Debate that builds thinkers

By Herman M. Lagon

I did not arrive that late Monday morning at the first-floor space of the COEd Building in ISUFST – Tiwi expecting to judge a championship debate. I had simply stayed long enough in the venue, listening and observing, when I suddenly found myself becoming an instant judge. Life sometimes nudges us back into familiar roles. I did not mind. Debate has always had a soft spot in me. About 15 years ago, a third of my dissertation work in power generation in physics required a pedagogy of structured argument, evidence, and defense of ideas. Even earlier, I had been a university debater myself. So when third-year English majors under Dr. Edmer Bernardo’s language class tackled the motion on abolishing the English Proficiency Test (EPT) in teacher ranking, I did not just hear speeches. I heard instincts, gaps, sparks, and the familiar rhythm of minds thinking on their feet.

The Affirmative side built its case on a point that was simple but strong: the EPT appears redundant when teacher applicants are already assessed through the licensure exam, demonstration teaching, interviews, credentials, and ranking criteria that already weigh performance in more practical ways. Their researchers came prepared with the latest policy references and did not merely rely on feelings dressed up as arguments. That mattered. The best debates are rarely won by volume. They are often won by convergence. The Affirmative’s case kept returning to one useful center: if an evaluation tool repeats what other tools already measure, then one must justify why it should remain mandatory. That was not a flashy argument, but it was disciplined, and discipline often beats drama.

The Negative side responded with a defense that also had real force: standards exist for a reason, and in a country still struggling with learning gaps, clarity of instruction matters. Their line was not unreasonable. They argued that English remains a working language in much of our educational system, especially in academic content areas, and that an objective tool for measuring proficiency can serve as a quality-control mechanism. Their concern was easy to understand. No parent wants a child taught by someone who cannot explain clearly. No school system should pretend communication is optional. One speaker’s line, “Education collapses the moment communication fails,” was memorable because it was not just quotable. It was true enough to make people pause. Good debating often starts there, in a sentence that sounds like lived reality rather than a borrowed slogan.

Still, the real beauty of the morning was not who eventually won, but where both sides revealed how debate can sharpen everyone in the room. The strongest part of the exchange happened not in the polished prepared speeches, but during interpolation, where confidence meets uncertainty and memorization gets replaced by instinct. This is where some arguments held, and some arguments could have been tighter. A few points from both sides leaned too quickly on broad legal references without fully proving that those laws necessarily required the specific policy being defended. Some claims bordered on a false dilemma: as though abolishing the EPT would automatically mean abandoning standards, or as though retaining it automatically meant fairness. Debate becomes truly intelligent when it refuses these easy either-or traps. There is almost always a third lane, and the best debaters know how to find it.

Some of the most convincing moments came when speakers adjusted their arguments midstream. Evidence could have strengthened the Affirmative’s claim that demonstration teaching, rather than written tests, reveals real teaching ability. Cadosales et al. (2023), studying 2,680 new teachers across the country, found that LET scores sometimes predict classroom performance, but not in every case. The link was clear for BSEd graduates, but not for BEEd or DPE graduates. The message is straightforward: exams are important, but they do not provide a complete picture.

There were moments when the Negative side could have tightened its argument. Defending the EPT as a mark of professionalism sounds convincing at first, but it needed clearer causal proof that the test measures something unique. Without that, the reasoning risks becoming a leap from “standards matter” to “this standard must remain.” Debate rewards those who can close that gap with evidence.

Yet there was much to celebrate. Best Speaker Russ Micah Ysunza spoke with a calm presence that did not chase attention but quietly commanded it. She later said she never expected the recognition, nor the win. What stayed with her was the experience itself — and the power of teamwork and faith. That humility, to me, is often a better sign than swagger. On the other side, Jhana Bagsit, declared Best Debater, offered something equally valuable: the seriousness of someone who revised, doubted, prepared, hoped, and then delivered. Her joy in being heard was not vanity. It was the relief of someone who worked to make her ideas worthy of attention. That is the sort of ambition schools should not embarrass students out of having.

What I appreciated most was that the event was far from a sterile academic exercise. There was grit in it. Debate is not only about citing sources or anticipating questions. It also requires angas in the good sense — controlled nerve, not arrogance. Interpolation quickly separates preparation from presence of mind. The debater who survives knows the rules, owns the issue, keeps face and words in sync, and finds room to think even when pressed. Ten pages of notes can collapse under one sharp question. Yet clarity and calm can still rescue a missed citation. That is why debate should not belong only to English majors. Every field needs it — teachers, engineers, fisheries professionals, counselors, journalists, nurses, and public servants. A country drowning in noise needs more than people who can speak. It needs people who can reason.

I hope more schools, campuses, and courses embrace debates like this — not as academic theater, but as real training in public thinking. Students are often told to think critically, but only within safe limits. Debate stretches those limits. It teaches respect in disagreement and discipline in argument. When so much online discourse is loud but shallow, seeing students question assumptions and defend ideas with evidence is quietly encouraging.

The morning ultimately offered a lesson beyond the EPT issue. The Affirmative team won fairly. Their arguments were more unified and their research stronger, particularly in demonstrating how the EPT may overlap with other evaluation tools already used. But the bigger win belonged to the exchange itself. Debate should not be about ego or recognition. It is about testing ideas until truth becomes clearer and justice becomes visible. And often, the best debates begin with dialogue, where listening leads the way. But when issues must be tested, debate has its place. It is not war with microphones. It is disciplined friction in search of light. And in a school, that is one habit worth normalizing, because the country will need more citizens who can argue well, listen better, and still care about what is right and just after the applause dies.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a ‘student of and for life’ who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world that is grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views herewith do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.