Last week saw the final meeting of the Union Society of the year and also the last meeting of Miss Murphy. Miss Murphy is leaving Heaton Manor to enjoy a well-earned retirement. After founding the Union Society some four years ago along with Mrs Robinson, Miss Murphy has been steadfast in her support for the Society down the years - accompanying us to meetings, buying biscuits and making sure we have meetings each week.
Everyone at Heaton Manor Union Society wishes Miss Murphy well for the future and thanks her for everything she has done for us in the past - we hope she'll come back and visit us at some point. Goodbye Miss Murphy!
Tuesday 20 July 2010
Thursday 8 July 2010
Grand Final Debate 2010: thank you and goodbye
Yesterday’s Grand Final Debate was a low-key affair in comparison to those of previous years, but anything we lacked in frivolity was more than made up for in quality. The debate, This House believes that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 16., focused on a divisive and interesting issue. The four high-achieving debaters who tackled the motion had an excellent grasp of the subject, bringing moral, social and practical arguments to the table with intelligence and insight.
Sahan Bentotage and Ben Wallace, who proposed the motion, argued that a country’s liberal credentials can be measured by its treatment of children, and pointed out that the UK’s age of criminal responsibility is the lowest in Europe. Sahan and Ben argued for parental responsibility, and questioned whether children are capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong, or, moreover, the consequences of doing wrong. Pointing out the correlation between high ages of criminal responsibility and low young offence rates, the proposition debaters proved themselves certainly worthy of a place in the final.
It was the opposition, however, that ultimately convinced the floor, winning by a single vote. Willem Evans and David Larke spoke with authority on the case of James Bulger, highlighting the criminal intent of his 10 year-old killers. They pointed out that the numbers of under-16s committing crimes would merely be swept under the rug should the age of criminal responsibility be raised, and argued that punishment must be used to prove that crime is unacceptable irrespective of the perpetrator’s age.
The close result of the Grand Final is evidence enough of the high quality of the debate as a whole, and, since all four of this year’s finalists have at least one more year with the Heaton Manor Union Society, next year will surely see them improve further and challenge one another to the championship once more. They’ll have their work cut out, however, as there are many more members of the debating society who will give them a run for their money in 2011. Special congratulations must be given to David, who was ecstatic at having won a Grand Final after two unsuccessful challenges in previous years.
Yesterday was a celebration of all that has happened in the Union Society over the last year, with prizes awarded to all four finalists as well as the chair, Thomas Knight, who did a sterling job, plus a spread of delightful refreshments and a guest appearance from long-term supporter of the debating society, Ms Dixon. The society presented Miss Murphy and Mrs Robinson with cards and flowers by way of saying “thank you” for their hard work this year, and I’d like to extend my personal thanks to everyone – Miss Murphy and Mrs Robinson in particular – for their kind words and for the lovely gift I received at my last debate with the Heaton Manor Union Society.
Having been with the debating society since its foundation in 2006, first as a debater and since as a judge and mentor, it has been a wonderful opportunity to explore ideas and watch many fantastic debaters come out of their shells. I’ll miss it very much, and I know that our debaters will be successful in whatever they go on to do, including, I hope, continuing to debate in sixth form and beyond. James will, I’m sure, continue to run this blog and website, so that I can continue to follow the goings-on in the society and perhaps, if you’ll have me, return to observe the Grand Final Debate 2011.
Until then (or until next week’s party, which I wouldn’t miss for the world), thank you and goodbye.
Laurie Dudley
Sahan Bentotage and Ben Wallace, who proposed the motion, argued that a country’s liberal credentials can be measured by its treatment of children, and pointed out that the UK’s age of criminal responsibility is the lowest in Europe. Sahan and Ben argued for parental responsibility, and questioned whether children are capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong, or, moreover, the consequences of doing wrong. Pointing out the correlation between high ages of criminal responsibility and low young offence rates, the proposition debaters proved themselves certainly worthy of a place in the final.
It was the opposition, however, that ultimately convinced the floor, winning by a single vote. Willem Evans and David Larke spoke with authority on the case of James Bulger, highlighting the criminal intent of his 10 year-old killers. They pointed out that the numbers of under-16s committing crimes would merely be swept under the rug should the age of criminal responsibility be raised, and argued that punishment must be used to prove that crime is unacceptable irrespective of the perpetrator’s age.
