Viewing archives for Debating & public speaking

A Year 7 competition combining photography and oratory proved that public speaking has the power to move people as little else can.

Pupils from the year group ‘bubble’ gathered in the Main School Hall for the final of the contest in which QE’s newest pupils gave speeches describing their submitted photos that were by turns comic and reflective, informative and sad.

Head of Year 7 Tom Harrison said: “This year’s final was a showpiece of some of the finest public speakers Year 7 has to offer. The quality on show was outstanding and I found myself both laughing and close to tears at different speeches.”

He congratulated the overall winner, Zane Shah: “I am extremely proud of Zane, the other finalists and all the boys who put efforts into writing and delivering a speech this year.”

Although the images, which were projected on to a screen, were important to the event, it was, in fact, primarily a test of boys’ abilities as public speakers. They had to speak for up to three minutes about a chosen photo – not necessarily one they had taken themselves – and were judged on the content, style and delivery of their speech. The presentations were judged by the Headmaster, Neil Enright.

Mr Harrison got the proceedings under way with an introductory talk about the power of public speaking in which he mentioned that even the most powerful political leaders in the world can be exposed to ridicule if they show bad communication skills.

The six finalists, one from each Year 7 form, were then introduced by Mr Harrison.

Mathuran Arunan, from Harrisons’ House, spoke about a  summer holiday photo from Torquay, recalling how he had spotted an elaborate sand sculpture and recounting funny moments, including thinking he might not survive a ride on a particularly frightening water slide:  “What an embarrassing way to die!” He also spoke of how he enjoyed the Devon scenery and the time spent with his family, concluding: “Simple pleasures are often the best.”

Leicester’s Nishchal Thatte also had happy memories of time with his family – in his case, from a trip to Box Hill, where he, too, he enjoyed the scenic vistas: “The best part is, it’s free,” he said, adding that he “would love to cycle there one day”.

For Underne’s Orko Ghosh, it was a family holiday in Wales which generated “memories that we will treasure”.

There were very different emotions in Veer Gali Sanjeev’s speech. The Stapylton finalist took third place after displaying a photo of plastic pollution in a bush and asking: “What are we doing to our planet?”, adding that he felt anger and sadness at “the selfishness of the human race”.

Runner-up, for Broughton, was Shreyas Iyengar. He showed a holiday snap at the white cliffs of Dover. Walking to the top had been an achievement, he said, before adding “but the real take-away was spending time with my family”.

Zane’s winning speech was accompanied by a picture of the sunflower he had grown.

He spoke about growing it – a challenge set by his sister – and how it became a “therapy companion” to help him deal with the huge volume of homework he was receiving in his new School! Then it died, and he was crestfallen, feeling that by leaving it outside during a storm, he had failed to to help it thrive.

Then, however, he had an epiphany, as he realised that “the plant had been helping me” and that, with this horticultural assistance, “I had outgrown my worries” – worries which revolved around starting a new school and making friends there.

Mr Harrison said: “In the end, Zane was triumphant for Pearce House with a speech which talked about how the time he spent caring for a sunflower acted as a helping hand with, and a metaphor for, his first few weeks and months at QE.”

Merits from the annual competition were awarded to all six finalists, and there were also House points – 2 for sixth place, 4 for fifth, 7 for fourth, 10 for third, 14 for second and 20 points for the winner.

“This competition gives every boy the chance to have their voice heard. We firmly believe that our students need not only to develop a range of knowledge and talents within the classroom, but also the communication skills necessary to argue a point and to convey their opinion. It is also a fantastic opportunity for us to get to know a little bit more about our newest group of Elizabethans!” Mr Harrison concluded.

Twenty-four boys from Year 10 had the opportunity to learn how to compose a speech from scratch and then deliver it with confidence in front of classmates in a day-long workshop at the School.

The boys learned about the importance of the three corners of the Communication Triangle – delivery, content and structure – in making a successful speech. They gained insights into overcoming nerves and tips on how to listen and give constructive feedback to each other.

The event, run by Jack Petchey’s ‘Speak Out’ Challenge!, was led by author, coach and speaker Hari Kalymnios. Four participants from each of the six forms in Year 10 were nominated for the workshop by their form teachers.

Extra-curricular Enrichment Tutor Oliver O’Gorman, who organised the day, said: “This was a fantastic opportunity for a select group of Year 10 boys to develop their confidence speaking in front of their peers, as well as learning some top tips for public speaking.”

