Conflict can be a catalyst for change

MODERATOR:
Good evening students and welcome to the 2010 Annual Michigan State High School Debate
Final. Our two champion debaters tonight, Riley and Jessi will be arguing over the motion
Conflict causes growth. Each debater will be given ten minutes to make their arguments,
after which both will then be given three minuted to rebut their opponents contentions. A
coin toss has decided that the affirmative will begin the debate. Jessie, you have ten
minutes.
JESSIE:
Thankyou moderator and thankyou student body. Today I would like to propose a concept of
unrivalled simplicity to everything else contended in this debate tonight. In situations of
adversity, or conflict, when someone is placed in a conflict that they are unable to resolve
using their existing abilities and personality traits, they are forced to grow and change in
order to survive, or resolve the conflict. Thus while conflict may not always change those
who encounter it, it has the potential to force people to adapt and grow. This concept is so
simple and logical that examples of it are almost unnecessary. However, these examples are
so plainly numerous in the world around us, that it would be remiss of me not to give you at
least a couple of them to demonstrate the out-workings of this concept. In my first example,
I will, for convenience sake, draw from a film we have all studied this year: Paradise Road. In
the film, several of the women emerge in the conclusion, dramatically changed from their
character and behaviour at the outset. One of the most dramatic changes in the film is the
transformation of Adrienne. After the death of her fellow inmate Wing, Adrienne recognises
the need for hope amongst the women in the camp. She proceeds to overcome her
trepidation in beginning the vocal orchestra, and most importantly, the class barriers
between her and Daisy Drummond in order to begin the vocal orchestra, a great source of
hope for the women at the camp. Adrienne reveals to Daisy later in the film that in her old
life, she never mixed with missionaries. It is clear that if it were not for the unique needs
and problems caused by conflict, one of the most beautiful aspects of the film, the
relationship between Adrienne and Daisy would not have been possible.
History too is littered with examples of remarkable individuals who only realised their full
potential when unique situations of conflict necessitated personal growth. The perfect In his
book Mandelas Way, Time Magazine editor Richard Stengel reveals what he learnt from
Nelson Mandela in the many years they spent together. One large truth that emerges, is that
Mandela considers his years in prison to be his greatest learning experiences and period of
growth. Mandela entered prison, a man in complete juxtaposition to the man who emerged,
he was described by his closest friend as passionate, emotional quickly strung to
bitterness and retaliation by insult and patronage. Yet when he was released, at the age of
seventy one, Mandela was none of these things, but instead has come to be renowned
throughout the world for his calm, balanced, controlled and above all else forgiving
approach to conflict resolution. This change and personal growth took place in the conflict
and day-to-day hardships of prison, as Mandela recounts that as a prisoner there was very
little [he] could control [besides] himself and no room for extraneous motion or
emotion And yet, as leader of the prisoners, he had to take responsibility to stand up to
prison authorities day by day. It is clear that Mandelas time in prison, the constant conflict
with guards and the unique requirements of such a situation, moulded him into a man
capable of leading South Africa, imbuing him with the self-control, and balanced demeanour
that defined his later political career. Nelson Mandela grew through conflict, like Adrienne in
Paradise Road and like countless others throughout history and literature. The motion
stands, conflict undoubtedly causes growth.
MODERATOR:
Thankyou Jessie, we will now hear from the negative. Riley, you have ten minutes.
RILEY:
Thankyou. Fellow students! Tonight I am afraid I cannot so indulge myself and everyone else
as to present an idea that I could label simple. Tonight I will ask you to look beyond the
superfluous fluctuations in personal habits - so easily affected by the weather, much less
conflict - and instead examine the very nature and core values of a person and whether
conflict can change these, or merely bring them to light. I too will begin by drawing from
Paradise Road, using much the same examples, and yet demonstrating that while several
characters do let go of the class or racial prejudices that society impressed upon them, the
conflict with the Japanese actually, despite all the horrors, actually failed to truly change the
nature of any of the women. One of the women, similar to Adrienne, who displays a
supposedly remarkable transformation in the face of adversity is Mrs Roberts. At the
beginning ot the film, Mrs Roberts is a clearly racially prejudiced woman, but by the end of
the film, after she is confronted with the selflessness of Wing, learns to relinquish such
prejudice. However, Mrs Roberts racism is clearly based on cultural legacy, not innate
character. She wears her racism as a badge of her cultural supremacy. Compare this, my
fellow students with the racism and mistrust exhibited by Mrs Tibbit, whos mistrust of the
Dutch women, and prejudice throughout the film, are clearly part of her innate personality,
demonstrated from the outset of the film, which shows her derisively mocking Japanese
soldiers. Mrs Tibbits attitudes thus never shift. She remains miserable and distrustful at all
times, even when the war is over. Thus just as Mrs Roberts is able to cast off cultural
pressures in favour of her true nature of kindness, Mrs Tibbits character also remains
unchanged by conflict, but merely revealed. Such a contention is further demonstrated in
the quintessential exploration of Mrs Drummonds character. Mrs Drummond confesses to
Adrienne that despite everything the Japanese soldiers have done to her, she cannot bring
herself to hate them. She remains unchanged in the most dire of circumstances, when
everything should encourage her to hate the Japanese soldiers. Thus, Im afraid it is with
irony that I must point out that in the end, Paradise Road makes no indication that personal
growth on a fundamental level is possible at all.