The close result of the Grand Final is evidence enough of the high quality of the debate as a whole, and, since all four of this year’s finalists have at least one more year with the Heaton Manor Union Society, next year will surely see them improve further and challenge one another to the championship once more. They’ll have their work cut out, however, as there are many more members of the debating society who will give them a run for their money in 2011. Special congratulations must be given to David, who was ecstatic at having won a Grand Final after two unsuccessful challenges in previous years.
Yesterday was a celebration of all that has happened in the Union Society over the last year, with prizes awarded to all four finalists as well as the chair, Thomas Knight, who did a sterling job, plus a spread of delightful refreshments and a guest appearance from long-term supporter of the debating society, Ms Dixon. The society presented Miss Murphy and Mrs Robinson with cards and flowers by way of saying “thank you” for their hard work this year, and I’d like to extend my personal thanks to everyone – Miss Murphy and Mrs Robinson in particular – for their kind words and for the lovely gift I received at my last debate with the Heaton Manor Union Society.
Having been with the debating society since its foundation in 2006, first as a debater and since as a judge and mentor, it has been a wonderful opportunity to explore ideas and watch many fantastic debaters come out of their shells. I’ll miss it very much, and I know that our debaters will be successful in whatever they go on to do, including, I hope, continuing to debate in sixth form and beyond. James will, I’m sure, continue to run this blog and website, so that I can continue to follow the goings-on in the society and perhaps, if you’ll have me, return to observe the Grand Final Debate 2011.
Until then (or until next week’s party, which I wouldn’t miss for the world), thank you and goodbye.
Laurie Dudley
Thursday 27 May 2010
The league heats up
As the penultimate half term of the academic year draws to a close, all eyes turn to the so-called "Top Four"; the members who have the largest numbers of league points and are therefore are on course to take on one another in the annual Grand Final debate. As it stands, the Final will make for a very interesting clash as the Top Four currently consists of two of our Year 7 squad and two elder debating veterans. Ben Wallace, Year 8, and Willem Evans, Year 10, are neck-and-neck in the contest for first place, on 18 and 16 points respectively, significantly ahead of their nearest rival, Levi Croom. Levi's performance in the monarchy debate yesterday earned him a welcome four points, pushing his already impressive total to 12 and propelling him from fifth to third place. James Green and Milo Dibdin share fourth place, on nine points a piece. James has another debate lined up, however, so he is almost certain to pull ahead of Milo and, feasibly, even put himself onto an equal footing with Levi. It is possible that the entire dynamic of the Top Four may change before the Final, with other debaters making gains at the expense of the third and fourth placers. Debaters who will be speaking after the break must do their best to maintain hopes of a place in the Grand Final.
Here is a graph showing the progress of debaters over the year until this week. Note that the graph does not take into account the rules of the league, which state that when debaters are on the same number of points, the percentage of the debates they have won, rather than participated in or received the judges' bonus for, is taken into account. The full league data can be found at the Society website.
Wednesday 5 May 2010
Mini-election results in left-wing landslide...but parliament is still hung
Who should win tomorrow’s general election?
Well done to the four politicians-in-the-making who did each of their adopted parties credit in our perennial favourite, the party-political panel debate, which was held at the Union Society today in honour of tomorrow’s crucial general election.
An interesting result saw Labour and the Greens share the audience’s support, whereas the Lib Dem and Tory parties languished on one vote a piece. This didn’t reflect the high standard of articulation and argument demonstrated by all four participants today; it truly was a closely-contested battle.
Willem seemed to drift into, at best, misunderstanding and, at worse, deception, when outlining Labour policies. Fortunately, as chairs, James and I were able to challenge his supposed commitments to scrapping tuition fees and re-opening closed Post Offices. Sahan’s struggle was with public sector pay, Thomas’s with taxation and David’s with education.
Overall, though, these four gentlemen responded excellently to questions on health, education, taxes, the environment, and more; and in a few years time, I’ve no doubt they’ll each make excellent spokespersons for any party on the BBC’s Question Time.
