Viewing archives for Debating & public speaking

Victory went to the School in this year’s Dinner Debate – the Elizabethan Union’s historic showpiece event.

Combining formal elements with a relaxed atmosphere and plenty of high-calibre debating, the 57th Annual Elizabethan Union Debate saw Year 13 gather in good spirits, enjoying the opportunity to socialise in a different context away from their normal day-to-day routine.

Year 13’s Anish Kumar and Shubh Rathod proposed the motion, This House believes governments are more responsible for climate change than citizens. They were opposed by Old Elizabethans Siddhant Kansal and Mark Markov (both 2015–2022).

Headmaster Neil Enright said: “The Dinner Debate is an event that intentionally bridges the gap from school to university. It blends the formality of black-tie dress, toasts and a traditional Extended Mace debating format with a relaxed atmosphere where the focus is primarily on enjoyment.”

The Elizabethan Union, QE’s debating society, is currently thriving, with debaters enjoying considerable success.

Proposing the toast to the Union, Siddhant Kansal (who was School Captain in 2021) reflected on his time at QE. Regaling his audience with a few anecdotes from his own Sixth Form experience, he also highlighted all the opportunities that were on offer within and beyond the classroom. Whilst QE can occasionally push you hard, it is all worth it and a time you will look back on fondly with great memories, he told the sixth-formers. Siddhant added that QE really does prepare you well for life at university, thanking staff for both pushing him and supporting him.

The debate itself was wide-ranging and packed with content. It was ultimately a victory for the proposition, but by a relatively narrow margin (45% to 37%, with 18% abstaining).

For the School, Anish and Shubh argued that governments have much greater ability to tackle climate change than citizens and should take responsibility for doing so. The role of governments is to protect their citizens, and they are failing in that task if they do not take more significant action. They stressed the importance of government regulation, and gave examples of how quickly action can be taken when there is determination to do so.

The opposition argued that the ability of governments is actually more limited and that big multi-national companies frequently have more influence and impact (and often more wealth). They spoke, therefore, about the power citizens have as consumers in a globalised, largely capitalist, world. Individuals can make choices about what they buy and from where. Mark stated that this power extended to what people eat: he stressed the significant impact of meat-eating on global emissions. The collective impact from these decisions could be profound. The alumni pair also highlighted the power of electorates to put into office people who care about the environment, and said that democratic participation is therefore crucial. They emphasised that, importantly, people do have agency – including everyone who had gathered in the Main School Hall for the debate.

However, the proposition pair noted that much of the world – including many of the largest polluters and contributors to climate change – is not governed democratically. People in those countries have no, or limited, choice in terms of the shape of their government. They argued that it is these governments, rather than their citizens, that have the wrong priorities and are choosing to promote projects and policies that worsen rather than lessen climate change, such as mega-building projects in the Middle East. There was discussion of the US Presidential Election and its potential consequences for climate action, and of the USA’s commitment to the Paris Climate accord.

The floor debate was finely balanced.

• Click on the thumbnails below to view the photos.

Twenty of QE’s youngest boys teamed up with pupils from a leading independent girls’ school to explore the environmental crisis and learn how to persuade others to take action.

The QE contingent headed to North London Collegiate School for the Year 7 academic symposium, starting the day with a critical examination of social media posts representing different viewpoints and highlighting different scientific data on the atmosphere.

Together with the NLCS girls, they then explored the power of persuasion, studying the speeches of Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, before enthusiastically taking up the opportunity to write and practise their own speeches.

Enrichment tutor and Chemistry teacher Xiangming Xu said: “It was an amazing display of collaboration and environmental responsibility, in which the aim was to educate young students about the environmental crisis and empower them with knowledge about their role as students.

“Thus, they not only expanded their knowledge on environmental issues, but also developed essential skills such as teamwork, quick thinking, and persuasive communication techniques. Overall, the symposium served as an inspiring platform for students to learn, develop, and take action.”

The start of the day was marked by discussions about the selected social media posts, with the boys and girls supporting or challenging the various arguments being propounded.

Next, they looked at the impact of different techniques employed in speeches, including the influential contributions made by Thunberg, who customarily challenges world leaders to take immediate action over climate change.

