Kent Debating Society

Updates from November, 2009

• 

  2009 Elections

  Oliver Blackley 10:11 am on November 28, 2009 | 0 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment
  Tags: committee (2), debating (8), democracy (3), elections (8), governance, kent (6)

  Why Elections
  As some of you may know, the society was only established last Summer and the work of KDS so far has been achieved by a small group of committed individuals who have all worked hard to create a successful society. The elections will be the last step in the society’s establishment. Now we have a core group of members, we decided this should be the time to allow more members to have the opportunity to have an active role, to facilitate the society’s continual success/expansion and to create democratic legitimacy. We feel holding these elections at this time of year will also smoothen the transition between committees and academic years.

  The Roles and their responsibilities
  President (currently Tom Barker): the figurehead of the society. Ultimately responsible for all decisions made, leads the society, chairs meetings and delegates responsibilities.

  Secretary (currently Ben Bowles): responsible for the content of the website, mailing list and all other correspondence. Keeps minutes at the meeting, chases up committee members to make sure they are ticking off their ‘to-do lists’. Responsible for organising participation in inter-varsity debates.

  Treasurer (currently Matt Burgess): in charge of the society’s finances, must understand the complex bureaucratic proceedures involved with operating a Kent Union budget.

  Vice-President (currently Vish): assists the President with his workload. Inherits the President’s responsibilities when he is ill or absent. Acts as a port-of-call for anyone who has grievances with the President

  PR Officer: Responsible for promoting the society, expanding our memberbase and improving relations between those inside and outside KDS as well as between the committee and its members.

  Debate Convenor (currently Harriet): responsible for all internal debates. Books rooms, confirms speakers and roles for the evening as well as general hospitality.

  Social Secretary: responsible for diversifying the range of events the society have to offer, organises socials (negotiates drink deals etc.), hoodies etc.

  Who can run for these positions and vote in these elections?
  Anybody who is a paid-up member of Kent Debating Society
  
  Interested?
  Anybody interested in running for any of these positions needs to prepare a manifesto by 5pm on Friday the 4th of December and be ready to make a 2-minute speech at the elections. This gives time for members to scrutinise manifestos and enables them to come up with important questions to ask during the elections.

  If you have any further questions about this do not hesitate, as always, to get in touch.

   

  Reply Click here to cancel reply.

  You must be logged in to post a comment.

• 

  THW Legalise Prostitution

  Tom Barker 12:36 pm on November 27, 2009 | 0 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment
  Tags: beginners (2), debate (36), legalise (3), prostitution

  

  Wednesday 2/12/09 DLT2 6pm

  We picked a classic motion for this week’s beginners debate which also happens to be the first one we ever ran at UKC. It’s also one of my favourites because I’m not sure myself where I stand on the issue.

  The debate is winnable for the proposition provided the first speaker is careful with their defintion so make sure you have your KDS handbooks to hand to help you. Remember, look at your definition from your opponents’ perspective, what arguments could you eliminate by covering them in your defintion?  It will also be important for both sides to look at countries where there are more relaxed approaches to prostitution, don’t get too caught up in the Amsterdam model, there are plenty more.

  The proposition will need to demonstrate the inadequacies of criminalisation. They will need to demonstrate that this Draconian approach endangers the very people the law is designed to protect, think Peter Sutcliffe, think about the recent events in Ipswich. That by criminalising the ‘world’s oldest profession’ it forces the practice underground when it would be more sensible to regulate it. The proposition may also want to introduce the idea of freedom of choice and emphasise some of the more ‘glamourous’ forms of prostitution, quite topical given the recent unveiling of the author of the famous Belle du Jour blog.

  The opposition will want to make it very clear that these latter examples of prostitution are the exception rather than the rule. They may want to refer to the statistics which show the majority of prostitutes are also drug addicts and a disturbing number of those in this illicit trade have been trafficked. There is also the important morality arguments about how the purchasing of sex is amoral and that the legalisation of this trade would have dire implications for society.

  Here’s some links to get you started with any research you may want to conduct:

  http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=25 a summary of the issues

  http://www.prostitutionreform.co.uk/ a pro-legalisation lobby group

  http://www.fcap.btik.com/p_Home.ikml one for the opposition from a feminist organisation

   
• 

  THW withdraw from Afghanistan

  Tom Barker 2:49 am on November 6, 2009 | 0 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment
  Tags: afganistan, debate (36), terrorism (2), war, withdraw

  

  Darwin Lecture Theatre 2, 11/11/09, 6pm

  Closely related to last weeks debate and in recognition of Remberance Day we turn our attentions to the UK’s military involvement in Afghanistan. An involvement that has become increasingly controversial as more and more troops get injured or, most tragically, killed in the conflict.

  The proposition in this debate will want to persuade the audience that enough is enough. Too many young lives have been lost for an increasingly dubious cause. They may decide to justify the withdrawl as a consequence of the increasing casualties suffered or they may want to go right back to questioning the original reasons for the UK’s involvement. Most importantly they will want to prove that the British militarty’s conintual involvement in Afghanistan is detrimental rather than beneficial to the aims it sought to achieve.

  The opposition, on the other hand, will want to emphasise the importance of struggle. That to pull out before the job is finished is wrong, Afghanistan was occupied to introduce democracy and to allow the Afghan people access to the same rights we enjoy, just because the aims are tough is no reason for the troops to be withdraw. They may also want to deflect some of the proposition’s more emotive arguments by emphasising the fact that soldiers become soldiers out of choice, they know the risks when they join the armed forces.

  Links to help research:

  http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=145 a summary of some of the issues (BEWARE OF THE CONTEXT)

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/03/afghanistan-terror-taliban-al-qaida an argument for

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/04/kim-howells-afghanistan-withdrawal an argument against