Last night’s debate on pornography was further testament to the enthusiasm of many of our new members and first time debaters, as the quality of our debates grows in leaps and bounds every week. The proposition managed to persuade the house with a narrow, but well defined, motion. This is reflected in the choice of best speaker of the night, which went to Monifa (1st Prop).
Next week we’ll be debating the motion This House Would Not Support Israel, a great opportunity for those of you doing International Law or International Relations as part of your degree. If you’re interested in speaking, drop us an email!
We’ll also be hosting our elections next week, with many positions available. To recap and clarify, here’s a quick guide to the positions up for grabs:
President: figurehead of the society, ultimately responsible for everything the society does. Vice-President: assists the president and holds him/her accountable for their actions. Secretary: organises the day to day business of the society, responsible for correspondence and the smooth running of the society. Treasurer: responsible for all financial aspects of the society, such as funding, sponsorship, accounts and membership fees. Debate Convenor: responsible for all debates, including competitions at the University of Kent and attendance at Inter Varsity and Schools Competitions. Social Secretary: responsible for organising socials, drink deals, and dinners.So, if you’re interested in any of the positions above let us know. Manifestos are due by 8pm on the 31st of October.
As it’s election night, there’ll be free pizza and drinks so make sure you don’t miss out by signing up here.
See you on Wednesday!
Last week’s debate on whether to introduce a fat tax was a testament to the enthusiasm of our newest members, as strong speeches from both sides of the table made for a thrilling evening. The proposition managed to persuade the house in favour of a tax, due in part to a well applied definition. Special congratulations go to Oliver Hartland (2nd Prop) as best speaker.
On Wednesday we saw a thrilling debate between many first time debaters on a very engaging topic; the legalisation of drugs. The proposition defined the debate in the context that the state has no right to interfere with a citizens personal life, yet failed to outline an effective mechanism as to how drugs could be legally distributed and regulated. The opposition attacked the definition by arguing that the state has the right to intervene on moral and protective grounds. In the end, the proposition narrowly swayed the house, a testament to the quality of the speeches on both sides of the table. Particular congratulations go to Craig (3rd Prop) for winning best speaker.