Updates
Membership for 09/10: Sign up on the SU website or at refreshers fayre (26th Jan).Upcoming Events:
27th January - First Training session of 201030th January - We host our inaugural schools competition
1st February - Public Debate: This House is disappointed with Obama's first year
6th February - Warwick IV
February 22nd - Inaugural Varsity Debate (at Trent SU)
Welcome to a new decade! (I personally am very excited about living in three different decades, two millenia and still being 21!)
Coming up this weekend is the inaugural Nottingham Schools competition – if you want to help out please contact Seun, or better still come to the meeting 3-4pm, C41 Portland Building, Wednesday 27th January
The competitive debating training sessions restart on the 27th Jan too: the first one will be an introductory session so don’t worry if you’ve never debated before – we won’t bite!
If you are interested in attending any competitions this term (a full list can be found at www.britishdebate.com/calendar) please get in touch with James, our training co-ordinator.
The first public debate of 2010 will be at 730pm Monday 1st Feb on the motion: “This House is disappointed with Obama’s first year” – check your inboxes/facebook for more details. In the coming weeks there will be a debate at Sutton Bonnington Campus and a varsity debate at Trent Student’s Union (the more banter we get the better!) but if there is a burning issue you want to speak on or see debated please do get in touch.
Hope to see you at a Debating Union event sometime soon
Tom
Dear All,
A hectic 1st term is now at an end – I hope you’ve enjoyed any Debating Union events you’ve attended (if not please let me or any other committee member know so we can improve things in 2010).
In 9 days the World Universities Debating Championships will begin. I will try to post regular updates for those who are interested; personally I’m hoping for a successes on a par with last year.
Planning for next term is well underway – Seun is working hard to co-ordinate our first ever schools competition, James working on training and the Nottingham Open, David and Jess are lining up some engaging external speakers for public debates, Emma has promised a comedy night social, Vikki is ready to get the word out about our events and Hannah is making sure we stay afloat!
If you missed us this term, or perhaps didn’t get as involved as you would have liked don’t worry – refreshers fayre is on the 25th January and there will be plenty of debates, competitions and socials to get involved with.
I hope you all have a great winter break and look forward to seeing you all in 2010!
Tom Jackson
President 09/10
Before the debate the house was divided as follows:
Proposition: 0
Opposition: 8
Abstain: 5
Speaking in proposition, Kate Kelliher and Kirstie Court suggested that companies should have to get a certificate in order to prove they are ethical. Universities are institutions of education and should promote corporate global responsibility. This would also force university students to try ethically produced products, instead of opting for the familiar unethical brands (eg. nestle and coca cola). It was argued that this would put pressure on companies to become ethical.
In opposition, Matt Fasanya and Alex Ward (Guest speaker: DCA at Euros in Newcastle; Best Speaker at the Nottingham Open 2007) argued that unless the company is illegal, universities should always be allowed to support them. It was also suggested that the model would make companies less accountable, and that many companies have become ethical in recent years anyway. Without these companies coming to campus, there is far less opportunity for debate and discussion, meaning that students aren’t aware of ethical issues.
Some floor speeches and questions raised issues such as:
-Can people really change things from within a big company?
-If unethical companies offer money to universities first, ethical companies don’t bother/can’t compete. e.g. British American Tobacco made Cancer Research leave Nottingham.
-Do we need these companies on campus to have debate? We still are exposed to them in the wider community.
-If we allow people the choice between ethical products and non-ethical products then they understand that there is an issue.
-The issue isn’t what companies are doing, it’s what the government isn’t doing (change should be coming from the government not universities).
Following this, the house was divided as follows:
Proposition: 2
Opposition: 9
Abstain: 3
Before the debate the house was divided as follows:
Proposition: 8
Opposition: 6
Abstain: 10
Speaking in proposition Simon Alvey and Matt Fasanya argued that the arts and social sciences provide an understanding of what it is to be human on a deeper level than science can; the arts can teach you about yourself, other people, societies and culture. The arts are also a useful toolbox for democracy because they allow much more freedom for debate. Therefore the arts can provide a greater quality of life, which gives them greater value.
In opposition, Tom Jackson and Jono Hasson argued that science increases our choices and decisions; it gives us the opportunity to experience more because of technology and because the sciences increase the length of our lives. The sciences facilitate and support the arts and without science they would have little value. Also, the sciences can accept their limitations because of the scientific method, whereas arguably the arts cannot.
Some floor speeches and questions raised issues such as:
-If the arts are more powerful in the way they unite people, and the destruction of the arts is damaging, then the arts are more valuable.
-Science doesn’t need the arts to exist and therefore is more valuable.
-What adds value to an individuals life?
-Although arts are tested in a different way, through archives etc, is this this any less valid than the scientific method?
