Assuming but not conceding
“Assuming but not conceding…”
(May 2017 Edit: Definition of the phrase at the last part of this entry.)
These are the words frequently used by an Atenean debater to start his rebuttal. Sorry, my bad. THAT Atenean debater rather. Haha. Three months and two days ago, I decided to leave my debating life and I never thought I’d here those words again. But I was wrong.
Yet again I wasn’t.
It would have been easier if I simply heard it from someone. Because those words could be as meaningless as they could. It’s easer for me to shun away my interpretations with those words. But this time, it wasn’t clearly said. Partly it was, yes. But it was more of done. And it wasn’t the best time for me to hear that.
I’ve never thought how great the impact was of those words. I’ve used them, yes. But I was nonchalantly using them. It has been a habit to use it. How do you expect me to get affected by something I’ve grown to not to notice?
So I’d stop speaking in metaphors and get this whole thing straight. Or well, not that straight. When someone assumes that things people are saying or talking about are related to him/her, it means that the person finds a common experience or situation between him/herself and the words. That’s the main psychology behind assuming. It’s instinctive for human beings to relate themselves to things they find simlar to them, to their experience, to their attitude. We all assume. That’s the premise. That’s my first argument. And I shall substantiate that further by giving this example and the so what of the argument:
You would assume that it was you. That I was referring to you. And then you’d try to raise your own points and tell me how you can’t concede to what I’m saying. The impact is, you get affected by what you think, by your own perceptions. You get affected and so do I. In a debate, we assume and not concede. That is because we want to win the round. But in a debate, there could only be one team winning the round. In a debate, we wouldn’t care if we no longer talk to the person we debated with after the round. We cross the house and believe that everything’s okay after all the bashing and harsh talking. BUT LIFE ISN’T A DEBATE. You can’t cross the house and leave as if it was okay. Because even in a debate, after crossing the house and losing, trash-talking still continues. In life, you can’t always have an adjudicator. In life, we care enough about our relationship with the other person that’s why we try hard not to assume and just concede. But yet again, who am I to generalize what life is?
(Six minutes! *One clap*)
We care enough. Care. That’s the operative term. What if you don’t care? It wasn’t what I expected after all. I assumed. And now, I have to concede.
(Seven minutes! *Two claps*)
The debate is over. Seven minutes is up. I went overtime. No one listened after the seventh minute. I assumed, yet would not concede at the moment. I’d wait for an adjudicator to come. And hopefully, the adjudicator’s credible enough. And I hope you listen to him.
With that, Mr. Chair, I beg you to propose.
* * *
13 May 2017:
With the increasing view of this entry due to the search of the definition of “assuming but not conceding”, we used that phrase in debate for our rebuttals. This is often used as “assuming <circumstance/ parameter presented by opposing team> but not conceding (or agreeing that the said circumstance/ parameter is true or correct), we propose/ argue the outcome given the opposition’s premise to prove that despite those said, we still win our case.
A concrete example:
Motion: THW legalize abortion in the Philippines. (Classic, I know haha)
Premise given by Proposition: The Philippines has been more liberal in the past year when it is believed that it will help alleviate poverty. This can be seen in the unwavering support to the war on drugs. (Sorry, the argument sucks but just for illustration.)
Rebuttal by Opposition: Assuming but not conceding that the Philippines has grown accustomed to killings, the opposition believes that the country is not yet capable of supporting such act due to the lack of instruments and abortionist to carry out the act safely. At the end of the day, such act can jeopardise women. (Again, another sucky argument but I hope you get the point).
Hope this helps!