It seems that the heat of the debate between the former YB Prime Minister and the YB Leader of the Opposition has not subsided, especially on social media.
As far as I saw and read the comments on the debate on social media, it is clear that the average netizen has nominated the YB Leader of the Opposition as the winner of the debate.
In fact, some have concluded that before the debate took place, many seemed to already know who the winner was.
To be fair to YB Pekan, his act of daring to appear on the public stage to debate can also be praised. Shame on my boss!
However, there are also those who state that individuals like YB Pekan, unlike YB Ketua Pembangkang, are not a debater.
In other words, he is said to have no “DNA” arguing. Maybe he has other, more powerful “DNA”!
On that basis, according to the analyst, YB Pekan should not try to show off by being involved in the open debate stage, let alone on a stage with YB Opposition Leader.
Depa habaq is like “hang pi hulur tengkuk hang untuk disembelih YB! “
I do not intend to comment on the content of the debate such as the issue of “bail out” using Petronas money or loan money from a bank with a government guarantee that for me, YB Pekan should not use such fragile arguments unless he wants to argue so in Umno Supreme Council meetings or in the Umno General Assembly !.
Anyway, if in the Umno Supreme Council, maybe he doesn’t need to debate.
Enough to just give a briefing that maybe his listeners will agree even if he hasn’t finished the briefing yet! I guess so.
Sorry, I want to comment on the issue from another angle.
Everyone knows and is aware that debate is different from a talk or a speech. Debates and talks require very different approaches.
In a debate, the debater has to speak on the basis of a defensible argument.
The rhetoric that may run on the talk show because it is “one way traffic” may not be of high value in the world of debate.
In the planet of debate, a person’s social status, no matter how high, is not in itself able to guarantee the greatness of their argument or the content of their argument.
In the Qur’an, for example, we can see how the Ruler of the Babylonian Empire (Ababil in Arabic) in Mesopotamia tried to use a rhetorical approach when arguing/debating with Prophet Ibrahim as.
His argument was easily defeated by Prophet Ibrahim as so that Allah stated at the end of the debate فبهت الذي كفر – “so the unbeliever was overwhelmed!” .
In the books of tafsir, some scholars interpret the phrase in the verse as “stunned or disconnected/cut off argument etc.”
For me alone, when reading the story of Prophet Ibrahim as in the Quran, I am always excited. It can be said, for me, Prophet Ibrahim as is “A debater Par Excellence!”
Regardless, no matter who the winner of the debate is, the culture of debate among politicians, especially those who want to lead the country, should be made a mandatory ceremony or calendar, perhaps during the GE.
It is not wrong if this country imitates the culture of debate over presidential candidates as is true in half developed countries, even in a country like the Republic of Indonesia.
Of course, for developed countries, the people of Depa take seriously the issue of public office which for Depa not only demands the principles of accountability and transparency but also it is in line with the true principles and spirit of democracy.
That is why for developed countries, even disrespecting the people’s mandate is not only possible or difficult to happen in the real world because it is not in the dictionary of democracy, they may never dream it will happen in the realm of illusion.
Look at the high standards of democracy in the issue of “public office”.