Debate and dialogue Readers of this paper seemed to have experienced GaryDuBrail as incessantly railing against the darker side of things "nativeand local" (e.g., Micronesians do not plan) that I thought (many did, too)contained many truths. His stance, notsurprisingly, roughed up a few feathers. I read him more as that of a debater, a denizen muchencouraged on island where we train our young on the art of debating, if notthe instinct to attack on the jugular in order to win up on stage against lessconfrontational "contestants". In fact, debates are often described as gladiatorial contests ratherthan a discourse to enlighten an audience over an issue. The West considers debate as meaningfulexchange to define ideas to a point where a divide is clearly delineated andone chooses either to be "pro" or "con". Some of us who grew up in the Protestant tradition ofChristianity were particularly spoon-fed with the feistiness of theLuther-Calvin-Zwingli-Knox-Asbury traditions where the ability to engage themagisterium of the holy Roman Church into heavy contentious debate was the normrather than the exception. We weretrained to go after the jugular against the Papists even after the Vatican IIopened up the fresh world of oikumene. Some of my warm-hearted brethren willbreak bread with the Episcopalians but will enter the shades of CK cathedral onlyat a friend's funeral. The debate practice was carried into the niceties of EnglishParliament when one was allowed to be sarcastic to another as long as one wasfunny in the doing or was indirect in the process, be gentlemanly, as itwere. Pinoys are Asian masters onindirection (mag-padaplis), with anoft-quoted local saying, Bato-bato salangit, ang tamaan, huwag magagalit, ("if the shoe fits, wearit," though the saying is less blunt and literally means, "stones inthe sky, whoever is hit would please not be angry"). Gary decided to retire to the calmer waves of Waikiki inspite of having relations on island; at 75 years old, I can understand theimpatience with impertinence and spineless sloppy thoughts. It is in the nature of debates that conflictsensue. My take for the moment is on theform of discourse. Given what we nowknow about knowledge, airing out thoughts does not constitute disagreements,only differences of opinions, ideas and perspectives. It is in "doing" that a"resolve" is debatable, and even then, decisions need not becombative. CCTV's Dialogue in China is a program that airstwice daily where the anchor hosts a guest or two to discuss a relevantsubject. The program promotes that"ideas matter". Fairenough. Cognitive knowledge is after allthe cornerstone of European meta-think and westerneducation. There are not many Englishshows in China, and save for CCTV sponsored by the government, there are notmany choices unless one has cable, which may carry programs from Singapore, Hong Kong, and other countries. It is possible that the producers of the CCTV Dialogueprogram have "debate" in mind because in most instances, they prodtheir guests to an "either/or" position, culturally foreign to theChinese setting that is clearly "and/both" in its yin-yang characteristic that avoidsconflict to keep "face". Confrontational as befitting its western role models, the program inEnglish looks like it decided on the "compare and contrast" methodthat leads to unavoidable polarized positions. Debate on Eton's fields was cricket where conflict isdecided by the bat, the thrown ball, and the skill of the batter, with all thelanguage of combat involved on the reality of play and game. "De-ba-te"in Philippine politics when I was growing up was a matter of honor, oftenresulting in life and death situation when grudge turns into violentvengeance. The question of honor, Sicilian in origin through Italy and Spain, resulted in many tears, like whatthe young Ferdinand Marcos was accused on causing when the elected Nalundasanridiculed Marcos' father after bettering him in the polls. We see this debate spirit at work in the EU's stridentapplication of sanctions on Russia where EU's new security officer justified itas simply applying pressure. "Sanctions is strategy", she said, to gain negotiatingadvantage. Whoa! Does the lady ever read history? I mean, groups of people with armed forces donot play cricket on the fields of Eton for strategic advantage? They drive their tanks to the border! EU measures everyone by the value of the Euro supported by aworldwide Wall Street managed by global corporate powers, but not all economiesoperate out of market values. In somequarters, "honor and integrity" and the promotion of indirectionthrough "fashionable facades" are virtues of power that move humansouls. These are priceless, though notalways sane and reasonable, and unmeasurable by the Euro and US dollarvalue scales! Debate hones wit and glib; dialogue talks the language ofthe heart. We reserve an extra seat foranyone inclined to dialogue. Got time? j'aime la vie yesterday, appreciate; tomorrow, anticipate; today. participate. In all, celebrate!