It is challenging to step out of one’s comfort zone. The imaginative anxiety of being judged by other people is far more intimidating than venturing for something new. In this article, I share my experience of stepping out of my comfort zone by participating in a debate competition and what you can learn from it.

In my school days, I fumbled a lot. I left no stone unturned to avoid the opportunity for speaking in the morning assembly. Even when the roles were assigned for speaking, I always preferred the news headlines, as it had to be read from the paper and there were no chances of fumbling. I was an excellent student, considering my academic grades, in fact, I passed my grade 12 with 93%, but still lacked the confidence for speaking in front of public.

When I entered college, I had high hopes of getting better than what I used to be. As semesters passed, I realised that I am the same school kid, who continued to get better grades, but did not excel at anything else! I did get more confident at delivering PowerPoint presentations, provided that I got ample time to prepare for the explanation speech. My confidence shattered when I had to speak on something impromptu.

I joined the Literary Club of Ahmedabad University, so that I could participate in the speaking events and improve my oratory skills. However, I could never muster the courage to participate even in a single event. Over time, I got promoted as the core committee member, which made me organise the same events which intimidated me.

To me, organising events was a piece of cake, compared to the tension of participating in one of those events. I kept on observing how the participants interacted with the audience, the flow of their content, their art of rebuttals and many more. I did all the observations, but never tried to try out my learnings, solely because of the fear of getting embarrassed in front of the college students. Attending those events was like learning how to swim by watching others, but never actually diving into the sea!

Now, I reached my final year at college and realised that my days were numbered, and I have so much left to learn/experience. I may not get the same opportunities in the future, and this was a compelling reason to confront my greatest fear – Public Speaking.

The Perfect Opportunity

I established the resolution, to participate in the majority of the intercollege events in order to hone my skills. A friend of mine told me that there is an intercollege event organised by the Gujarat National Law University (GNLU), called ‘The GNLU Debate’. The theme was British Parliamentary Debate and it was to be held during 31/8/19 to 2/9/19. I had observed the conventional debate format, where the speaker talks and the opposition refutes but had no idea about the British Parliamentary Debate format.

From the internet, I learnt about the format of this debate (Refer to Exhibit 1). It was the perfect opportunity for me because:

1. I had to perform outside my college. As it was in front of the people I did not know personally, I was not as intimidated as I would have in our college.
2. British Parliamentary Debate was entirely new for me, and I had nothing to lose, but everything to gain. I had to speak for a random topic for 7 minutes, on an impromptu topic, and the judges would give me feedback for where I went wrong. It was a perfect opportunity for me to improve myself.
3. I would get to compete against the finest of Law students, who are trained for public speaking. I was overwhelmed by the potential learning experience, I could get by observing them.

The only challenge for me was to get a partner, as the participation was in pairs. I asked ALL my college friends if they would be interested in participating, but everyone refused, as nobody wanted to spoil their 3-day holiday, participating in a debate competition which cost ₹2,500. Even I had lost hope, as I would not be allowed to participate alone.

Miraculous Call

One evening, I received a call from my schoolmate – Shaurya (name changed for obvious reasons), who was junior to me. He informed me that he had joined a Law College. I was jubilant and asked if he would be interested in teaming up with me for GNLU Debate. He excitedly agreed!

He was a perfect choice, as he was a veteran in public speaking at my school. These days, he also performed at various Open mics. I believed that teaming up with him would supersede my shortcomings. Over the week, we kept on discussing the current affairs, as we anticipated it to be a topic for discussion.

We named our Team as “THE PRAGMATISTS”, which signified that our opinions were rational rather than conjectures.

Pragmatists at GNLU

While travelling to the GNLU, Shaurya informed me that the students of GNLU are exceptional, they are made to read at least 3 different newspapers every day. This was enough to make me nervous about the event. Even he was appearing for the first time, at an event like this. He wished to join GNLU, but could not get the admission, so he had to settle for another law college at Ahmedabad.

