other side? “The essence of free speech is that we allow people with whom we disagree to speak,” says Clarke, “Wrongheaded views will be aired. But free speech means no one gets the last word. We can and indeed we should challenge expression we think is unpleasant or wrong.” Or we can follow the Saudi method when confronted with an inconvenient truth and say, “Off with his head” just like the Queen of Hearts. Clearly the Crown Prince is a big fan of Alice in Wonderland…
B02