Later, in the afternoon session, they had the opportunity to apply these techniques and to deliver their own speeches targeted at specific audiences, including business professionals, politicians, primary school children, and teachers.

Afterwards, three of the QE participants gave their reflections on the day:

• Arnav Ghoshal: “We learnt about the environment – which is a major factor in today’s world – while doing engaging and fun activities, making it a great time. Also, as QE is an all-boys school, it is good to mix with other genders, too.”
• Aaron Khan: “The activity I enjoyed most was when we worked together as a group to create an ‘elevator pitch’ for our chosen audience. This trip helped build confidence and my communication skills with others whom I may not be so familiar with.”
• Thomas Leung said he enjoyed delivering a speech aimed at changing politicians’ minds, since politicians can have a significant impact. “They have enough money and power to change something. I felt more confident at the end as I knew more about the environment and learnt new facts.”

Year 10’s Mohith Sigirisetti was picked as QE’s representative at a regional public-speaking challenge.

Mohith won his place in the Barnet final of the Jack Petchey Speak Out Challenge by delivering a speech at QE about his determination to up his performance with the Rubik’s cube – all the while actually solving a Rubik’s cube as he spoke.

The talk – My Journey with The Cube – won him selection from among 30 of his QE peers, following a workshop for which all 30 boys took a day off timetable.

Geography teacher Eleanor Barrett, who is a QE Flourish tutor, said: “At QE, we recognise the importance of oracy: through this workshop 30 boys were able to learn new skills and develop their confidence in public speaking – not something that necessarily comes naturally, but something we can all work on.

“Being able to communicate cogently is important in most careers and helps build social confidence, too.

“Congratulations to Mohith on his performance and the multi-tasking involved in solving his Rubik’s cube simultaneously, which is quite a feat!”

Billed as the UK’s largest youth-speaking event, the Jack Petchey Speak Out Challenge is a programme managed and delivered by Speakers Trust, the UK’s leading public-speaking organisation. It is supported and funded by the Jack Petchey Foundation. Sir Jack Petchey, who is 98 years old, is a businessman and philanthropist who made his fortune in property and timeshare.

The aim of the challenge is to amplify young people’s voices by building confidence, developing skills, and creating platforms for young people to share their stories and ideas to empower not only themselves but each other.

After competing in the regional final at Friern Barnet School, Mohith was presented with a certificate by
Councillor Nagus Narenthira, the 58^th Mayor of the London Borough of Barnet.

“It was a great way to improve my public-speaking skills and talk about something I was passionate about,” said Mohith, who is a member of Pearce House.

Senior pupils from Queen Elizabeth’s Girls’ School joined A-level Art students at Queen’s Road for special life-drawing sessions during QE’s Arts Week.

Together with the girls’ participation in filming a promotional video and in a Sketch-off event held as part of QE’s Design Festival earlier in the Summer Term, the life-drawing sessions mark an expansion of the work of the QE Together partnership, which had previously focused on community activities.

Head of Art Craig Wheatley explained the sessions’ importance: “Life-drawing is rooted in a traditional and historical practice; students can develop their observational drawing skills and gain a better understanding of anatomy and human form.

“Our Arts Week seemed like a perfect opportunity to re-introduce this extra-curricular activity; inviting the girls was another chance for pupils from both schools to share a creative experience.”

Mr Wheatley paid tribute to the specialist teaching experience of his QE Art department colleagues, Jeanne Nicodemus and Alison Lefteri, who led the sessions. He added that feedback from the participating students was very positive.

Led by pupils from the two schools, QE Together continued its community activities, with musicians coming together for another concert for care home residents.

Pupils from QE and QEGS also teamed up to appear in the  promotional video for School Diversity Week for LGBT+ charity, Just Like Us.

Filmed by Deloitte and shown at a launch hosted by JP Morgan Chase, the film included the senior boys and girls holding up coloured card, with letters superimposed in post-production to spell out key messages for the week.

Not all the pupils who participated are part of the LGBTQ+ community; they are instead allies, supporting the promotion of inclusion in all schools across the country.

QE Together is one of the newest of QE’s partnerships. The School also has firmly established academic partnerships with North London Collegiate School and The Henrietta Barnett School.

