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.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Society rejects veil ban
As James said in his closing comments today, this debate was not one of the best we've seen, but it was nonetheless an insightful and emotional clash about a very tricky subject. Although they were defeated by a landslide victory for the opposition, Keir and Thomas presented their arguments well, with Qur'an evidence and a clear definition. All speakers were fairly elliquent, but structure was lacking in most of the speeches.
Sam and Willem were criticised for having overlapping arguments, but - with some help from a fierce reaction to the motion from the floor - they managed to rebuke the proposition's arguments with zeal and accuracy.
Keir and Thomas found their arguments unwrap with a lengthy Point of Information, which will be worked on with the non-Year 7 debaters next week in the fortnightly workshop (I shall be hosting that in L8, as James gallivants to the capital), and their controversial comments about veil-wearers being bullied.
Well done to all of the debaters today, and I hope they'll join me next week, when we'll go over in more detail exactly what won the debate for the opposition, and what all members can work on for the next whole-Society debate, about climate change on 03 February.
League table: The league has shifted dramatically, with Ben Wallace losing the first-place position he has occupied since November. Willem Evans now dominates the competition on a mammoth 12 points. Today's chair Milo Dibdin remains with James Green at third place.
Previously: Miss Murphy presided over a Year 7 dinners debate, which saw a similar opposition landslide.
Sam and Willem were criticised for having overlapping arguments, but - with some help from a fierce reaction to the motion from the floor - they managed to rebuke the proposition's arguments with zeal and accuracy.
Keir and Thomas found their arguments unwrap with a lengthy Point of Information, which will be worked on with the non-Year 7 debaters next week in the fortnightly workshop (I shall be hosting that in L8, as James gallivants to the capital), and their controversial comments about veil-wearers being bullied.
Well done to all of the debaters today, and I hope they'll join me next week, when we'll go over in more detail exactly what won the debate for the opposition, and what all members can work on for the next whole-Society debate, about climate change on 03 February.
League table: The league has shifted dramatically, with Ben Wallace losing the first-place position he has occupied since November. Willem Evans now dominates the competition on a mammoth 12 points. Today's chair Milo Dibdin remains with James Green at third place.
Previously: Miss Murphy presided over a Year 7 dinners debate, which saw a similar opposition landslide.
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
No debating this week
Happy New Year! I hope everyone had a fun and enjoyable holiday, despite the bad weather.
There will be no debates this week at Heaton Manor Union Society in order to allow everyone to settle in to the new term. Debating will resume next week Wednesday 13th January 2009 with a debate on the motion 'This House believes students should be allowed unhealthy choices for school dinners'. This will be a Year 7 debate.
Year 8s and above will be taking part in a workshop ahead of the debate on the Burkha the following week.
We look forward to seeing everyone next Wednesday.
There will be no debates this week at Heaton Manor Union Society in order to allow everyone to settle in to the new term. Debating will resume next week Wednesday 13th January 2009 with a debate on the motion 'This House believes students should be allowed unhealthy choices for school dinners'. This will be a Year 7 debate.
Year 8s and above will be taking part in a workshop ahead of the debate on the Burkha the following week.
We look forward to seeing everyone next Wednesday.
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Wow. Just wow.
As James and I made clear in our closing comments today, the debate on bankers' bonuses was really brilliant. Of course, there is always room for improvement and we identified keeping everybody involved throughout the debate, and avoiding overlap as some of the things that Rosa, David, Ben and Willem can work on.
However, these problems are easily resolved, and what the debaters should be proud of is the clarity and considered approach with which they debated today. No one was left in a muddle at the end of the debate, and the arguments on either side were very persuasive.
In the end, we decided to give the bonus to Willem and Ben, and the floor agreed with us by a massive majority. This majority did not reflect just how close the debate was, and it was by a small margin that David and Rosa lost out today.
Last week, some brilliant performances were put in by the Year 7s, who for the last time for a while, debated in front of the whole team. Jordan and Ellie stole the audience vote by a sliver, and also bagged our bonus. On 18 November, I was not available, but have heard that there was a brilliant debate, the only one so far this year to split the judges and the popular vote.