There was a silver lining as well, during registration they asked us if we are a ‘Novice’ team, to which we agreed. They planned to make the novices compete against each other, and there was a separate final round for the novice teams. I felt confident, as I would be paired against the people who are new at debating, instead of the pros.

Once we reached, we finished our registrations and went for the orientation. The organising team had arranged a demo round of the debate so that the participants can get acquainted by the rules. I took my notepad out and began noting the strategies used by the demonstrators. They were flawless, I was petrified as I was not half as good as them. It was obvious that my team cannot win the event, against teams like theirs, so the only takeaway I could have is learning from them.

While the event was going on, I found my teammate busy browsing the social media on his phone, instead of learning from the demonstrators. Even Shaurya realised that our calibre is not as good as theirs, and he felt demotivated. He suggested that we should go and rest at the accommodation as the demos and lunch would take around 2 hours. This was enough for infuriating me.

I realised that I had chosen the wrong teammate. Our goals did not align. While I wanted to learn from everything from everyone, at the event, he just wanted to speak on his turn and leave. Now that he knew that we have 0 chances of winning the event, he refrained from even putting the efforts to try.

I suppressed my anger and tried to explain him how observing them can at least help us strategize our points. But he had no interest in putting the efforts. I began to question my choice, what if I had a partner, who was as keen as me to learn from what the GNLU had to offer?  I realised, we have lost before even participating in the debate.

The Debate Begins

The topic allotted to us was, “The House believes that middle-class parents should adopt free-range parenting”.

We were in the opening opposition, so we had to start the motion while refuting the topic. In the 15 minutes, we also had to shift to another building where the round was supposed to be held. 8 minutes passed for that, and we had very less time to prepare. While commuting, instead of discussing the points to speak, I was busy explaining the definition of the topic to my partner.

I overheard some other teams and realised we were lagging. When we reached the room, only 7 minutes were left for us, and the only thing we were prepared for, was the definition of the topic. I saw the other teams carrying the filled sheets into the room, whereas our sheet was empty.

Anxiety gripped me again. What if I had a partner who knew the topic’s definition and we could have used the time preparation time productively. In the paucity of time, we could come up with only 2 points. The speaker asked which one of us would like to go first as the governor. Shaurya looked at me and asked to go first.

He believed I knew the points well and should go first. However, I had no faith in me; the preparation of others perplexed me, I had no faith if I would be able to speak for 7 minutes with only 2 points. I needed more time to prepare; if I had enough points, I would have stormed as the opener but not now. I requested if he could lead first. Shaurya saw my anxiety and volunteered to go first!

He stepped up and focused most of his time in refuting the points of the governor, as we had scarce points to add on our own. He spoke for 4 minutes and returned. In those 4 minutes, he stuttered, fumbled and ran out of thoughts. He was not even 1% of what he performed at the open mics, and the reason being that he was not as acquainted in conversing in English, as he was in Hindi.

I again doubted my choice, as neither was, he interested in learning from the event and he did not perform how I envisioned him to do. I observed how just a change of language, can turn a veteran performer into a novice.

When he returned, his face was gloomy. Even he realised that he was not as good as he used to perform in his open mics. He may not be as good as me in understanding the concepts, and articulating in English, but I he had something which I lacked – CONFIDENCE. The sheer confidence to embark on a challenge, knowing that you are not well prepared for it. He could have quickly passed the baggage to me for leading the debate, as I was his senior and knew the topic well, but he was courageous enough to supersede his fear and stepping out his comfort zone.

The results were announced, and as expected, Pragmatists stood at the 4^th position. The results dejected him.

I stepped out of the room, and as the judges were leaving, I asked them for the tips for improving, and what criteria do they look for. They answered my questions. I also approached the winning teams for help, but they were not as hospitable as the judges. It was apparent, no competitor would reveal their strategy to others.