During the Summer Term, Year 10 headed to NLCS for an inter-disciplinary symposium on Change and Renewal.

With HBS, in addition to Year 10 and 12 events, 144 selected Year 8 pupils from both schools vigorously debated contentious topics, including This House believes it was right to arrest the protesters at the King’s coronation.

QE’s first-ever in-house Model United Nations (MUN) Conference sparked powerful and passionate debate among the 48 delegates from Years 9 and 10.

Topics during the three-day, pupil-run event ranged from nuclear disarmament to the global economy, and from the conflict in Kashmir to the rights and wellbeing of indigenous communities.

The prestigious Best Delegation title went to the four boys representing India: Aahan Shah, Yashwant Sunkara, Abhinav Sandeep and Tunishq Mitra, all from Broughton’s Year 9 form.

The conference was planned and organised by Year 11 members of the School’s MUN Society – 12 volunteers, including Uday Dash, Koustuv Bhowmick, Saim Khan, Zaki Mustafa and Chanakya Seetharam acting as Secretaries-General.

Uday reports that the debates were “fiery, heated and fiercely contested”, fully showcasing the boys’ “thorough research, impeccable resolve, and eloquent arguments. It was an immensely enjoyable and thought-provoking three days, with lots of passionate debating, fruitful discussion and powerful speeches all around.”

Teams of four were drawn from the 12 forms in Years 9 and 10, with each allocated a powerful country to represent.

Two of the organisers, Uday and Saim Khan, opened the ceremony with introductory speeches.

Two days of contested arguments and resolutions followed, with each committee featuring its own battles. For example, Uday reported this about the proceedings of SOCHUM, the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Issues Committee: “From the delegate of Iran directly calling out the US for its own poor track record on indigenous rights, to the delegate of Australia decrying the alleged insurmountable financial burden it would place on nations to install separate healthcare systems for their indigenous communities, every delegate contributed to fiery, passionate debate.”

A resolution from SOCHUM relating to how the rights, cultures and wellbeing of indigenous people could be preserved was passed, earning the Indian delegation their title.

On the final day, the conference’s General Assembly was held in the Main Hall.

Some impromptu closing speeches from Uday and fellow Secretary-General Koustuv concluded what Uday called an “incredibly invigorating and successful conference”, before Physics Teacher & Academic Enrichment Tutor Gillian Deakin, who is QE’s MUN Coordinator, gave the final word to wrap up the event.

QE boys teamed up with pupils from a local leading girls’ school for a morning of enthusiastic debates on some of the hottest topics of the day.

After the initial quickfire rounds, the morning with the guests from The Henrietta Barnett School (HBS) culminated in a final impassioned debate on the motion This House believes it was right to arrest the protesters at the King’s coronation.

Hosted by QE, the debating challenge was attended by 144 selected Year 8 pupils from the two schools.

Headmaster Neil Enright said: “Our academic partnership with HBS provides a valuable opportunity for large numbers of our boys to work alongside young women, whether in subject-related symposia or, as on this occasion, in engaging with them in topical and political discussions.

“When it comes to developing your skills in debating, there is nothing like having to stand in front of a large audience – including many people that you don’t know – after a very limited preparation time and talking about something of which you may not have deep knowledge, setting out an argument concisely and then defending it adroitly when challenged!

“Such experiences constitute an important preparation for working alongside both women and men in pupils’ later lives, whether in higher education or in their careers.”

After the HBS pupils arrived at the start of the morning, they and the boys were split into six mixed groups in different rooms and given 20 minutes to work together using previously prepared material.

The event was run according to the ‘extended Mace format’, based on the long-running universities debating competition known originally as the Observer Mace. In this format, the debate is opened to audience participation after the first round of opening statements and rebuttals.

There were eight teams, comprising three debaters each, who took part in four debates. Other roles were a chair, who was responsible for keeping order and running the debate, a timekeeper and two reporters in each group, who took notes and helped teachers picked the best debater from their room.

Four debates took place over a period of 90 minutes. The motions debated were:

• This House would use animals for experimentation
• This House believes 16-year-olds should have the right to vote
• This House believes that all owners of large dogs should have to pass a test to prove they are able to control them
• This House would abolish homework.

After a break, the final debate took place in the Main Hall, featuring the best debaters from each of the six groups.