Yesterday: Well done to Sahan, Sam and Willem, who saved the day by stepping in at the last possible minute to speak on behalf of the Labour Party at a sixth form debate on Tuesday. They lost out on a win by just two votes, but did the Union Society a fabulous service nonetheless.
Well done to the four politicians-in-the-making who did each of their adopted parties credit in our perennial favourite, the party-political panel debate, which was held at the Union Society today in honour of tomorrow’s crucial general election.
An interesting result saw Labour and the Greens share the audience’s support, whereas the Lib Dem and Tory parties languished on one vote a piece. This didn’t reflect the high standard of articulation and argument demonstrated by all four participants today; it truly was a closely-contested battle.
Willem seemed to drift into, at best, misunderstanding and, at worse, deception, when outlining Labour policies. Fortunately, as chairs, James and I were able to challenge his supposed commitments to scrapping tuition fees and re-opening closed Post Offices. Sahan’s struggle was with public sector pay, Thomas’s with taxation and David’s with education.
Overall, though, these four gentlemen responded excellently to questions on health, education, taxes, the environment, and more; and in a few years time, I’ve no doubt they’ll each make excellent spokespersons for any party on the BBC’s Question Time.
Yesterday: Well done to Sahan, Sam and Willem, who saved the day by stepping in at the last possible minute to speak on behalf of the Labour Party at a sixth form debate on Tuesday. They lost out on a win by just two votes, but did the Union Society a fabulous service nonetheless.
Wednesday 28 April 2010
Today: Artificial Intelligence and more
This House believes Artificial Intelligence research should be banned.
Congratumalations all round to the four debaters who managed to make what the judging panel worried would be a pretty turgid affair actually interesting. As we said in our closing comments today, the proposition were fairly clear-cut winners of this clash, due to their excellent command of the facts and an unfortunate loss of notes for their opponents.
Willem was warned to make his very intelligent insight more accessible to the lay person, but his definition of the motion, stuck to admirably by Ben and himself, was spot on. They could have brought the fundamental ethical dilemma of Artificial Intelligence more to the forefront of their arguments, rather than getting bogged down in the nitty-gritty, abstract and technical theories of the science of the topic, which, though important, saw them score an own goal by quoting I, Robot and The Incredibles as authoritative works of science.
Obviously, Hafsa’s lack of notes meant she was ill-equipped to make a four-minute speech, so the message for all debaters is just to have a hard copy, keep it safe, but also have it saved to your school user area. Rosa came out with some great points, but got lost at times in the proposition’s bombardment of points of information and rebuttal. Well done to the opposition, and it is quite clear there is a lot of potential among all four of today’s participants.
In other news... James passed his driving test today while we were considering the merits of Artificial Intelligence. So an additional “congratumalations” to him.
And don’t forget... it is election week next week, so please come to the sixth form vs. lower school debate in E6, at 2:45 on Tuesday and the political panel at the usual time and place on Wednesday. See you then.
Congratumalations all round to the four debaters who managed to make what the judging panel worried would be a pretty turgid affair actually interesting. As we said in our closing comments today, the proposition were fairly clear-cut winners of this clash, due to their excellent command of the facts and an unfortunate loss of notes for their opponents.
Willem was warned to make his very intelligent insight more accessible to the lay person, but his definition of the motion, stuck to admirably by Ben and himself, was spot on. They could have brought the fundamental ethical dilemma of Artificial Intelligence more to the forefront of their arguments, rather than getting bogged down in the nitty-gritty, abstract and technical theories of the science of the topic, which, though important, saw them score an own goal by quoting I, Robot and The Incredibles as authoritative works of science.
Obviously, Hafsa’s lack of notes meant she was ill-equipped to make a four-minute speech, so the message for all debaters is just to have a hard copy, keep it safe, but also have it saved to your school user area. Rosa came out with some great points, but got lost at times in the proposition’s bombardment of points of information and rebuttal. Well done to the opposition, and it is quite clear there is a lot of potential among all four of today’s participants.
In other news... James passed his driving test today while we were considering the merits of Artificial Intelligence. So an additional “congratumalations” to him.
And don’t forget... it is election week next week, so please come to the sixth form vs. lower school debate in E6, at 2:45 on Tuesday and the political panel at the usual time and place on Wednesday. See you then.