However, I had nothing to lose; further, I did manage to get some points and the ‘Knifing’ technique for the whip. While I was doing this, Shaurya was busy on a call for organising an open mic event. I tried to tell him to focus on learning, but he did not budge.

Self-Actualisation

Round 2 passed, and we came last there as well. We reached the accommodation and discussed the event. Both of us were flabbergasted by the performance of other students. There were three more rounds left tomorrow, and if we aced in them, we could have made it to the semi-finals.

Suddenly, Shaurya started crying. He was angry at himself and believed that it was the fault of the school that they did not encourage the students to converse in English. Also, his college did not foster the environment of English speaking; he revealed that even his professors conversed in Gujarati.

I began to empathize with his situation. I could relate to what he was saying as we came from the same school, the reason why I was better at English, was due to the environment provided at college and my friend circle. I could see my junior self in his position; I was the same. Even I fumbled when it came to speak in public, but it was my network that helped me grow. I started feeling the gratitude for having the environment which shaped me to what I am today. If I were in his position, even I could have ended up in the same position.

I calmed him down and explained him how I have gone through the same phase, and it was only my circle that helped me grow. I made him realise that if he is not happy with the college environment, and it could not help him improve than what he used to be, he should seriously consider changing it. My words began to impact him. He opened up, revealing that he wanted to join a college at Bangalore instead of his current one, but could not as he did not want to alienate from his family.

I made him realise that I had committed the same blunder. I did not step out of my comfort zone in college, and now as my days are limited, I am trying to get hold of every good event I could be a part of. If I had started earlier, I could not have the regret that I am having now. I also enlightened him mentioning that he is in his first semester, and he has ample time to improve provided a congenial environment. The Bangalore college was perfect for him; he knew that the students and the professors conversed in English, and the opportunities were better there. He made up his mind to change his college.

I was happy for him. At least, he realised the gamut of trying new things earlier than me. I regretted my previous decisions for not participating in the events. He asked me about the stuff that I learnt from the judges and the members. I opened the notepad and began teaching him the lessons. I was happy that my team was aligned to the same goal – Learning rather than winning.

Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.

We did not win in the third round as well, but our delivery was getting better. We were more confident than our first rounds. Indeed, the realisation that we have nothing to lose, helped us with our confidence and learning from the other teams too.

At the end of the third round, Shaurya pointed out to me that I was committing the mistake of allowing the opponents to ask questions on my speech. I believed that it would fetch us better marks, but it was quite the opposite. I overlooked the fact that none of the pros were accepting the questions. They asked the opponents to wait till the 6^th minute and extended their speech, so that the time goes out and they have no time to answer the questions. Classic Trick!

I incorporated the same trick in the next round, yet we came the last. I realised that every judge was looking for different things. The previous judge asked me to explain stuff naturally as I would to a 3^rd grader. The tip did not work in this round, as the judge commented on bringing more examples and facts rather than explanation. Now it was impossible to enter the semis. The only goal was to break the streak of consistently getting the last position in the rounds. The scorecard showed that we were the only team who came last consistently in 4 rounds. We aspired to at least score the third position in the final round.

The Debacle

The final round’s topic was, “The House supports the commercialisation of sports”. We were overjoyed, and we had plenty of examples and content to speak on this topic. I asked Shaurya to look at the board to check if we were speaking for or against it, while I searched for the room number.

He came back smiling that we were speaking for the motion. We marched to the room, discussing the points. This was the most comfortable round so far, and we managed to get 8 points, with relevant examples and facts.

When we entered the room, our hopes were shattered. The board read, “Team Pragmatists – OO”. Shaurya had misread the allocation in the preparation room. In the excitement of the topic, he overlooked OO to OG.

We had so many points to say for the motion, but now we had to speak against them. To make things worse, we were the opening team, so we had no time to prepare while the others speak. Shaurya was sorry for his mistake and asked if he should go first so that I get time to prepare. I realised this is the perfect opportunity for me to step out of my comfort zone. I was not confident in speaking publicly when I had not prepared for it.