They were again given just 20 minutes to prepare. An initial vote indicated a roughly even split in the audience between those for and against the motion.

After the side arguing for the motion – the ‘Proposition’ – argued that the protest could have turned violent, the Opposition swiftly countered, pointing out that far from being violent, the protesters were not even disrupting the coronation, and adding that the police were, in fact, violating the protesters’ rights. The Proposition’s second speaker bolstered the arguments in favour of the motion by adducing the example of the Capitol riots in the USA.

When opened to the floor, there was a succession of attacks on the Proposition’s arguments, while the vagueness of the motion was itself criticised. After the audience debate, both sides summarised their arguments. A vote was again taken, and the result was now a landslide for the Opposition.

With the QE 450th anniversary celebrations at the forefront of everyone’s mind, the subject chosen for this year’s Dinner Debate was especially apt.

Sixth-formers gathered to take on the visiting Old Elizabethans, debating the motion, This House would leave the past behind us.

In his address, Saifullah Shah (OE 2013–2020) alluded to the anniversary year, which has as its slogan, Thriving from ancient roots.

And there were reminders of the 450th anniversary celebrations even during the meal: dessert was served accompanied by white chocolate discs bearing the anniversary logo.

Headmaster Neil Enright said: “The Dinner Debate was a successful evening, continuing the happy and energetic mood from our thanksgiving service in Westminster Abbey and with a motion that caused us to think about the nature and importance of the past, while looking to the future. It certainly provoked some lively discussion, taking the debate down a number of interesting avenues.”

“The dinner participants also made a little bit of history themselves: our 2022 School, Captain Theo Mama-Kahn, led the loyal toast to ‘The King’, rather than ‘The Queen’, for the first time in the Dinner Debate’s history.”

The event, which this year was chaired by Jai Patel, of Year 13, helps prepare the boys for some of the social occasions they may encounter early in their time at university. The debate follows the Oxford/Cambridge Union style.

With its distinctive atmosphere, it also serves as somewhat of a staging post between the boys’ present as pupils and their future as Old Elizabethans.

“The Dinner Debate is important in promoting oracy and free-thinking scholarship, but it is also a fun and relaxed evening, which most seem to enjoy!” the Headmaster added.

Before the debate, the votes were counted as follows: 14 for; 126 against; 30 abstentions.

The motion was proposed by the Year 13 pair of Ashwin Sridhar and Sudhamshu Gummadavelly. Opposing it with Saifullah was Mipham Samten (OE 2012–2019). Many Year 13s contributed from the floor.

Ashwin and Sudhamshu argued that ‘leave’ does not mean ‘forget’, making the case that the past and its injustices should not be allowed to define the future, and that we should move forward with equality of opportunity (rather than imposing discrimination of a different form, such as quotas to seek redress). They cited as a positive example the reconciliation seen in Spain after its civil war and the end of General Franco’s regime, where old differences were left behind.

The opposing OEs defined the key term differently, accusing the boys of wanting to ‘have their cake and eat it’. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat its errors.

However, at the end of the debate, the proposers’ case had won many over, and the final totals were: 76 for; 55 against; and 39 abstentions. Thus, it was a victory for the School, the Upper Sixth pair successfully convincing people that the past could be left behind, even while its lessons were still being learned.

In his address, Saifullah, a third-year Law student at Downing College, Cambridge, began thus: “From the celebration of this School’s 450th anniversary, the motion of the upcoming debate and the range of familiar faces on display, the past would appear to have all of us in its embrace tonight.”

He related how he had suffered some early disappointments at Cambridge in moots (mock judicial proceedings set up to examine a hypothetical case as an academic exercise) and was considering stopping doing them altogether, but then scored a memorable success after applying to take part in a Cambridge Union debate. “Given the stakes and the competition, I had no expectations going into the audition. But I also had nothing to lose and, against all the odds, I prevailed. My fellow speakers included a Queen’s Counsel, a Cambridge Professor and most memorably, Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption, two former justices of the Supreme Court. Debating alongside my childhood heroes whose judgements had helped inspire me to study law was a surreal experience, and one that I will never forget.”