Jack Petchey’s ‘Speak Out’ Challenge! is supported by the Jack Petchey Foundation, which is named after entrepreneur and philanthropist Sir Jack Petchey and was established with a brief to inspire and motivate young people across London and Essex. The challenge involves an annual public-speaking competition with a number of rounds culminating – in normal non-Covid years – in a Grand Final held in London’s West End at which participants speak in front of an audience of around 1,000,  including MPs, mayors and other leaders.

The workshop, which was held in QE’s Conference Centre, included an opportunity for each boy to deliver a speech to the group on any subject of their choice.

One of the boys involved, Abdullah Khalid, said: “I really enjoyed participating. I learnt how to control my breathing whilst doing a speech, which I found really useful. I hope we can do something similar again!”

Those reaching the final held on the day as part of an assembly were Victor Shyptur, speaking on Winston Churchill, Ethan Nauth (the US election), Aman Padala (Leaving things to the last minute) and Moniejan Pagareethan (Laziness). Topics selected during the day covered areas including mental health, politics, sleep, video games and social media.

The workshop leader, Mr Kalymnios, has a degree in Physics and has worked in sectors from Law to financial services, and for employers from Accenture to Sainsbury’s. He also spent three years travelling the world.

He became fascinated with what it took to become a high-performance leader and has studied experts from a wide-ranging set of industries, as well as looking at topics from nutrition, practical psychology and personal development, to science, spirituality and business.

While Covid-19 has raged around the world this term, members of QE’s Model United Nations Club have been examining the very different approaches to the pandemic taken around the globe. 

The 24 boys involved were each allocated a country, from Australia to Iceland and from the USA to North Korea. Each member, from Years 8 to 10, was given a brief to research his nation’s response to the crisis and look at the treatment for the virus and the global distribution of a vaccine in the future. 

They met regularly using Zoom to discuss the huge issues and challenges facing the global community. 

Academic Enrichment Tutor Gillian Deakin said: “It has been great to see the boys adopting their different countries and examining their responses to Covid–19. Every week they have contributed fascinating insights into how different countries have responded. 

“With countries as diverse as Japan, Iran, France, Kenya and the USA, the participants have had to get to grips with their often very different respective policies and perspectives.” 

The club is an academic simulation of the United Nations itself, where pupils take the roles of delegates from different countries and investigate possible solutions to global issues. 

The boys have also been learning how to write policy statements and resolutions in preparation for an MUN event at Magdalen College School, Oxford, in February next year.  

“They have gained real insight and understanding of the function of the different organisations within the UN in addition to an appreciation of the possibilities and challenges of the global development and distribution of a treatment or vaccination for Covid–19,” added Miss Deakin. 

“The boys are all looking forward to returning to the School and preparing for next year’s mini–MUN conference.” 

 The participants are listed below, each with his allocated country: 

Danny Adey (Year 10) – Japan; Eesa Ahmed (Year 9) – Saudi Arabia; Tejas Bansal (Year 8) – Germany; Dhruv Chadha (Year 9) – South Korea; Karan Chauhan (Year 8) China; Tharun Dhamodharan (Year 9) – India; Rahul Doshi (Year 10) – Russia; Kovid Gothi (Year 8) – France; Pranav Haller (Year 8) – USA; Seyed Jalili (Year 8) – Iran; Shaurya Madan (Year 8) – New Zealand; Dhruv Syam (Year 10) – Sweden; Rahul Kesavan (Year 10) – Sri Lanka; Saim Khan (Year 8) – Pakistan; Zaki Mustafa (Year 8) – UK; Jai Patel (Year 10) – South Africa; Vignesh Rajiv (Year 9) – Switzerland; Chanakya Seetharam (Year 8) Canada; Anban Senthilprabu (Year 9) – North Korea; Abhiraj Singh (Year 10) – Iceland; Sai Sivakumar (Year 9) – Australia; Mukund Soni (Year 10) – Italy, Anirudh Terdal (Year 8) – Kenya; Antony Yassa (Year 10) – Egypt. 

Broughton overcame Pearce by just two points in the final of the Year 7 Inter-House Debating Competition.

Broughton proposed the motion: This house believes that climate change is the biggest danger facing the modern world. The debate took place just before the current Coronavirus crisis erupted globally.

The debate provoked passionate and even provocative contributions, including the view that climate change was largely a ‘first world’ preoccupation, and a claim that a rising death toll due to climate change would have a positive side.

