After seeing the success of the Debating Matters Online debates run during the Lockdown, former Debating Matters Director Tony Gilland took the spirit of DM Online and decided to engage some old contacts from his time running Debating Matters India (2008-2014). Tony organised three debates between Queen Elizabeth Grammar School and teams in India.
In this article, Debating Matters competitor Emma Gilland reports on the success of the series of debates:
Through the early month of lockdown many of us felt that not only were we missing out on school but in fact we were missing out on more than that, as all our time, thoughts and conversation were consumed by the dramas and injustices of lockdown. Although it could be seen that this brought a certain level of abnormality and interest it also was the centre of repetitive and dull conversation, which is why the re-ignition of the Debating Matters India online was such a great experience.
“This international debating was an amazing experience which should be extended to allow the chance for others to try as it is especially broadening and exhilarating as the teams are adapting and reading the differences in debating style and viewpoints, much more than in a national competition as there is such a contrast in lifestyle and culture between the teams.”
Emma Gilland, Debating Matters Debater
Since the start of lockdown there had been various debates between schools and students, but this then changed into an international event between Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School (Faversham, Kent) and various schools in India as we extended ourselves to further distract from the lack of variation at home. There were three debates across the six week period which gained momentum as the debaters began to feel more comfortable with the format and overall feel of an international debate.
The first debate was a global issue, debating on whether populism is a threat to democracy; this was a heated and passionate debate full with real examples from many areas and time periods in contemporary society, especially relevant in the current political climate. This debate was a great start as there was so much compelling evidence laced through the debate combining awareness of current events with real clarity over the arguments which were well thought-through and very well presented. Through the debate there were historical, modern and theoretical examples deployed in response to the deep and technical questions by the judges. It was an exciting and passionate debate which was highly enjoyable for both the audience and the judges. The British team, from Queen Elizabeth’s, stole the debate due to the stronger structure of their arguments, the evidence used in their responses, and their ability to really target the questions with solid examples from a wide area of sources leaving little room for scepticism. However, in saying this it was seen as a very close debate with the only difference being the level and amount of examples through the debate. Overall the debaters felt that the strength and passion from the opposing side allowed them to really open their minds and look at the issues from different angles, making them not only better in the debate but leaving with a much more rounded and deeper understanding of the issue.
Following this we moved onto the complicated yet hugely influential birth strike movement debating on whether or not people should only have two children. This sparked a huge conversation and the opposing sides both were strong and clear on their arguments. The proposition focused on the huge impact needed to protect the environment and the moral arguments underpinning this perspective. The proposition argued the outcome could be achieved through incentives (rather than being forced), therefore still allowing for individual choice. However, through the debate the opposition questioned whether people would really have a choice? Do incentives in fact take that away and is it necessary to put that pressure on families? The opposition argued further that the consumer culture of the West is the real issue and the proposed restriction on the number of children is a distraction. Both sides held well throughout the debate but in the end it was the opposition, from the Indian school DPS Megacity, Kolkata, which won the debate. Their passion and clarity on the importance of choice won them the day, with their emphasis on the morality of choice (instead of any possible practical benefits) convincing the judges.
The final debate was another big contemporary conversation about whether childhood vaccinations should be compulsory. This was a stretching topic for both teams as they were dealing with complex issues such compulsion, liberty and the role of the state. Both sides made powerful arguments and demonstrated strongly held, well thought-through positions. The debate centred around the issue of what liberalism means, bringing in plenty of examples from contemporary events and culture. This made the debate especially enjoyable to watch as they brought in issues from today’s politics. The debate was lively and laced with both issues and principles. In the end, the British team won due to their ability to really undermine the opposition’s arguments and underpin their own, but overall it was a hugely enjoyable, well matched and very close debate to conclude the series.
One special feature of Debating Matters is that it was clear how helpful and enjoyable the experience was for not only those debating but many of the judges and audience members. The difference in debate styles and culture kept everyone on their toes and opened our eyes to how much we can get out of talking and discussing some of these contemporary issues with people beyond our circle. The debates were a massive success as they opened our eyes through both our experience of debating and having our arguments challenged by the judges, but also through the opportunity they gave us to research into these topics and understand how many other issues there are to be solved. This was especially needed in the current times as we have been so caught up in the personal restrictions of the lockdown.
DETAILS OF THE THREE DEBATES
DEBATE ONE: “Populism is a threat to democracy”
FOR
Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School, Kent
Teacher: Tom Finn-Kelcey
Debaters: Ellie Waller & Rishi Milward-Bose
AGAINST
Team Chennai
Teacher: Ragini Srinivasan, Indian Schools Debating Society
Debaters: Nitin Kishor & Rakshitha Hebbar
JUDGES
Nikunj Agarwal, strategic consultant, WP; alumnus, DM India
Dolan Cummings, associate fellow, Academy of Ideas; author, That Existential Leap: a crime story
Janaka Pushpanathan, Director, British Council South India
WINNER: Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School Kent
DEBATE TWO: “Climate Emergency: People should not have more than two children”
FOR
Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School, Kent
Teacher: Tom Finn-Kelcey
Debaters: Freya Moorhouse & Emma Gilland
AGAINST
DPS Megacity, Kolkata
Teacher: Anirban Roy
Debaters: Arth Agarwal &Vidyut Chattopadhyay
JUDGES
Debanjan Chakrabarti, director, East and Northeast India, British Council
Timandra Harkness, writer, comedian and broadcaster; author, Big Data: Does Size Matter?
Shreya Radhakrishnan, vice president, Goldman Sachs; alumnus, DM India
WINNER: DPS Megacity, Kolkata
DEBATE THREE: “Childhood vaccinations should be compulsory”
FOR
Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School, Kent
Teacher: Tom Finn-Kelcey
Debaters: Ben Ansley & Beth Poulteney
AGAINST
Christ Junior College IBDP, Bangalore
Teacher: Manoj Varghese
Debaters: Siddharth Tugnait & Arjun Mahesh Guru
JUDGES
Professor George Thomas, chief orthopaedic surgeon, St. Isabel’s Hospital, Chennai
Shreya Radhakrishnan, vice president, Goldman Sachs; alumnus, DM India
Jacob Reynolds, partnerships manager, Academy of Ideas; co-convenor, Living Freedom and The Academy, boi charity
WINNER: Queen Elisabeth’s Grammar School