What's new? As I have alluded to, the society has a new system. Year 7s and other members now debate on alternative weeks. During Year 7 debates, students from Years 8 – 11 work on their next showdown; James and I watching over proceedings and holding workshops.
However, these problems are easily resolved, and what the debaters should be proud of is the clarity and considered approach with which they debated today. No one was left in a muddle at the end of the debate, and the arguments on either side were very persuasive.
In the end, we decided to give the bonus to Willem and Ben, and the floor agreed with us by a massive majority. This majority did not reflect just how close the debate was, and it was by a small margin that David and Rosa lost out today.
Last week, some brilliant performances were put in by the Year 7s, who for the last time for a while, debated in front of the whole team. Jordan and Ellie stole the audience vote by a sliver, and also bagged our bonus. On 18 November, I was not available, but have heard that there was a brilliant debate, the only one so far this year to split the judges and the popular vote.
What's new? As I have alluded to, the society has a new system. Year 7s and other members now debate on alternative weeks. During Year 7 debates, students from Years 8 – 11 work on their next showdown; James and I watching over proceedings and holding workshops.
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
The month in debating
My on/off relationship with the Union Society over the last month has led to something of a hole in the updates on this site. Sincerest apologies and let's recall the debates of the year so far.
Wednesday, 07 October 2009
This House believes footballers get paid too much.
Proposition: Eleanor Bohill and Willem Evans
Opposition: Rosa Cole and Keir Mochrie
Speaker: Thomas Knight
Judges: James Bartle MYP and Miss M. Murphy
The winners of this debate were the proposition, with 23 votes to 13, and they also bagged the judges' bonus. They made the case that "playing a game" was not as valuable to society as the work of doctors, nurses and teachers. The opposition rebuked this claim with the arguments that footballers deserve the money they receive and that it comes from ticket revenue.
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
This House believes zoos are cruel.
Proposition: Ruben Cole and Louis Conroy
Opposition: Owen Ramsey and Robbie Tomson
Speaker: David Larke
Judges: Mrs M. Robinson and Laurie Dudley
The opposition won this with a 17-8 victory, plus the judges' bonuses. This was a great debate with an all-new line-up. The idea that zoos exploit animals as they are miserable and poorly cared for was well countered with arguments concerning the protection offered by zoos and the example of San Diego Zoo.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
This House believes all police should carry guns.
Proposition: Levi Croom and Harry Mackenzie
Opposition: Declan Farey and James Walton
Speaker: Jake Robinson
Judges: Miss M. Murphy and Mrs M. Robinson
The proposition bagged the judges' respect as well as the floor vote with a margin of 23 to 5, having massively convinced those present by talking about protecting the public. The opposition were worried about people's safety.
Wednesday, 04 November 2009
This House believes that smoking should be illegal in the UK.
Proposition: William Gammack and James Magambo
Opposition: Jonny Pease and Ben Wallace
Speaker: Willem Evans
Judges: James Bartle MYP and Miss M. Murphy
This fourth and final debate inspired a similarly solid response from both floor and judges: a 21-13 win for the opposition, and the judges' point. Ben Wallace was highly credited, especially for working with new debaters. The debate hinged on balancing health with freedom.
It should also be noted that the NJDC team unfortunately could not make the competition, as reported would happen in the last issue of the Conversation.
Wednesday, 07 October 2009
This House believes footballers get paid too much.
Proposition: Eleanor Bohill and Willem Evans
Opposition: Rosa Cole and Keir Mochrie
Speaker: Thomas Knight
Judges: James Bartle MYP and Miss M. Murphy
The winners of this debate were the proposition, with 23 votes to 13, and they also bagged the judges' bonus. They made the case that "playing a game" was not as valuable to society as the work of doctors, nurses and teachers. The opposition rebuked this claim with the arguments that footballers deserve the money they receive and that it comes from ticket revenue.
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
This House believes zoos are cruel.
