The Jaw War Audience: A Bane Or A Boost?

Precious Igwe

Jaw War can easily be ranked top of all events that are held in UI. The annual inter-hall and inter-faculty public speaking competition is held in the second semester of every school year, it is always hugely anticipated and grabs the attention of the school population as speakers (representatives of halls and faculties) go head to head on different socially relevant topics and issues in different rounds of the event, from the preliminary rounds to the quarter finals, to the semi finals and then to the finals, where the last standing hall and faculty take home the cup. Jaw War has gone on to be the largest public speaking event in West Africa.

It is a common belief that the Jaw War audience is the spice of the event. The venues are always filled to the brim and even overflowing as students come out en masse to support and cheer on the speakers from their halls and faculties. The energy in these places is always electrifying and exciting, as supporters don’t hide their enthusiasm, support, and amazement as speakers dish out intelligent and captivating arguments. There is always the long praise moment when a speaker is called upon, and the speaker has to wait for the hailing to die down before commencing their speech.

However, inasmuch as this palpitating energy is admirable, and makes the events enjoyable and fun, it has also proved to be detrimental and razz. It is impressive that students are invested enough to be present and loudly supportive, but the mode of support takes away the intellectualism of the event, and might even get a speaker shaken up and distracted.

At the beginning of every Jaw War, the coordinators and judges hammer on the fact that a calm environment is needed, on how the audience needs to maintain decorum, for the sake of the speakers, the judges, and even the audience (the listeners). Clapping and cheering for a speaker while they are still speaking is frowned upon, because they might lose their thought process, and the noise drowns out their speech such that the judges do not hear them, and this is detrimental to the overall evaluation of the speakers’ performance. One would think that the repeated warnings and regulations would deter the crowd from going overboard, at least to increase their speakers’ chances at a stellar performance.

Now, the audiences’ habit of unbridled cheering is testament to the nature of the event. Unpopular opinion or maybe not, the core of Jaw War is tied to the integration of catchy punchlines and bants in the debaters’ speeches, that is, they include trendy funny statements, and ‘savage’ jabs thrown at their rival halls and faculties. This is a well engraved Jaw War tradition, it keeps the competition going and it keeps the audience on their toes, it is what the audience lives for. In fact, the audience terms a speech “boring”, “dry”, etc, if the speech is more value and content based, than bants and punchline based.

This tradition leads us to the questions, “What keeps this much revered public speaking competition going– bants or factual/intellectual arguments? Do some speakers invest more on finding punchlines and jabs or on gathering relevant facts and data so they can deliver a worthwhile speech? Are the audience interested at all in actual debates or in hearing bants? Do they seek to even learn one or two things from the speeches? Are they actually an intellectual audience as the competition claims?

The fact that overtime, the intellectualism of the competition dwindles as there is now more interest in the savagery, the punchlines, the “bars”, and the vibes, is very concerning. The lack of intellectualism and composure of the audience even goes beyond how they act when their speakers are on, but also how they react when speakers of their rival hall/faculty are speaking. Sometimes, they intentionally get noisy so they can drown out the speeches, or begin to jeer and boo at the slightest pause that indicates that the speaker has probably forgotten their line and is trying to gather their thoughts and arguments. It is a very disrespectful tradition. The audience does not know what it takes to gather relevant information, to learn and internalize these speeches, and the least they can do is maintain silence during these awkward moments, and let the coordinators and judges decide the fate of the speaker.

This year, particularly, there have been numerous complaints and comments on how the crowd has been going extremely wild and how it is affecting the speakers, and there has only been the preliminary and quarter finals rounds, still a long way to go.

On the X app, formerly known as Twitter, a UI student tweeted a suggestion on how Jaw War coordinators should start a regulation where supporters are seated according to their halls and faculties, and if in the course of the debates, unnecessary or exaggerated cheers or jeers are heard from a certain side, then the score of their speaker should be reduced. Inasmuch as this might be a tad harsh, it might actually go a long way in enforcing decorum while speakers are on the podium.

All in all, UI students should begin to imbibe the habit of tranquility, and act as intellectual and well-mannered as they claim, they should take into consideration the performance of their speakers, and even that of other speakers. Also, the coordinators should go beyond mere warnings, and find ways to curb the noise and disturbance.