Following this, the house was divided as follows:
Proposition: 10
Opposition: 8
Abstain: 9
As the abstensions were greater than the gap between the two sides they were asked to commit, giving a final result of:
Proposition: 16
Opposition: 11
Before the debate the house was divided as follows:
Proposition: 1
Opposition: 4
Abstain: 9
Speaking in proposition, Hannah Jones and David Horsman identified that there was a problem with the status quo- there are some men who have to pay a lot of money for a child they did not want, when they weren’t involved in the decision making process. Therefore, they suggested a contract that a man could sign before the baby was born, which would make him responsible for that child. Equally, women would know whether or not the father was going to provide for the child from the offset.
In opposition, Kirstie Court and Joe Hatherall proposed an alternative model where the mother is legally obliged to declare who the father of the child is, and compulsory paternity tests would be enforced if there was any uncertainty. The biological father of the child would then be obliged to pay 15% of his income to that child, because he had consented to the possibility of fatherhood when he consented to sex.
After some questions from the floor, the house was divided as follows:
Proposition: 1
Opposition: 5
Abstain: 14
Before the debate the house was divided as follows:
Proposition: 5
Opposition: 2
Abstain: 13
Speaking in Proposition, Kim Dunk and Emma Jones spoke of how they would introduce yearly weight checks at schools by a school nurse, and the childs BMI would be calculated. Those that are clinically obese would be sent to a boarding school style ‘fat camp’ to make sure that they are getting the necessary exercise and to re-educate them about healthy eating. They argued that if parents were not fulfilling their duties of maintaing the health of their child, then the government have the right to intervene, as they already do in other cases such as eating disorders.
Speaking in Opposition, Sam Sarpong and Kirstie Court criticised the model put forward by the Proposition by arguing that their plans were not sustainable and would only help in the short term, as ultimately the children would return home to the same temptations. They also discussed how the idea of a ‘fat camp’ could be damaging to children psychologically and pointed out alternatives to such a controversial policy. Furthermore, as the blame should fall on the parents, it is the parents that should be punished, not the child (in a similar way to how parents are held responsible for their child going to school).
There were some very interesting questions from the floor and 3 minute floor speeches. Issues raised were things such as the harms of segregation, and the idea that parents who are unable to sustain their childs health are ultimately committing child abuse and so would the child have to be returned to them? Following the summary speeches, the house was divided as follows:
Proposition: 5
Opposition: 12
Abstain: 5
36 teams from 12 institutions competed at the Nottingham Novice Cup last weekend. Over the course of 4 prelim rounds there were some excellent speeches and the final was of roughly equal standard to finals at similarly sized full inter-varsity competitions.
Congratulations to all the Nottingham teams that took part, in particular Kate Kelliher and Matt Fasanya for making the final.
If you missed out on the competition but are interesting in giving competitive debating a try please come along to our weekly training sessions.
Before the debate the house was divided as follows:
Proposition: 5
Opposition: 8
Abstain: 7
Speaking in Proposition, James Torrance and Matt Fasanya discussed how faith almost always leads to the formation of a religion. They then analysed how faith is only useful for evil, as people who use faith to justify doing good things, could justify them without religion, whereas people who use faith to justify doing bad things have no other way of justifying them. They also argued that religion creates divisions between people and that religion stunts social progress.
Speaking in Opposition, David Horsman and Niall Hatfield argued that God is not the same as institutionalized religion, and that faith is a personal choice. Furthermore they suggested that it is the leaders within religious institutions who have secular motives, that are dangerous. They also suggested that it is the institutionalization of any belief which is harmful, and that without religion, something else would be used to fill the void.
Following some questions from the floor and some excellent 3 minute protected floor speeches from members of the audience, the house was divided as follows:
Proposition: 13
Opposition: 15
Abstain: 9
As the abstensions were greater than the gap between the two sides, they were asked to commit to a side, giving the final result of:
Proposition: 17
Opposition: 21
In a keenly contested debate, the brain-child of Beveridge retained support – just!
Before the debate the house was divided as follows:
Proposition:0
Opposition:15
Abstain:9
Speaking in Proposition, Tom Jackson and Matt Fasanya, proposed the gradual replacement of the NHS with a mandatory private insurance scheme including government-funded subsidies for those that couldn’t afford a basic policy. Similar to the Dutch Model, insurers would have to offer the same policy respective of the risk profile of the individual, with a risk equalisation pool to incentivise companies to take on high risk patients.
In Opposition, Seun Iyaniwura and Emma Jones, attacked the specific details of the policy claiming that the quality of care would fall and stressed the importance of equality of care under government mandated targetting.
Following some excellent questions from the floor the house was divided:
Proposition:9
Opposition:11
Abstain:4
As the abstensions were greater than the gap between the two sides they were asked to commit, giving a final result of
Proposition:11
Opposition:13
Good luck to everyone going to President’s Cup this weekend!!
.
.