Proposition: Ruben Cole and Louis Conroy
Opposition: Owen Ramsey and Robbie Tomson
Speaker: David Larke
Judges: Mrs M. Robinson and Laurie Dudley
The opposition won this with a 17-8 victory, plus the judges' bonuses. This was a great debate with an all-new line-up. The idea that zoos exploit animals as they are miserable and poorly cared for was well countered with arguments concerning the protection offered by zoos and the example of San Diego Zoo.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
This House believes all police should carry guns.
Proposition: Levi Croom and Harry Mackenzie
Opposition: Declan Farey and James Walton
Speaker: Jake Robinson
Judges: Miss M. Murphy and Mrs M. Robinson
The proposition bagged the judges' respect as well as the floor vote with a margin of 23 to 5, having massively convinced those present by talking about protecting the public. The opposition were worried about people's safety.
Wednesday, 04 November 2009
This House believes that smoking should be illegal in the UK.
Proposition: William Gammack and James Magambo
Opposition: Jonny Pease and Ben Wallace
Speaker: Willem Evans
Judges: James Bartle MYP and Miss M. Murphy
This fourth and final debate inspired a similarly solid response from both floor and judges: a 21-13 win for the opposition, and the judges' point. Ben Wallace was highly credited, especially for working with new debaters. The debate hinged on balancing health with freedom.
It should also be noted that the NJDC team unfortunately could not make the competition, as reported would happen in the last issue of the Conversation.
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
Good start to the new year
Wednesdays are indeed the new Tuesdays Laurie and it seems Debating Society is now the cool place to be for Year 7s. As we kicked off our first debate of the year, we were very pleased to be joined this week by our new cohort of Year 7s. Existing Society members were few in number today (half a dozen at most) but we still managed to see one of our best attended 'normal' debates in the history of the society. Today's debate was attended by 24 audience members, most of whom were all Year 7s. This is promising stuff and will hopefully yield good results in terms of our future prospects in competitions.
Our first debate tackled the contentious issue of the summer; the case of the Lockerbie bomber. Our young Year 8s, Ben Wallace and Thomas Knight argued it was right to show compassion to Abeldbaset Ali al Megrahi and release him from jail. Whilst newcomer Mohammad Azizyan (stepping in at the last moment) and Sahan Bentotage argued that Mr al Megrahi did not deserve compassion. A lively Q&A session followed that saw many of our Year 7s get involved.
In the end the judges and the audience came to a split decision; the Opposition picking up the floor vote, 15 votes to 9 and the judges bonus point going to the Proposition. All agreed it was a great way to start the year.
Next week will see a planning session with a difference as we prepare our new members for their first debates. Proceedings start at 2.40pm, in L7 on Tuesday 30th September. A full list of forthcoming debates will be published at that point.
Our first debate tackled the contentious issue of the summer; the case of the Lockerbie bomber. Our young Year 8s, Ben Wallace and Thomas Knight argued it was right to show compassion to Abeldbaset Ali al Megrahi and release him from jail. Whilst newcomer Mohammad Azizyan (stepping in at the last moment) and Sahan Bentotage argued that Mr al Megrahi did not deserve compassion. A lively Q&A session followed that saw many of our Year 7s get involved.
In the end the judges and the audience came to a split decision; the Opposition picking up the floor vote, 15 votes to 9 and the judges bonus point going to the Proposition. All agreed it was a great way to start the year.
Next week will see a planning session with a difference as we prepare our new members for their first debates. Proceedings start at 2.40pm, in L7 on Tuesday 30th September. A full list of forthcoming debates will be published at that point.
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
Wednesdays are the new Tuesdays...
The nights are drawing in and September marks the return of our debates. We kick off on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 with a brilliantly topical show-down on the subject of the Lockerbie bomber. Our newsletter will return then too.
And it's all change at the Union Society, as six of our most senior and experienced debaters have headed to the HeadStrong Club for another chapter in their debating careers. However, they've been duely succeeded by the wealth of debating talent already present among our Year 8 – 11 members, plus some promising newcomers from Year 7 and beyond.
Those debaters will now be taking each other on during Period Seven on Wednesdays, instead of last year's weekly Tuesday meetings.
