Abingdonian 2018

25 www.abingdon.org.uk Lent Term Inter-House Debating Competition At the start of March, the Inter-House Debating Championship began as the housemasters sent out the motions to their potential representatives. For the students involved, this annual event is enjoyable, but more importantly, highly competitive; due to the niche nature of the competition, fierce rivalries endure through the years. Two students represented each year group in each house during the competition, and each debate was moderated and judged by teachers. Furthermore each side was awarded points based upon the overall quality of their debating, and the side with fewer points would be eliminated at the end. The winner would then move on to the next stage of the tournament. Due to the uneven number of houses, one house had to be removed from the contest based purely upon their points score in the opening heats, even if they won their debate - a system that can seem severe, especially if you get matched up with one of the better teams initially. The proposition’s first speaker had the arguable disadvantage of going first, giving their opponents an opportunity for rebuttal that they themselves lacked, and was then followed by the opposition’s first speaker. The same order was maintained for the following speakers. After these initial three minute speeches, the spectators - often friends cajoled into attending or enthusiastic, and just as competitive, tutors and housemasters - asked questions of either side. In order to maintain the fairness of the proceedings, the judge would ask questions if the spectators’ questions had been weighted towards either side. The debate was then finished by a single two minute speech from both sides that could be divided up between the two speakers from each side however they saw fit. Poor time management was heavily penalised (after three minutes), and it was generally preferable to improvise the last few seconds of a speech or to cut short the closing statement, at the risk of lowering its overall quality, rather than lose precious points that could determine the eventual victor. The motions were generally serious in nature, in stark contrast to the usual fare at the Debating Society itself; they ranged from topics such as policies on illegal drugs, to the one child policy, to artificial intelligence. This wide-ranging variety of subjects forced you to research outside of your usual purview, and was hence a valuable experience, both in research skills and in expanding knowledge of important questions; as a case in point, I knew little about a prospective abolition of the monarchy before debating a motion about it, but in having to explore the arguments of both sides, I discovered a complex issue that prompted further investigation. The debating itself was of a high standard, with evidence used to back up arguments throughout, and with a fine display of rhetoric from all sides; often only a few points difference between the teams in the heats. I suspect most, if not all, speakers would agree that the calibre of their oratory had improved after the competition; a good structure was key in making your argument clear, and if sources were not properly referenced it allowed your opponents to call into question the validity of any statistics used to support your points, something that O’Doherty’s keenly exploited against us in the fifth year final. Despite this, Lancelot and I took Franklin’s to victory. As always, the competition was a real test of skill and knowledge, and something that I, and all of the other debaters, will look forward to next year. George Carver, 5AJPE