I knew that irrespective of the result, we were not making it to the semi-finals. I was filled with confidence, and I exclaimed, “I will go first! I will buy you some time, prepare well”. Fortunately, as we were the opening opposition, I had 7 minutes to prepare, while the governor spoke. Coincidentally they were speaking nearly the same points which we planned. I could not come up with a counter to all those points, but I could only come up with just 1 point.

1. Commercialisation turns sports into a money-making business

I began to speak, and miraculously examples kept on flourishing in my mind. I was feeling confident. The judges pressed the buzzer, I realised that I survived for seven minutes, based on just one point. My happiness was over the limit. I did not care if we came 4^th in this round as well, because I gained the confidence which I lacked. Shaurya spoke splendidly as well.

The results were announced, and we came last in this round as well. Our team had no grief of losing the competition and being the only team that scored 0 in all the five rounds. We were happy that we learnt new skills. The defeat filled me with the zest to participate in more such competitions and improve better.

Lessons Learnt

• The best way to motivate someone is to listen to their problems and to understand their emotions, before directly jumping to a conclusion.
• A leader is not someone who always wins, it is important to lose so that you stay humble and understand the need to improve.
• Choose the team wisely. Not everyone would have the same enthusiasm as the leader does; it is imperative to make others see the bigger picture. Once everyone is on the same page, the team can function harmoniously.
• Always challenging yourself is the only way to get better, rather than cribbing about it.
• Observing others can teach you a lot, keep your senses alert.
• Overexcitement can often lead you to make irrational decisions like my team interpreted OO as OG. It is imperative to stay calm, and alert while taking decisions i.e. BE PRAGMATIC!!!

Exhibit 1 – How British Parliamentary Debate Functions

The panel determined the topic, and the participants had to perform in the pairs. The Government’s side had to speak for the motion, whereas the opposition needs to speak against the motion. 15 minutes were allotted for preparation, without using anything from the internet. Each participant is allotted 7 minutes for speaking.

The opening teams had to share their interpretation of the topic. The closing teams had to substantiate the points covered by opening teams and introduce new points which were missed by the opening. The Whip cannot introduce any new points, their job is to summarize the entire debate and explain why their side deserves to win. All the opening and closing teams had 2 members in pair.

The flow of speaking occurs in the same sequence as shown in the diagram, it starts with the PM of the Government, followed by the leader of opposition (who refutes the points mentioned by the PM), and ends with the opposition whip.

The evaluation was according to the pairs instead of the entire team, i.e. The judge did not declare that Government’s side won or vice versa. Instead, the opening and closing pairs were ranked on a scale of 1-4. So, it can be possible that the first position was scored by the opening government, and the second position may not necessarily go to the closing government, instead it can go to the closing opposition as well.

Exhibit 2: Team Score

Position	Novice Position	Name	Total rank	Total speaker	Speaker R1	Speaker R2	Speaker R3	Speaker R4	Speaker R5	Rank R1	Rank R2	Rank R3	Rank R4	Rank R5
39	15	IIT GN	5	761	145	151	156	160	149	1	1	1	1	1
40	16	SLS-H 2	5	752	152	151	149	151	149	0	1	1	2	1
41	17	Doctors in Suits	5	748	148	147	150	153	150	0	0	2	3	0
42	18	SLS-H 1	5	745	140	155	153	149	148	0	3	1	0	1
43	19	CKC	5	741	144	149	152	149	147	1	2	1	1	0
44	20	NLIU	4	744	149	148	151	149	147	0	1	1	2	0
45	21	MNLU-A	4	734	145	143	149	147	150	2	0	0	0	2
46	22	PGCL-A	3	736	146	147	145	150	148	1	0	0	1	1
47	23	Winterfell	3	725	142	152	143	144	144	0	3	0	0	0
48	24	The Pragmatists	0	732	148	149	144	145	146	0	0	0	0	0