Fenny J Fwa writes:
Do you ever witness news, videos, articles, or photos that you believe it's good and rich for our blog?, or do you have a true life story that you would want us to feature on our blog; Adamawa Celebrities News? Kindly submit your stories, pictures, and videos to us now via Email: firstname.lastname@example.org, or WhatsApp: 08051600130Connect on Social Media: @adamawacelebritiesThe heading above is the proposed title of my forthcoming book” Adding value to public discourse.”The title is informed by the initial robust intellectual engagement on Facebook when it was newly introduced. It’s unfortunate the platform is now mired by Lilliputians, religious and ethnic bigots and most unfortunately by obscene photos and comments that had further compounded our immoral descend.
There is not much you can do about immorality and ethno religious bigots, no matter how much you try because they are reflections of the decadence in our society. What bothers me most is that those that are fairly educated and supposedly well read can’t follow the simple rules of debate. What are the rules? First of all you appreciate the efforts made in the comment of the author. At least no matter how mundane there is one or two points that can be acknowledged. Secondly you can pin point areas you disagree by falsifying the points raised, adducing other facts with solid empirical evidences. Thirdly you have to stick to the areas raised by the author and not deviating by introducing extraneous issues. Fourthly the language has to be polite and respectful.
But these rules are followed in default as most of the time instead of debunking facts you took your time to research for hours, somebody comes with just one or two sentences totally condemning all you have written and capped it with insulting words such as myopic, sentimental, egoistic, in responsible etc. in fact there is not much wrong about these terms (though disrespectful and denigratory) once you can substantiate them with facts, but you don’t do that but choose to make a sweeping statement and stop at that. The worse is to deviate from the issues raised and trying to demonize the commentator and portray him in bad light for narrow minded motley crowd.
I relish with nostalgic feelings the robust debate we engaged few years ago.
Two years ago, I wrote on my mentor and hero Late Dr Bala Usman on his patriotic and nationalistic service to the nation and just like late Gani Fahemi and Late Dr Festus Iyayi( one of the best ASSU presidents compared to only late Mahmoud Tukur and Atahiru Jega, former INEC chairman). Following the rule of the debate, Hon Sadiq Dasin, started by appreciating my efforts and the cerebral role of Late Usman in development of the nation but castigated him on his contempt for the traditional institutions and his views on religion. I took him on the position of Dr Usman on traditional rulers. Though a prince from the Katsina royalty, he was of the view that they were parasitic and exploitative. I also from a small royalty supported the assertion of my mentor, in fact I remember presenting a seminar paper while a student in ABU, Zaria on how traditional rulers were in charge of natural resources in their locality and using such resources to shortchange the pauperized and hapless masses. On religion, I submitted that Usman views were being misconstrued as he was disenchanted with the manner religion was being used by the ruling class to manipulate the masses for their selfish end. Hon Sadiq countered taking a historical and contemporary perspective on the positive roles of the traditional institution. We went on and on. In fact the debate was so rich that if produced will be bulky and be useful in intellectual circles any time the traditional institution is being discussed. Dr John Ngamsa joined the debate and allied with Dasin. The moderator was Gen Danladi Zakari. He admitted that we made excellent submissions and there was no victor or vanquished. In fact there was not a single disparaging comments. Dasin was so humble and respectful always using the word sir before picking holes in my comments..Hon Dasin eventually invited me for a competition organized in his constituency during the course of the debate.
A similar debate also about two years ago started between me and Barr Adiel Farah now Adviser in Bindow administration.. I had quoted a relevant site where it was adduced that CIA was involved in the funding of BH. Adiel broke the first rule of debate by contemptuously dismissing my source. I took exception to that I didn’t spare him my tongue, but that began a very lively debate. Adiel supported his assertion quoting copiously from relevant authorities. I also did same. Hon Sadiq Dasin came on board and supported Adiel and couldn’t just believe that CIA could be involved. He marshaled his argument and also countered. It ended well with Adiel, me and Dasin sticking tenaciously to our own points of view with sound intellectual argument without condescending to insults that lack substance.
Then came our robust intellectual discourse between me Yakubu A Yakubu( YAY) the literary and prose guru. It was on the territorial control of Fombina kingdom. I disagreed with him on the areas under the Fombina. Then began another round of a sound intellectual debate. YAY quoted copiously from relevant authorities and I did my own. Although we held tenaciously to our various views without demeaning language, nevertheless deep down in my heart I knew YAY won the debate.
Please why can’t we be civil, courteous in our debate. Let us stick to the rules as highlighted above. It will do us a world of good. Allowing our manipulative politicians to dictate the tone of debate by introducing extraneous factors such as religion and ethnicity will be counterproductive to our march towards a United, prosperous nation.