Viewing archives for Debating & public speaking

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.

Year 13 debaters Ciaran Price and Christan Emmanuel successfully convinced their classmates to keep petrol and diesel-engined vehicles off the roads in the 55th Elizabethan Union Annual Dinner Debate.

The pair took on Old Elizabethan challengers Ravi Karia and Jathieesan Umaasuthan (both OE 2011–2018), who argued against the motion, This House would ban all non-electric vehicles.

The weekend event is tailored to give senior boys experience of the type of formal occasions they are likely to participate in at university and later in life.

Head of Academic Enrichment Nisha Mayer said: “This was a welcome return for our dinner debate after the disruption of the past two years. It was a relaxed, pleasantly lively evening, with an engaging debate that saw effective arguments made on both sides.”

A three-course meal, including vegan options, was served in the Dining Hall before the debate in the Main School Hall.

“Not only was it the first time some had worn black-tie, but I understand that one boy’s clip-on bow tie had been manufactured only that morning using a 3D printer!” added Mrs Mayer.

Lawyer Izzet Hassan (OE 2005–2021), the after-dinner speaker, “gave a very heartfelt speech, with recollections from his days at QE and really solid advice for Year 13 to take away”, Mrs Mayer added.

The evening included the traditional toasts to Queen Elizabeth II and to “the pious memory of Queen Elizabeth I”.

The visitors were formally proposed by the 2021 School Captain, Siddhant Kansal, of Year 13, while the Elizabethan Union was proposed by Izzet, who last month took up a new post with international law firm Kirkland & Ellis.

Accompanying Izzet was his contemporary, Oli Palmer, who is now a teacher. The pair plan to return for this November’s Old Elizabethan Association Dinner, along with others from their year group, who will make up this year’s ten-year leavers cohort at the event.

Other roles during the evening were undertaken by Year 13 pupils, with Utsav Atri the chairman and Jash Nanavati the designated photographer.

Votes were taken before and after the debate, both of which were in favour of the motion.