The experience heralded an era of competition success for Saifullah: he has now a record ten mooting and mock trial competitions, and has been a student speaker in six Cambridge Union Debates, the most in recent history.

He concluded by telling the assembled sixth-formers: “Your time in school will not define your legacy and your purpose as students is not to reap fruit but to sow seeds. You don’t need to be School Captain or valedictorian, and it is often the trees that bloom latest that have the perfect blossom. The road ahead of you is tough, it is treacherous, and it will push you to your limits. But if you walk your path with courage, with conviction and with hope, then you will not only survive but thrive.”

Three QE teams all won two of their three debates in a competition against other leading schools, even though they had had no time to practise – and members of one had not even met up before the event.

Ten boys went on the trip to the South Hampstead High School (SHHS) Friendly Debating Competition, where they were given only 15 minutes to prepare ahead of each debate.

They covered a range of topics, debating whether trials should be televised, how to handle refugee settlement in the UK and whether the rise of social media is good for society.

Their debating coach for the trip, Economics teacher Sheerwan O’Shea-Nejad, said: “The boys really thought on their feet well; they were able to persuade the judges of their arguments using a brilliant blend of analysis and examples (with no use of electronic devices for research allowed).

“Logistical issues meant the teams had not been able to practise even once together, while our Key Stage 3 team, drawn from various year groups, had not even met before their first debate, which made the successes even more remarkable.

“Special credit must also be given to our other two teams, who were all from Year 10 yet managed to defeat Year 12 students representing some of London’s leading independent schools.

“All in all, it was another great advertisement for how QE produces intelligent, knowledgeable and confident students.”

The boys took full advantage of the opportunity to get some expert feedback, reported Mr O’Shea-Nejad. The judges included some on the world’s best young debaters, drawn from universities across London.

Among them was Umar Buckus, who has judged at the European, Asian and World debating championships. He said: “The QE debaters showed great potential and talent, despite their lack of experience. I look forward to hopefully seeing them triumph at a future tournament.”

Afterwards, QE2 team captain Ady Tiwari thanked Mr O’Shea-Nejad, adding: “It was an enlightening and thought-provoking experience that nurtured my development.”

The teams were:

QE1: Keshav Aggarwal, Year 8; Rishan Virmani, Year 7; Simi Bloom, Year 9, and Adithya Raghuraman, Year 9

QE2: Girish Adapa, Year 10; Ady Tiwari, Year 10, and Shreyas Mone, Year 10

QE3: Vaibhav Gaddi, Year 10; Harrshiv Vyas, Year 10, and Akshat Bajaj, Year 10

Fifteen QE sixth-formers successfully got to grips with how countries as diverse as the USA and Pakistan view the world in a Model United Nations conference.

The QE Year 12 team spent weeks preparing for the annual MUN event at St Paul’s School in London.

Model United Nations is an educational simulation of the real UN at which participants can gain greater understanding of diplomacy and international relations, as well as learning skills including research, public speaking, debating and teamwork.

Economics teacher Sheerwan O’Shea-Nejad said: “Our boys were already confident, as evidenced from their ability to lobby other delegations, but I am sure their confidence will only grow after their excellent performance.

“All the students enjoyed the experience immensely and relished the opportunity to improve their debating skills and knowledge of these important global issues. Many friendships were made and the boys hope that they will be able to attend another in-person MUN soon and are even considering hosting one next year.”

At MUN conferences, pupils are assigned as delegates to a country and participate in committees that deal with different sets of issues.

Policy proposals submitted ahead of the conference required the QE cohort to convey their countries’ plan to tackle particular global issues. Examples included: closing Guantanamo Bay; handling the tensions in the Taiwan Strait; overseas electoral rigging; nuclear testing on the moon; disarming the Taliban, and decolonising the Western Sahara. The boys had spent time researching topics and the stance they were representing.

On the first two days, the delegates engaged in some heated debate on the merits of their resolutions in separate committees, before choosing the best of them to be presented and discussed in General Assembly on the third day.

“The students debated and lobbied well, with Aryaman Madan and Nayel Muhammad Huda especially active in forming alliances with other delegations, both during committee meetings and in-between them,” said Mr O’Shea-Nejad. “Nayel was recognised as the best speaker on the Women’s Rights Committee and Abir Mohammed as the best speaker on the Legal Committee.”

