Nottingham Success at Worlds

Congratulations to Tom Jackson and Tim Lees who recently made it to the Quarter Finals of the Worlds Debating Competition in Manilla!!

Nottingham were one of the most successful British universities at the championships, with Oxford being the only English university who had teams that progressed further.

 

We will have a full rundown of life at a worlds competition by either Tim or Tom in the near future.

Newcastle/Durham Event – A Review by Ben Hopkinson

Mr/Mme Speaker

“This house believes that the Newcastle-Durham weekend was be an amazing experience.”

I have been asked to review the Newcastle and Durham IV weekend. In order to do this, I am going to discuss the three main points of Clash in any discussion of the relative merits of debating competitions.

Firstly, I am going to discuss the virtues of speaking in these particular competitions. Secondly, I am going to summarise the experience of visiting these two amazing cities. Then finally, ladies and gentlemen, I am going to talk about the ‘Social Contract’ with a heavy emphasis on the first part of that phrase.

So firstly the Competitions themselves, all of the motions put forward across the two days were at accessible at all levels. While I can’t pretend to have understood every nuance of every motion put forward there was clearly good debatable matter in every round and a lot of the subjects were novel or at least put a new spin on classic notions like security verses privacy. I enjoyed having the chance to debate with students from up and down the country, in particular encountering the other freshers from a variety of institutions provided an interesting gauge of the standard of debating in other universities. Both competitions had strong judging panels with experienced chairs in every room and constructive, specific feedback on how the debates progressed and how speeches could have been improved. All of these factors meant the competitions were hugely enjoyable to take part in and informative for improving my standard of debating.

Now moving onto the experience and atmosphere of the cities we visited. Societies and university in general are intended to allow you to become a more rounded individual and what better way to do so than visit and experience the cities of England. While we were a little short on time in Newcastle we had half a day to explore Durham not to mention the evenings that will form the focus of my final point.

Which brings me onto my final point, the social aspects of the weekend. I think we can all agree ladies and gentlemen, that nothing rounds off an intense day better than a drink in your hand and good company. I’ll take a point of information on that if anyone disagrees! In this aspect both competitions had their fair share to offer. At Newcastle we were provided with glasses of Yaka (a vodka and lemon concoction which is dangerously delicious) before being lead to our own private area of the Tiger Tiger nightclub in the city centre. Conversely after the second competition we went to the Durham union’s social hub, 24, akin to an expanded JCR here we enjoyed another round of liquid refreshment in a more relaxed environment. This gave us a better chance to get to know the other teams and I’ve certainly made friends with some, memorable, folks from up north.

Therefore ladies and gentlemen, because I believe in good, honest debating; because I understand the importance of culture; and because I love Yaka, I am proud to propose.

Ben Hopkinson

Regarding Recent Events

Dear all,

Nottingham Debating Union has free speech and engagement through open debate enshrined as core tenets of our constitution. We have recently been exploring the possibility of holding a public debate which would have been considered contentious owing to the identity of one of the speakers involved.

We believe that controversial opinions should be given the chance to be presented, analysed and discussed in public fora. However, after consultation with the University of Nottingham and the Students’ Union, we have unfortunately concluded that we lack adequate resources to hold such an event at this time, or in the near future. This may be open for reconsideration in the long-term, but for so long as a debate cannot be safely organised we are unable to pursue this idea further.

We would like to thank our members, the Students’ Union, and the University for their continued support, and would like to invite all members of Nottingham University to attend our ongoing series of public debates throughout the academic year.

Suresh Natajaran,

President of the Nottingham Debating Union

Upcoming Public Debate-This House Supports the Removal of the Israeli Blockade on Gaza

On Tuesday 18th October, Nottingham Debating Union is giving you all the chance to watch and take part in a highly interesting, topical and exciting debate. The debate itself is taking place at 7pm sharp in the Coates Auditorium. If you do not know where that is, check the Facebook event page  for a map.

We have two very esteemed guest speakers participating-Mr Ben White who is the Middle East Journalist for the Guardian as well as Mr Ran Gidor, the political attaché for the Israeli Embassy. We will also have two highly experience university speakers debating alongside them.

But most of all you guys will get the chance to make your voices heard by either putting questions to the speakers or even making your own mini speeches on the topic. And most importantly of all it is completely free!

This is an event that you do not want to miss!

P.S Check the Facebook group for constant updates.

