I watched the Reproductive Health Bill special of the ANC Debate show, Square Off. Instead of inviting student debate teams, they invited congressmen, professors and government officials to debate the issue. Of course, it smells of trouble. Clearly, they shouldn't have used their usual format for this special as most people do not know how debate works. The clear example is the slow speed of speech the speakers use while giving their arguments.The emcee even commented how refreshing to hear their speeches at such slow speeds.

As I'm pro-reproductive health bill, my opinions may be biased but I think I am open enough to discussion and will readily change my views if proven wrong. Though, the evidence and arguments should be of great magnitude to convince me that the RH bill shouldn't be approved.

I find that the negative group gave useless arguments overall. There were glimmers of brilliance and points that if properly framed and argued would have helped their side win but they wasted the chance. Besides, they used such stupid arguments(Natural law? Pope John Paul II? We shouldn't help the poor?) that the affirmative side was even able to rebutt them without even giving contrary evidence.

They also used dirty tactics. Ad hominem attacks are a favorite. Citing debunked studies. Citing studies which are so old that they preceded the Philippine Independence from Spain. Cherry picking data. Putting words into the mouths of the affirmative side. Fallacious arguments like ad populum and appeal to emotion. Lying. Twisting the truth(No Cong., they would not spend 5000 pesos to have a ligation if they already have 5 children to worry about. And no, not all LGUs allow their constituents access to cheap or free contraception). What the F?

Of course,their arguments could probably sway some of the people HAD the affirmative not countered them completely. I also fell for the decreasing fertility rate canard when I first encountered it that I had to rethink my beliefs and arguments again. The answer of course is that, firstly, the fertility rate is just an average and not representative of the whole population. I think the distribution is very skewed. In addition, the fertility rate is still not equal to the desired fertility rate of women, which I think, is the most important thing to consider in reproductive health.

The affirmative side also had some problems. During cross-examinations, they also use ad hominem attacks though to a lesser degree. And they failed to answer some arguments properly. And they speak so slowly.

What I like about the debate is that it didn't end up going into the messy icky discussion about abortion, contraception and Life. Even though, the negative group was really trying to draw the affirmative into that area. The affirmative succeeded in highlighting the repercussions of the bill on the situation of the poor while the negative succeeded in showing that they really don't care for the poor and that they really hate it when people enjoy having sex.

What I wanted to hear but didn't was clarification on why the negative oppose the bill when it doesn't violate the rights. And how NOT passing the bill will help the poor.  I also wanted to hear the arguments of the affirmative about (what I think is one of the biggest issues regarding passing the bill) the protecting the unborn found in our Constitution.

A more comprehensive and clearer recap might follow this post.