What's more, former Society President, James Bartle MYP is joining the judging panel indefinitely, while Laurie Dudley will return to meetings in a month in some role or another.
If you'd like to find out more, browse our website or drop in on Wednesday from 14:40 to 15:30.
And it's all change at the Union Society, as six of our most senior and experienced debaters have headed to the HeadStrong Club for another chapter in their debating careers. However, they've been duely succeeded by the wealth of debating talent already present among our Year 8 – 11 members, plus some promising newcomers from Year 7 and beyond.
Those debaters will now be taking each other on during Period Seven on Wednesdays, instead of last year's weekly Tuesday meetings.
What's more, former Society President, James Bartle MYP is joining the judging panel indefinitely, while Laurie Dudley will return to meetings in a month in some role or another.
If you'd like to find out more, browse our website or drop in on Wednesday from 14:40 to 15:30.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
The coming weeks
Next week there will be a meeting of the Society, and all members are advised to attend as usual. Information will then be relayed about the following weeks. Thank you.
Monday, 18 May 2009
A United States of Europe?
It was Winston Churchill who first suggested the creation of a 'United States of Europe' back in 1946. Sixty-three years on it remains a matter of debate as to whether old Winston would have approved of the modern European Union. But tomorrow we will put the question of Europe to our own members to make up their minds as to what future they want for Europe.
Do they want a UKIP-supported withdrawal from the EU or a Liberal Democrat federal European superstate? Representatives of the five main European parties will pitch their visions for the future of Europe and answer questions on the economy, the Lisbon Treaty and much more in a Heaton Manor Union Society event tomorrow.
James Bartle MYP will represent the Conservatives, David Shepherd the Green Party, Saskia Neibig is representing UKIP, David Larke Labour and Thomas Knight will speak for the Liberal Democrats. All five will take questions from the floor in a Question Time style debate ahead of next months European Parliament elections on June 4th.
Adam Thompson will take the chair (no votes of confidence, we promise!) and everyone is welcome to attend and cast their vote in our mock European election.
Do they want a UKIP-supported withdrawal from the EU or a Liberal Democrat federal European superstate? Representatives of the five main European parties will pitch their visions for the future of Europe and answer questions on the economy, the Lisbon Treaty and much more in a Heaton Manor Union Society event tomorrow.
James Bartle MYP will represent the Conservatives, David Shepherd the Green Party, Saskia Neibig is representing UKIP, David Larke Labour and Thomas Knight will speak for the Liberal Democrats. All five will take questions from the floor in a Question Time style debate ahead of next months European Parliament elections on June 4th.
Adam Thompson will take the chair (no votes of confidence, we promise!) and everyone is welcome to attend and cast their vote in our mock European election.
Monday, 6 April 2009
Happy Easter!
Happy Easter from the Union Society. James hasn't been on here for a while, but we'll have a talk after Easter and hopefully this will be regular again. Understandably, James is very busy with GCSE revision at present so someone else may take over for a short period. In the meantime, have a fab holiday.
James' Easter message will become available on Good Friday, whilst the termly graph that shows debaters' progress is visible now. Click on it to see it in full...
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
A change to the previous billing
A fabulous debate today. This is just a quickie to inform blog readers that there has been a partial swap-round of the next few debates. Please visit the website, heatonmanorunion.org.uk, and click on Forthcoming debates to find out more.
Monday, 2 February 2009
Thawing the ice
Apologies for my recent absence and also for the delay in getting this week's blog post out.
If the cold doesn't scare members off, we'll hopefully be hoping to thaw the ice with a heated debate on the future of the Church of England tomorrow. The society will be considering the motion 'This House believes that the Church of England should be disestablished' at 2.45pm, H12, Heaton Manor School etc. etc.
Speaking for the proposition will be Sam Hunt, a former member of the society's competition squad who is an active campanologist at St George's CofE Church, Jesmond and will be hoping to gain extra debate experience in tomorrow's debate. Sam will be accompanied by David J Shepherd, another former competition squad member who hasn't debated for a while and will be hoping to get back in to the swing of things.