Reflecting afterwards, QE delegate Ryan Whorra said: “MUN was an amazing experience, due to the rich debates between all the delegates as well as learning the art of diplomacy as all delegates attempted to achieve their countries’ objectives.”

Danny Adey said: “It was a great opportunity to get a better understanding of the inner workings of international politics and meet new people.”

Mathavan Chandra-Mohan added: “It was really interesting to debate current issues with students from other schools,” Rahul Doshi that the conference was “great fun”, while at the same time the debates were “challenging”.

The QE group, with their committee, comprised:

USA: Aryaman Madan (Security), Danny Adey (Women), Ruixuan Wu (Special Political and Decolonisation Committee – SPECPOL), Rahul Doshi (Disarmament and International Security – DISEC) and Jeshvin Jesudas (Legal);

Pakistan: Abir Mohammed (Legal), Frank Zhang (DISEC) and Kai Mukherjee (SPECPOL);

Ireland: Surya Dhaka (Legal), Yash Makwana (SPECPOL) and Aarian Hundal (DISEC);

Saudi Arabia: Ryan Whorra (DISEC), Nayel Muhammad Huda (Women), Mathavan Chandra-Mohan (SPECPOL) and Mukund Soni (Legal).

A QE team triumphed in their heat of the Magistrates’ Court Mock Trial Competition, beating both fellow Elizabethans acting as prosecutors and a team from another school.

After successfully grappling with a case involving harassment across the two rounds, the defence team amassed enough points to beat all other competing schools and take the top spot. Now both QE teams will take part in a national celebration event in June.

Biology teacher Nadia Kaan, who oversaw the boys’ involvement, said: “This competition is a fun and engaging way to introduce pupils to the law, while also developing skills such as teamwork and oracy.

“Our boys had worked hard since October to prepare, and they duly performed very well on the day. My congratulations go to our defence team on their victory.”

The competition, which is run by the Young Citizens education charity, has been running for over 25 years and is open to 12–14 year-olds from UK state schools. Participants take on the main roles found in a criminal trial – such as prosecutor and defendant – with the cases specially written by legal experts.

Run with the active support of practising magistrates and legal advisors, the competition is usually held within real courthouses, although this year’s event was held online because of the pandemic.

The two QE teams, all drawn from Year 9, found themselves facing each other in their heat after one of the other schools expected to take part pulled out. Defence team ‘lawyer’ Colin Copcea explained that it was only after much deliberation that a ‘Not Guilty’ verdict was returned by the supporting professionals in this round. He paid tribute to the efforts of all QE entrants, whether defenders and prosecutors: “Both teams fought hard to influence the magistrates.”

In the second round, the QE defence team went up against another school, and again secured their desired ‘Not Guilty’ verdict.

Afterwards, QE participants reflect on how much they enjoyed taking part and on the competition’s benefits:

• Vase Pardeepan: “This experience was absolutely incredible, and to be able to compete against other schools and communicate with professional lawyers really helped me understand  my personal passion for the career of law.”
• Simi Bloom: “It was interesting to learn more about how legal proceedings work and the justice system. ‘Mock trial’ was a great way to learn to how respond when things don’t go your way, boosting public speaking skills and overall confidence. I think the experience largely encouraged teamwork, too, as well as establishing trust between one another.”
• Adam Liang: “Of the many other clubs and competitions that I have attended, this one was by far the best. Thank you for this amazing experience!”
• Adithya Raghuraman: “Despite perhaps not playing a very important role on my team, I still greatly enjoyed being a part of the whole experience, from attending on Wednesdays when the club began and auditioning for different parts, all the way to helping out with different things on the day of the competition itself. It has made me realise that I have a passion for law, and perhaps may pursue it in the future.”
• Vidyuth Shankar: “Personally, I found the mock trial competition quite refreshing. It encouraged us to work as a team and creatively and intuitively work out the best angles to a problem. I found performing my speech exciting and enjoyed working in a team.”

The other QE competitors were: Samhith Aggana; Devansh Jha; Muhamad Mohamed; Soham Kale; Daniel Moon; Sai Murarishetty; Daksh Vinnakota; Ash Iyer and Adokshaj Magge.