Pranav Challa, the main speaker, had five minutes to make his case. In support of the motion. Head of English, Robert Hyland, who organised the event said: “He was a confident, articulate speaker. He described what he sees as the three ‘cruxes’ of the dangers we face: food production, shelter and water.”

Pranav went on to describe how climate change will affect food production in a world in which more than 1 billion people are already suffering from malnutrition. He said that extreme weather could affect our future supply of drinking water, that rising sea levels are putting coastal communities in danger, and that 200 million people will be displaced in the next 20 years.

Pranav was supported by the second speaker, Kavin Rameshshanker, who spoke about drought, the impact of climate change on the global economy and the loss of bio-diversity, ten species becoming extinct every day.

In his five-minute response, Adokshaj Magge, of Pearce, sought to challenge the terms of the motion. He suggested that the preoccupation with climate change comes from the privileged perspective of developed countries. “He spoke passionately about poverty, about disease and about the lack of basic healthcare in many countries,” said Mr Hyland.

Adokshaj described the overuse of forest fuels and deforestation as the “mother of all problems” and argued that the 3 billion people living in, or facing, poverty do not have time to worry about climate change when they are battling for day-to-day survival, while often being denied their human rights. He argued that changes in the weather have been going on since the dawn of time.

Pearce’s second speaker, Colin Copcea,  suggested that we face more important issues than climate change, such as who will be the next president of the US, Brexit and terrorism. “Right now, climate change is not at the top of the list,” he said. He also talked about economic crises, referencing, in particular, Venezuela.

In the following floor debate, Adam Liang, Kayilai Dinesh and Ishaan Bhandari for Broughton pitted their wits against Jamie Reeve, Ayan Hirani and Johnny Yassa from Pearce. “Some great points were made,” said Mr Hyland.

Adam said that problems caused by human greed, such as deforestation, were intrinsic to the issue of climate change.

“There was a suggestion that climate change is actually helping to reduce over-population,” said Mr Hyland. “This was vigorously challenged!”

The opposition suggested that our focus should be on tackling treatable and preventable diseases, as climate change might not have a solution.

Chairing the event, Crispin Bonham-Carter, who is Assistant Head (Pupil Involvement), commended the boys on the quality of the debate. He announced the indicative vote from the floor was an exact draw – 68 to 68 – and noted that some boys on each side had voted against their own House.

Year 13’s Ryan Ratnam, who invigilated, congratulated all the speakers. “I was very impressed with the ‘three cruxes’ argument and the summary speech from the proposers. I also thought Broughton was a good team; there was good synergy between the two main speakers,” he said.

“Pearce made a very good point about our stance, as a developed country, being privileged. They also presented some really good information. I thought the floor contribution about over-population was intriguing.”

He described it as a very even and well-argued debate, but gave a decision to the proposing team, Broughton by two points.

The Year 8 Inter-House Debating Final was won by the finest of margins, following an evenly matched contest between Stapylton and Leicester.

After fluent and compelling debate from both sides, the Leicester team, opposing the motion, This house believes that censorship has no place in a democracy, prevailed by just a single point.

Head of English Robert Hyland, who organised the event, said: “At QE, we are fully persuaded of the importance of nurturing effective oracy and skills in public speaking and debating among our pupils. All the boys who took part in this final are therefore to be congratulated, as they presented an excellent, well-argued debate in the best QE tradition of closely competed inter-house competitions.”

Zaki Mustafa, the first main speaker for Stapylton, presented the proposition in his allocated five minutes. He argued that freedom of speech is a pillar of democracy and a key human right, adding: “Democracy means that we decide how our country is run – the government is there to implement our decisions, not to make them.”

He also referenced the Watergate scandal, suggesting that the suppression of information resulted in “disastrous consequences” leading to US President Nixon’s resignation. He also pointed out that in Turkey, censorship has led to the arrest of journalists which, in turn, has affected information flow to the public.

Ady Tiwari, who recorded the highest individual score on the day, presented a robust argument for the opposition in his five minutes: “Not all speech is equal,” he said. “Censorship reduces the impact of hate speech. Hate speech historically has led to oppression such as slavery and the denial of the vote to women.” He pointed out that live broadcasts by groups such as the Ku Klux Klan are illegal – clearly a case where censorship “stops hate and promotes equality and justice”, he said.

He also suggested that, for reasons of national security, government information needs to be kept secret. He argued that removing censorship would help terrorists and other criminals, such as identity thieves.

Ady added that censorship is needed in many key areas of society, including the internet, television, film and the media, and that, without censorship, children could search online for information about pornography and buying drugs. Democracy necessarily “includes censorship and we should use it to make the world a better place”, Ady concluded.