On the opposition bench is Chris Redfearn who was narrowly knocked down to fourth place following last week's debate. Chris is the leader of the school's Christian Union and who attends the evangelical Church of England establishment, Jesmond Parish Church. Accompanying Chris for their second consecutive appearance as a pair is James Bartle MYP who currently ranks at the top of the society's league and will be hoping to extend his seven point lead even further.
Tomorrow promises to be a highly intellectual and extremely interesting debate with strong teams on both sides.
If the cold doesn't scare members off, we'll hopefully be hoping to thaw the ice with a heated debate on the future of the Church of England tomorrow. The society will be considering the motion 'This House believes that the Church of England should be disestablished' at 2.45pm, H12, Heaton Manor School etc. etc.
Speaking for the proposition will be Sam Hunt, a former member of the society's competition squad who is an active campanologist at St George's CofE Church, Jesmond and will be hoping to gain extra debate experience in tomorrow's debate. Sam will be accompanied by David J Shepherd, another former competition squad member who hasn't debated for a while and will be hoping to get back in to the swing of things.
On the opposition bench is Chris Redfearn who was narrowly knocked down to fourth place following last week's debate. Chris is the leader of the school's Christian Union and who attends the evangelical Church of England establishment, Jesmond Parish Church. Accompanying Chris for their second consecutive appearance as a pair is James Bartle MYP who currently ranks at the top of the society's league and will be hoping to extend his seven point lead even further.
Tomorrow promises to be a highly intellectual and extremely interesting debate with strong teams on both sides.
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
A week of celebration
Two monumental moments in political history took place this week - last Tuesday, US President Barack Obama was inaugurated - the first African American in history to be bestowed with that honour - and on Friday, it was announced that On That Point...'s regular contributor James Bartle had been re-elected to the UK Youth Parliament. Everyone is thrilled at the Society, and his big work load has meant that was again unable to blog for us all this week. He even missed his first debate for months!
And, looking to this week's debate, which was on sex education, you can grab the full low-down in our newsletter The Weekly Conversation; but one piece of information you can't get from that particular publication is that whilst James maintains a healthy lead on the league table, our previous holder of second place, Chris Redfearn, has freefallen to fourth. Despite winning a relatively low proportion of his debates, David Larke now occupies the second place slot, whilst TJ is up to third. Chris will be hoping to restore himself in a debate on the Church of England next week. With a bit of luck, James'll bring you news of that in On That Point... next week.
I certainly won't be here so until the next time...bye!
And, looking to this week's debate, which was on sex education, you can grab the full low-down in our newsletter The Weekly Conversation; but one piece of information you can't get from that particular publication is that whilst James maintains a healthy lead on the league table, our previous holder of second place, Chris Redfearn, has freefallen to fourth. Despite winning a relatively low proportion of his debates, David Larke now occupies the second place slot, whilst TJ is up to third. Chris will be hoping to restore himself in a debate on the Church of England next week. With a bit of luck, James'll bring you news of that in On That Point... next week.
I certainly won't be here so until the next time...bye!
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
New Year, new look, news!
James is taking a well-earned break from the blog this week - in the midst of examinations and feeling the pressure of awaiting the result of his recent campaign to be re-elected to the UK Youth Parliament. So this week, it's me, Laurie, in the hot seat, with the latest live news from the Heaton Manor Union Society.
If you haven't yet visited our new-look site, please do so now. You can give your opinions on this by taking part in our online survey. For the low-down on this week's debate, please see our newsletter, The Weekly Conversation.
Well, that's about it for this week! Remember, James normally posts a blog here prior to each debate. Hopefully, his quick wit will return to On That Point... next week. If not, you'll be stuck with me again! Bye!
If you haven't yet visited our new-look site, please do so now. You can give your opinions on this by taking part in our online survey. For the low-down on this week's debate, please see our newsletter, The Weekly Conversation.
Well, that's about it for this week! Remember, James normally posts a blog here prior to each debate. Hopefully, his quick wit will return to On That Point... next week. If not, you'll be stuck with me again! Bye!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)