15 October 2010
The first half term of the new School year has been somewhat of a rollercoaster ride regards debating at Abingdon. There have been magnificent highs, embarrassing lows and long periods where nobody was quite sure what was going on. However this ride ended on a glorious high with the much anticipated St Helen’s vs Abingdon debate. Advertised as the biggest thing to hit the Abingdon School Debating Society since the war it was well attended (despite clashing one of the Economics Society’s lectures) with upwards of 80 Abingdonians and St Helen’s girls filling the CMR eagerly awaiting this battle of debating titans. To end the half term the topic up for debate was a controversial one; This House Would Abolish the Military.
Hushed silence fell over the hall as Beatrice Allan took the floor. Miss Allan, a renowned feminist, is a figure to strike fear and alarm in the heart of even the most committed and confident misogynist. However, it was wondered whether she would be able to evoke the same level of terror in the average blood thirsty war-loving Abingdon CCF cadet. All doubts were however swept aside by, what was generally considered to be, a superb speech. Starting off by dismissing the negative stereotyping of women as lily livered pacifists Miss Allen, in an exciting twist, then proceeded to make the convincing moral argument against war; begging the floor to favour diplomacy over war. Miss Allen then moved on to tackling the more difficult strategic arguments against the military (which she defined as the conventional army, navy and air force). She made the case that the biggest threat to the UK was not the gun, missile or sharpened turnip but instead the computer virus, worm and email attack. Her finishing point about the need for MI5 and MI6 to take over our defence was pulled off with such a convincing flourish that nobody seemed to realise the “M” in MI5/6 stands for military.
Next to speak was Nick Earl who started off by defining the motion as referring to right here and now in the United Kingdom. Clearly not intimidated by the convincing performance of Miss Allen, Mr Earl set out to make several key points in rapid succession. First he highlighted the social work of the military in transforming the young and inept into well rounded individuals before going on to claim that to abolish the Military would be to castrate our once great nation. The military, he argued, was key in sustaining our independence from, not only the yanks, but also those EU “lesbians”. He then pointed out that the People’s Republic of China was rapidly becoming a world superpower that could easily provoke a large scale conventional conflict.
Georgina Stockley – or “Gorg” as she likes to be known, wrapped up the case for the proposition. Miss Stockley, in a convincing speech, slammed the Ministry of Defence as an utterly useless nightmarish bureaucratic money-pit. She then went on to elaborate on Miss Allen’s points. In a nifty bit of rebuttal she pointed out that China could be keen on using cyber attacks to knock out their enemies. Miss Stockley then proceeded to claim the empire was dead, this was not the 19th century and we should escape from this pathetic masculine obsession with Britain’s military might. Finishing off by claiming the military fuels terrorists Miss Stockley sat down to rounds of spontaneous applause and cheering from men and women alike.
The final speaker for the day was Joe Hogan, who showed us all that being good at rugby is not mutually exclusive with being a damn fine debater. He slammed the proposition as living in a fantasy world. The planet, he pointed out, could be a rough place and it would be madness to abandon the military and leave ourselves susceptible to defeat and possibly even invasion. Mr Hogan then, with increasing passion, claimed the military defended marmite against communist infiltration. Mr Hogan then moved onto more serious ground; reminding the floor the important role the military can play in times of crisis. He used the RAF’s work to help flood victims as an example.
The debate then moved onto the floor. Points were, as usual, varied. There was much discussion about the relative merits of the military in civilian life; with several members, including Miss Yarrow, demanding to know who was going to save cats from trees if the military was abolished. The point was raised that the term “Military Intelligence” was essentially an oxymoron while Edmund Cornforth reminded the floor about the danger of computerised warfare in “The Matrix”. Mr Haveron raised the issue of the popular holiday destination and growing military threat, North Korea while Chris Hyde asked who was going to pillage the middle east if the military was abolished. The floor also tried to think of examples of nations without a military, with varying degrees of accuracy and success. Apart from a rather violent confrontation about Winston Churchill’s military record the floor debate was strong.
After summing up speeches a final vote was taken with the results as follows: For - 31, Against - 31, Abstentions - 8. So, once again an increasingly indecisive Abingdon School Debating Society doesn’t really have an opinion one way or the other.
Alec Burt
Co-Chairman Abingdon School Debating Society, est. 1904