-
10. On The Television Programme “The Debate”
- LANGAA RPCIG
- Chapter
- Additional Information
65 10 On The Television Programme “The Debate”1 The Producer “The Debate,” C.R.T.V, Yaounde. I have what I might describe as serious reservations concerning the T.V. programme “The Debate.” Let me try to put my points simply and clearly. All those involved in the production and presentation of this programme are evidently very talented and gifted persons. But these facilities are mostly wasted on this programme. The programme is no doubt entertaining. But a programme of this type ought to be more than just that. It is also a silly programme. But if it were only silly and entertaining it would be harmless even if useless. However, it also happens to be a dangerous programme. Let me try to unpack these loaded statements. Purely formal debates (in which the views expressed are not to be equated with the true opinion of the person expressing them) unquestionably have a great didactic value especially at secondary school level where pupils learn the techniques of reasoning, argumentation, selfexpression , self-confidence, etc. For such formal debates it is usually advisable to choose harmless topics such as: - Which is sweeter, foofoo corn or achuu? - Which is better, to be a man or a woman? - Between a mountain and a valley, which would you choose? - Is it better to be too tall or too short? - If your father and mother are drowning, who will you save first? - When you go to heaven, will you prefer to sit on God’s right hand or left? - Would you prefer a trip to the moon or to mars? - Boys are finer than girls. - A donkey is better than a horse. - Witches exist. 66 Road Companion to Democracy and Meritocracy One doesn’t expect normal adults to engage in debates of such topics. Adults should debate more substantive issues. But if adults are to engage in debate of more substantive issues then a very strong reason is needed if this is to be done in a purely formal manner, that is, if they are to debate as a merely intellectual exercise whose results are not to be considered as representing reality or as providing guides for action or conduct. The reason here is that the views expressed regarding such substantive issues could mislead a lot of people who have no time to ponder the issues for themselves. This danger increases several times over if the debate is carried over the mass media as is the case with “The Debate.” Examples of what I have termed substantive issues are the following: - Is Abortion right or wrong? - Is Euthanasia justifiable? - Should contraceptives be made available to teenagers? - Is Capital punishment right? - Which is better, polygamy or monogamy? , - Should husbands and wives operate joint bank accounts? - Which is better, democracy or dictatorship? - Should traditional medicine be encouraged? - Is Artificial Insemination right or wrong? - Should bride price be proscribed? To ask people who are not only adults but intellectuals to debate such issues publicly is to predispose the viewers to be expecting to learn something or, at least, to be enlightened. Now, if the debaters then proceed to debate such issues with all show of seriousness, as is the case in “‘The Debate,” and a panel of judges even declares one side winner, then the reminder that the views expressed are not the true views of those expressing them, is neither here nor there. If “The Debate,” were a drama programme one would understand; but if it were, the explanation that the views expressed are not those of the various actors would be quite unnecessary. But, in fact, “the Debate” cannot pass for a programme of comic drama even though there is a lot of clowning in it. The issues involved are simply too weighty to be handled in this sort of trifling manner. [44.210.240.31] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 16:14 GMT) 67 Ont the Television Programme ‘‘The Debate’’ As a matter of fact, most of the arguments used in the programme have been either fallacious or sophistical. In purely formal debates, sophistical and fallacious arguments are always very efficacious because of their strong psychological appeal. But in substantive debates they signal the untenability of the views or positions they are supposed to support. When two brilliant jurists of the calibre of Dr. Ngwafor and Dr. Anyangwe appear regularly on such a programme, vividly expressing phantom arguments which one might applaud in adolescent children, it must be said that they are selling themselves far below...