Halloween and October 29th meeting

As the meeting was close to Halloween our Social Secretary decided the night should be fancy dress leading classic outfits such as zombies, vampires and witches to less traditional ones such as suicidal artists, Consumerism and Jackie Onassis. In the end a vote was taken on who won by a very fair voting system and Jackie Onassis, brains and all, walked away the victor.

Private Members Motions 

This House Believes that James is being discriminated against in POI’s

The main basis for James case was that during last weeks debate Saara would not take his POI’s but as soon as Karolien stood up she had hers taken. As well as this James was beginning to get frustrated and felt he should just shout them out as they were such good POI’s that would have won him the debate This led to a flurry of POI’s being given most being harshly discriminated against apart from a complementary POI from Andrew stating that James must terrify people as thats mainly why you don’t take someone’s POI. James ended his speech with the realization that he just likes to hear his own voice.

Ollie spoke in opposition to the Motion: He states in the Spirit of the Speaker development we should look for a way to emancipate James POI’s however since in debating this is a natural thing to feel this way you kind of can’t. Ollie explains how if everyones POI’s were taken then anarchy would ensue as you’d have no time to do your  speeches in and it would ruin the structure of the debate. Ollie did note his admiration for James enthusiasm.

Andrew spoke in opposition to the Motion: Andrew sates that debating in its truest form is meant to frustrate you, if you notice that a debater is not taking your POI’s likely is he’s trying to annoy you do he can win more easily. Debating is a competition Andrew states similar to football, you may hate and berate the ref for a call but you know he’s right

This was called to a vote where even James forgot to vote for himself and the motion failed

This House Believes that Liberal feminism provides more progress and influence than Radical feminism 

Karolien begins her case by defining the two groups stating that Liberal feminism defines women and man as people not opposing sides but people and that defining someone in that manner is counterproductive. She also states that Radical Feminism that society is intrinsically misogynistic, that it gives women the same chance as a cat in a swimming contest with a fish. she sates that the reason that Liberal is better is due to the opportunities it affords women allowing them to gain more ground in the traditional system and therefore change it from the inside.

Daniel spoke in opposition to the motion: Daniel stated that due to the fact that Radical Feminism is more idealistic and more vocal it reaches a larger audience and have a greater effect on society. he then talked about his love for rich people and how women can become rich by staying true to their values and Liberalism Feminism sacrifices it values to much.

Ollie spoke in opposition to the motion: Ollie starts by stating that you need institutional change before any state of societal change could occur and that this can’t happen from within the system as Liberal Feminists state. He then went onto discuss the inherent problems that can befoul women in the army and the workplace from sexual assault to generally being disregarded, so in this sense women both have to put their lives and their beliefs on the line.

James spoke for the motion: James states in these circumstances women are doing this by choice and surely thats the point of feminism to give women the choice to do as they please. he also states that radical feminism brings a bad image on the rst and harms the cause with their radical behavior.

Benedict spoke against the motion: Benedict states that throughout history groups find emancipation through more radical behavior, he also reiterates that you should stick to your principles else you may end up with a final point that is not your goal.

The Motion passes

The Main debate was This House Believes that the feminist movement should support a ban(in all media) and the sale of Robin Thickie’s Blurred Lines

Posted in Uncategorized

The Union

The Aberystwyth Debating Union was founded in 1872, and meets weekly to foster the use of debate as a means of exploring ideas.

Qui tacet, consentire videtur.

Get in touch