Among the topics covered by Stapylton’s second main speaker, Koustuv Bhowmick, were parental controls: these were an effective way of controlling children’s internet use, yet they could be classified as restriction, rather than censorship. He also looked at the deleterious effects of censorship in regimes such as North Korea and China, arguing that, in the latter case, it was abuse of censorship that had led to the coronavirus scandal.

The opposition’s second main speaker, Adi Kaneshanatha, returned to the dangers of hate speech, stating that “hate crime causes violence” and warning that it increases the social stigma of the groups discriminated against, which, in turn, affects mental health. He looked at the issue of fake news, arguing that censorship will help stop it, and urged speakers to trust the Government’s judgement in ensuring that its citizens are not exposed to inappropriate material.

Three speakers from each side raised points or questions from the floor. For Stapylton, Joel Swedensky, Harrshiv Vyas and Akshat Bajaj touched on the importance of educating people with negative or hateful views rather than just silencing them. Leicester’s floor speakers, opposing the motion, were Abhay Halyal, Nikhil Mark and Pranav Haller, who cited as an example of the serious dangers of an absence of censorship the fact that terrorists can learn to make bombs online.

The event was adjudicated by Dharrshan Viramuthu, of Year 12, who is a member of QE’s Cambridge Union Schools Debating Competition team. He congratulated all the speakers and also dispensed some advice, suggesting inter alia that they try to minimise reliance on scripts.

He awarded opponents Leicester 59 points out of a possible 70, thus just pipping proposers Stapylton, who picked up 58 points. An indicative vote from the floor was fairly evenly split, but again just favoured the opposition.

Tackling topics as diverse as privacy laws, genome-editing and social equality, 50 sixth-formers from QE and North London Collegiate School enjoyed ample opportunity to air and develop their views in a joint academic symposium.

The event, hosted by QE, is an important means of helping final-year pupils with their applications to university, said organiser Nisha Mayer, who is QE’s Head of Pupil Enrichment.

“All these students expect to be interviewed in the coming weeks for places in Medicine, Science, Engineering, Law, PPE [Oxford’s Philosophy, Politics and Economics course] and Economics,” said Mrs Mayer. “This annual academic symposium collaboration with NLCS is invaluable in this preparation.”

QE’s Assistant Head (Pupil Development) Crispin Bonham-Carter fired up the participants with a rousing welcoming address: “I reminded them that ‘symposia’ were ancient Greek dining parties where young adults were expected to debate important ideas and subject themselves to scrutiny.

“I also pointed out that the Greek word for debate, ‘agon’, gives us both ‘agony’ but also ‘protagonist’ – and I urged on them the importance of performance when stepping into the role of the ‘public expert’.”

Mr Bonham-Carter added that the symposium participants should not be afraid to ask if they had any questions, “as it was unlikely they would be alone”.

Reflecting on a successful event afterwards, Mrs Mayer said: “The students were highly engaged and articulate, the discussions constructive and purposeful.”

QE pupils engage in a number of such symposia throughout the year, aimed at different year groups, all with the aim of encouraging independent thinking. Headmaster Neil Enright highlighted their importance when he was invited recently to give a speech on scholarship to the Girls’ Schools Association’s Annual Conference for Heads.

“Discussion and collaboration are key features of our partnership work with other schools,” he told the independent school heads assembled in Bristol. “These sessions have obviously played an important role in enabling our young men to engage with equally capable, and often more confident, young women, but also in furthering academic curiosity.

“Of course, the stimulation of the source material is challenging in its own right, whether it is developing critical listening skills from studying Prokofiev and Tchaikovsky with Year 7, enabling Year 9 students to evaluate philosophical arguments, or challenging our sixth-formers to consider the nexus between water and community in a geographical study.

“Another key scholarly benefit lies in the socialisation that they encourage and develop – the ability to argue and deliberate with fellow students; to work together collaboratively towards conclusions; or simply to experience the cut and thrust of academic debate.”

Thirdly, academic symposia also develop action and responsibility, enabling participants to become those who can exercise choices according to their own values, and are not therefore “confined by the curriculum, or timetables, or teachers, or examiners”, Mr Enright added.

He concluded the section of his speech on symposia with these words: “We are all well acquainted with extra-curricular interaction with other schools – on the sports field, perhaps in the performing arts or academic competitions, but these collaborative academic interactions seem to work as a catalyst for inspiring further academic enquiry.”