1st Public Debate-”This House would force fat kids to go to fat camps”

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen and welcome to the summary of our first public debate of the year. We got off to a start that was bigger than ever with a large turnout of outspoken, opinionated audience members. The motion before the house was “The House Would force fat kids to go to fat camps”, controversial to say the least!

Before the debate the house was divided as follows:

Proposition: 13

Opposition: 44

Abstain: 8

Speaking in Proposition, Alex Kay and Yina Koh proposed sending all secondary school students who are medically obese to fat camps during summer holidays to help them kick their habits.

Alex kicked things off using himself as an example, stating that he had once been obese once and knew himself the trials and tribulations that overweight children go through and therefore the proposition were doing this for the children themselves. He explained that a large chunk (excuse the pun) of overweight children are the way they are because nobody tells them just how bad their weight really is and so they simply live in naivety. Therefore, by sending them to these camps it will be the wake-up call that they need. There will be counselors on hand to give the children support each and every step of the way. Alex then went so far as to say that what needed to happen was the initiation of “psychological warfare” on the children. These camps needed to shock them into losing the weight, making them realise that they will die if they don’t change their habits. However, Alex made sure to point out that the camp will have an enjoyable environment with strong comradery between the children, ensuring that they work together as a group to lose the weight.

In Opposition, Nathan Chalk and Jennie Hope were vehemently against the proposals put forward by the proposition. As the first speaker, Nathan began by refuting Alex’s points by stating that the psychological effect that this plan would have on some children would be unbearable. It would cause large damage to their already low self-esteem, which would work against them in the fight against obesity. Nathan also argued that under Alex’s assessment, surely all of this can simply done in school replacing counselors with teachers and therefore we can avoid taking these children away from their parents and stigmatizing them more than they already are. He also picked holes in the model of fat camps as the children will simply return home after the camps and gain weight again due to their familial surrounding. Therefore, according to Nathan, we should work to change these children’s daily lives through education and the family environment rather than just for a few months a year.

Yina from the proposition then came steaming back with the hard line by saying that they didn’t care if the children were miserable during the camps, that it was the government’s duty to do this. She refuted Nathan’s point about psychological damage by saying that the government forces children to do things against their wishes all the time like going to school and algebra. I personally loved algebra but anyway…….. Yina then said that the government have this duty to look after the children’s welfare as their parents are being negligent by letting them get this fat in the first place. She added that one of the government’s main aims is to protect the weak and vulnerable of society and that this scenario is no different. Some of the examples she used to back this up were children who are starving or being abused in their homes.

Finally, Jennie came back to clarify the opposition’s case. She began by rebutting Yina’a argument about negligent parents by saying that the government only intervenes when the child is about to die and that childhood obesity would not fall under this category. She then made it very clear that the opposition did not considering children being forced to do algebra anywhere near forcing them to go to fat camps. She argued against these fat camps saying that they may become more desirable than their home environment which is not good and may cause the children to over-eat once they are back at home and that these “yo-yo” diets are extremely dangerous. She also continued in the tone from Nathan’s speech by saying that children should not be made miserable through forced admission to fat camps and that it is simply counter-productive. Finally, she pointed out the fact that if the kids don’t want to be there they will simply distract the others and prevent them from making any progress (just like in school).

We then turned to the floor where we received a number of very interesting questions/comments. These included:

1. The fact that obesity contributes a lot to society such through entertainment and Santa-Claus and therefore we shouldn’t be stigmatizing fat people!
2. If the RSPCA take animals away from their owners are incapable of caring for them, that therefore we should be taking children away from their parents and putting them in these camps if the parents are not capable of preventing them from beaming obese.
3. Alex from the proposition then claimed that the opposition were endorsing sex-offenders. I swiftly moved off the topic of rape…
4. When did it become wrong to stigmatize people for doing bad things? Letting yourself become obese is a bad thing and therefore we should let these people know it.
5. Why wait until these children are in secondary school and in the “whirlpool of puberty”? Surely we should take action from a much younger age.

Both sides then made their short summary speeches by looking at the debate as a whole and coming to their concluding points.

Finally we had our final vote to see if the audience had been swayed by the debate itself. The final vote was:

Proposition: 19

Opposition: 39

Abstain: 7

We hope those of you who attended this debate enjoyed it and we hope to see all of you again at our next public debate which will be publicised in the coming weeks.

Welcome to the 2011/12 year!

Welcome (or welcome back) to the new year!

For those new to the University or to debating, I would encourage you to join the most successful, engaging, fun and friendly society at Nottingham (debatably).

