British Parliamentary debating
Last Friday I was drafted in for another debating competition at the last minute, in fact the one that we tried to get involved in back when the formal debating community was about six of us, a few years ago – the Oxford Union Schools Debating Competition, open to any age in schooling. This competition is an old, very formal style that involves two teams of two on the proposition and then another two on the opposition duking it out – this makes it noticeably different from what we are used to. The other big difference is that there is no fortnight of research and preparation – you get fifteen minutes to get your case together before the debate begins. Personally, I think this results in a lower-quality debate and is thus not as involving for the audience as other formats as it can be vague. On the other hand, it can produce some good material and avoids a focus on reeling off statistics – but only the poorer teams do this anyway. The more formal air was seen when we were criticised by a judge for not addressing the chair and instead talking more to the other side; this would not be a problem in other competitions.
I was in general dissapointed with my performance as it was below my usual standard, but as usual at the moment it was because I seem to have lost my ability to be awake and mentally able as solidly as I used to. Mr Moore-Bridger remarked that I was ‘not quite in touch’ owtte with what was going on, and that pretty much summer it up – I was not on the ball in the way I usually am. This led to me not getting as much out of the session as I had hoped, but as always it is always worth practicing one’s skills. I am far more looking forward to the next round of the English Speaking Union’s Mace competition, which does include points for style which to me is pretty important. One thing that was very positive about this heat was that we got some real enthusiasm out of our budding year ten team. Debating has really taken off now that we are involving lots of different people; I am proud and glad that I started it off. Mixed teams are a most successful idea – as it has been noted, by the time they get up to the sixth form competitions they will be incredible. In the second debate we participated in we were drawn directly opposed to the other Silverdale team and this showed their skill.
One thing that was highlighted in the feedback from the judges is that structure and in some cases actual argument content was something that we all generally struggle with. However much we tell each other to signpost, it is in fact really hard to actually remember to do it in the middle of a debate. It is all too easy to forget your careful self-training and end up rambling on about some train of thought, only to then lose your audience. Keeping yourself on track when you are also having points of information hurled at you is difficult: we need to get better at it. The basic principle is to carefully lead your audience through an argument, avoiding leaps that make it in any way hard to follow and ensuring that they do not have to think to hard. Judges, apparently, look for three clear points and clear introductions and endings to each one: it must be obvious. So that was the most important thing for me about this competition; a solid target to aim for in improving the squad’s skills.