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.