In history too, there are examples across of all time that demonstrate the out-workings of
unchangeable innate moral character. An example I will draw upon as the last to validate my
contentions is the French revolution, more specifically the moral progression of Maximillian
Robespierre and Camille Desmoulins. Both men grew up in remarkably similar
circumstances. Both were the sons of poor, but well respected lawyers and earned
scholarships to the Collge Louis-le-Grand in Paris at 14, where they excelled and became
close friends. Upon leaving, both men became lawyers and earned a seat in the Estates
General and afterwards the National Assembly. Both men were then instrumental in the
development of the revolution, creating a republic and executing the King. However, at the
height of the revolution, when a crossroads appeared between further radicalisation or a
stop to the witch-hunt of traitors, both men took different paths. When faced with conflict
on all sides, from the war with the coalition of all the other major European empires to the
constant battle against anti-revolutionaries and internal spies, both men reacted in
complete opposition. Robespierre proposed the great terror, that terror is the order of the
day, arguing that there were numerous spies all around and they all must be killed. On the
other hand, Desmoulins saw the amount of death and suffering caused by the terror and
implored his fellow revolutionaries to bring about an end to it. Both men clearly responded
to the conflict in very different ways, Robespierre became more ruthless whereas
Desmoulins became more compassionate. And yet, they both possessed the same skill set,
and were put in the same situation. If conflict really does cause growth when an individual is
put into a situation where they must adapt in order to overcome a problem that they cannot
solve with their current skillset, then why did Camille and Maximillian so differ in their
responses. It is because they did not change at all. Neither man grew. Neither man adapted.
Conflict revealed both mens true nature. Robespierre had always been described as an
unwavering idealist, unable to comprehend the suffering of others, called sea-green
incorruptible, Robespierre was unwilling to sacrifice his ideals no matter the cost. Camille
on the other hand was of a more nervous disposition, prone to stuttering and fully
empathetic to the pain he caused others, throughout his life. Both men reacted to conflict in
a way consistent with their innermost character. Just as the women did in Paradise Road.
Despite the obvious fluctuations in minor matters of habit, the heart remains incorruptible
and is revealed, and not changed in conflict. People do not grow through conflict. The
motion does not stand.
MODERATOR:
Thankyou Riley. Jessie you will now rebut your opponents arguments, you have one minute
JESSIE:
Thankyou moderator and student body. I dont know about my opponent, but I certainly
consider the process of self-discovery and the shedding of cultural prejudices in favour of a
toleration and acceptance, that yes may be ones natural inclination, but is still out of reach
without conflict. Ladies and Gentlemen, my opponent is clearly guilty of looking upon
evidence with biased eyes. Rather than looking and the natural progression of change in a
character, he sees the end result, whether it be a 19
th
Century psychopathic dictator or a
haughty upper class woman and then looks into their past to try to find clues at what they
might become. Clearly confirmation bias has had a role to play in his findings. On the matter
of Robespierre, being strident by your values does not turn everyone into a mass murderer
and not all those who obtain positions of power in conflict with such a personality become
as Robespierre did. No one is suggesting that everyone grows and changes in the same
manner. Even if our past experiences do somewhat dictate the shifts in our actions and
personality, conflict remains a catalyst for change and growth. The motion remains standing.
MODERATOR:
Thankyou Jessie, Riley you have one minute.
RILEY:
Thankyou. Fellow students, I would like to rebut by examining what growth truly is. Surely
growth and change in a person does not simply entail some change in habit, or the learning
to control ones temper. Adrienne, in Paradise Road, was clearly a kind character capable of
overcoming class boundaries and providing hope from the start of the film. She remained
true to herself, just in a different situation, in a different way. So true did Nelson Mandela
remain true to himself in different situations in different ways. Learning to control ones
emotional exterior does not elicit a monumental change in character. So too do Mrs Tibbit,
Robespierre, Mrs Drummond and Camille Desmoulins remain true to themselves in conflict,
just in different situations in different ways. Those characters who compromise, compromise
in situations of conflict. Those who remain uncompromising do so in situations of conflict.
Those without empathy are without so in situations of conflict and vice versa. Acting out
ones personality on a different stage may cause somewhat different actions, but it does not
mean one has changed. My opponent has failed to provide any convincing evidence that
people are capable of true change of character, thus the motion cannot stand. Conflict does
not cause growth.
EXPLANATION
I decided to best explore both sides of a prompt that clearly allowed for two opposing sides, I would
write in the form of a debate, where each side of the prompt would thus be given full room to be
explored. I wanted to show how in real life and literature, affected by our perception of real life, the
question of what is change, and whether people can change is not an easy one to answer. The
examples chosen each show an aspect from literature and then from real life for each side, and are
each chosen to demonstrate either a process of change, or someone staying true to themselves. I
chose this form over imaginative, as I think that in imaginative I would not be given the full range of
opinions that I can demonstrate in debate, and am confined to one character, their beliefs and their
experiences. In this debate I wanted to draw upon history, which seemed difficult in an imaginative.