Wednesday 3 March 2010
The briefest of blogs...
...To say how wonderful it was to have a touch of class at this afternoon's proceedings in the form of the wonderful Saza Neibig. She won the debate in the judges' eyes and it's a shame we don't have that three-time finalist with us more often nowadays. Well done to Keir, Sahan and Mohammad - a good debate, I felt, and the military knowledge demonstrated by the opposition almost swung it for them. I'd remind everyone to address the audience with confidence and conviction when debating.
Oh, and, since I suspect very few people read this any more (comment if you do!) I'll reveal exclusively that there are plans for a few election surprises in the pipelines and we'll have more on those soon.
Well done again to today's debaters and the non-Year 7s will be flip-flopping next week, so don't miss that!
Oh, and, since I suspect very few people read this any more (comment if you do!) I'll reveal exclusively that there are plans for a few election surprises in the pipelines and we'll have more on those soon.
Well done again to today's debaters and the non-Year 7s will be flip-flopping next week, so don't miss that!
Wednesday 3 February 2010
A divisive debate, for all the right reasons
This House believes climate change is a conspiracy.
Today's debate went very well, and, as I said during the judges' comments today, it's not often that we disagree about the outcome. I won't be revealing which of us was instinctively drawn to the opposition, but suffice to say that we discussed it at length and reached a very amicable agreement.
Ben kicked off with all the right ingredients: a fabulously structured speech, with two clearly laid out main points, following an accurate and appropriate definition of the motion. His debate was weighed down in (questionable) scientific jargon, and it was felt that this contradicted his second point somewhat, that the science of climate change wasn't proven.
David shone in terms of structure, with three key arguments and good rebuttal. He delivered his speech well, but his points weren't the strongest, and he could have done with expanding on them. His claims about politicians and companies benefiting from climate change weren't backed up well enough for my liking, but we saw where he was going with them.
Thomas gave a great performance, once again proving his credentials as a skilled aurator. His points were good, and backed up with statistics: the scientific concensus on climate change, "climate denial" and the obviousness of the changes. He was emotive and faired well under questioning. His structure left the judges at a bit of a loss, and this is something he should work on in future.
Jonny took to the floor for his second denate, and did well. He did, however, start with a dictionary definition that would have been far more at home at the very beginning of Thomas's speech. His points were left undeveloped somewhat by a problem he had with Points of Information. This was something we were looking out for in particular after last week's workshop, and, overall, this was a contribution to our eventual decision to award the bonus to the proposition.
It was nice to see summaries improving still, with points of clash used well. Both Thomas and David latched onto the same arguments, showing that they were highlighting the correct aspects of the debate to focus on. Well done, all.
Today's debate went very well, and, as I said during the judges' comments today, it's not often that we disagree about the outcome. I won't be revealing which of us was instinctively drawn to the opposition, but suffice to say that we discussed it at length and reached a very amicable agreement.
Ben kicked off with all the right ingredients: a fabulously structured speech, with two clearly laid out main points, following an accurate and appropriate definition of the motion. His debate was weighed down in (questionable) scientific jargon, and it was felt that this contradicted his second point somewhat, that the science of climate change wasn't proven.
David shone in terms of structure, with three key arguments and good rebuttal. He delivered his speech well, but his points weren't the strongest, and he could have done with expanding on them. His claims about politicians and companies benefiting from climate change weren't backed up well enough for my liking, but we saw where he was going with them.
Thomas gave a great performance, once again proving his credentials as a skilled aurator. His points were good, and backed up with statistics: the scientific concensus on climate change, "climate denial" and the obviousness of the changes. He was emotive and faired well under questioning. His structure left the judges at a bit of a loss, and this is something he should work on in future.
Jonny took to the floor for his second denate, and did well. He did, however, start with a dictionary definition that would have been far more at home at the very beginning of Thomas's speech. His points were left undeveloped somewhat by a problem he had with Points of Information. This was something we were looking out for in particular after last week's workshop, and, overall, this was a contribution to our eventual decision to award the bonus to the proposition.
It was nice to see summaries improving still, with points of clash used well. Both Thomas and David latched onto the same arguments, showing that they were highlighting the correct aspects of the debate to focus on. Well done, all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)