You can become a member by either paying us a visit at Fresher Fayre, or by signing up online. If you’re unsure why not pop along to the Week One Debate on “This House Would Send Fat Kids to Fat Camp” in C11 on Thursday 29th at 3pm.

For a bargain of £5 for membership, we offer you world class training, intellectual yet relaxed discussion, a really great way of padding your CV and improving your grades (seriously!), and best of all endless opportunities to travel the world as part of the society – just ask the guys going to Phillipines this new year at freshers fayre.

Look out for more information regarding public debates, training sessions and socials!

This year we’re kindly sponsored by both Deutsche Bank and Clifford Chance.

  

 

Looking forward to another incredible year

Suresh Natarajan

President 2011/12

Euros Update

A quick update on Nottingham Debate’s Union’s successes in the European Championships, which were held in Galway (Ireland) this summer.

Having arrived early on Sunday in Galway, and having been treated to three types of potato for dinner, all three Nottingham teams were fired up and ready on Monday morning for the first day of debating. Overall, the first day was positive: Nottingham A had a particularly promising start, winning two of their three debates on the first day, and by the close of day all three teams had at least one win under their belt ((Nottingham B’s victory in Rounds 2 and 3 seemed particularly impressive given that Suresh believed that he was fighting off malaria. It turned out to be a common cold). After another potato-dominated dinner, the teams felt ready both for the second day of debating, and, more imminently, the evening’s social. The social ensured important scores were settled, most significantly Alex (representing Nottingham B) beating Nathan (representing Nottingham C, who had already beaten a big Irish man costing him two buttons and a ripped pair of jeans…) in the Gladiator ring. It was also the scene of one of Suresh’s proudest moments when he set the tournament record for the Bucking Bronco – he literally would not shut up about it. To many, the debating almost seemed irrelevant in contrast to this life-changing occasion, and certainly, Alex’s delirium was shown when he lost at Laser Quest as a result of rolling around on the floor and pretending to be a ninja.

Having licked the wounds of defeat in the Gladiator ring, Nottingham C had an impressive second day, holding firm by coming second (a few times rather unluckily) in every round, putting them onto a score of -2, and a strong position going into the final day. Day two was more of a mixed bag for Nottingham B, taking only 4 points, but they joined Nottingham C on -2 as well. Unfortunately, it was a difficult day for Tom and Yina of Nottingham A, who were the victim of a couple of questionable judging decisions (with Doug Cochran being rolled by his panel), ended the day on an undeserved -4.

The final day of in-rounds featured some fantastic displays by all three teams. Buoyed by a win, and a particularly impressive display in Round 7, Nottingham A finished the tournament on -4. Gaining victory in Round 8, Suresh and Alex of Nottingham B became the only team to win a round on all three days, and as a result finished the tournament on -4. Although Nathan and Jennie of Nottingham C had a disappointing final two rounds, resulting in finishing the tournament on -6, they were still strongest going into round 8, but came unstuck when propping a complex International Relations motion against a room of very experienced debaters.

Given that this competition was the first international tournament for 4 out of the 6 squad members, the squad was left excited looking forward to another year of debating, blissfully full of potatoes, and relieved not to be fighting off any life-threatening conditions.

From Left: Nathan, Alex, Suresh, Yina and Jennie

More Success

Ditching the deadweight of training coordinator Tom Jackson, Yina Koh and Alex Kay broke at the Manchester IV!

The next weekend saw the Union host the largest and most hotly contested Nottingham Open ever – many thanks for Seun for convening and all the members who made the even run so smoothly!

Finally, former President, Tim Lees finally won the Leeds IV having lost in the final in the previous two years! He and Tom broke 3rd, navigated their semi successfully and claimed the title ahead of teams from Cambridge and Manchester!

Fantastic Fortnight for Nottingham

The Nottingham juggernaut is beginning to spark into action!

Having reached the semi-finals at Warwick (the 4th successive break at that competition) only a week earlier, Yina Koh teamed up with our President, Seun Iyaniwura, to reach the finals of the Oxford Women’s Open only to be pipped in the final!

Meanwhile at York, Alex Kay and Tom Jackson (who had partnered Yina at Warwick) were claiming all the prizes – topping the team and speaker tabs before going on to win the grand final! Alex was awarded best speaker in the final – not bad for his first ever IV break!!!

To top things off – both Kirstie Court and Caroline Sculley broke as judges at York (we assume they were impartial in giving Tom and Alex the win on a 6-1 split!)

May the successful run continue!

Welcome to 2011!

Look out for us at refreshers fair!