Competingat thehighest levelmeansbeingable topretend tobeanexpert onalmost anything
Clearly we would be required to fall back on the kind of justifications traditionally used by the infamous National Rifle Association. Similar feelings of dread were aroused when we learned that another motion would be ‘This House believes climate change is the pre-eminent threat to the human race’. However, thanks to questionable twisting of facts and evidence and carefully pandering to our audience of wealthy Texas republicans, Dulwich won all five rounds and progressed to the final against the Argentinian national team. We had been given the motion for the final in advance, as with the rest of the rounds, but doubts about our performance during the day had lead us to assume we wouldn’t need to debate it, so the announcement lead to understandable panic. Nonetheless, after a frantic five-minute discussion on the way over to the ornate chamber where the debate was to be held, we rose to speak on the motion, ‘This House believes that limiting civil liberties to fight terrorism is counterproductive’. We took our places in front of the distinguished judging panel, which included a former mayor of Texas, a high court justice and the CEO of Pizza Hut international – not quite the same as the motley crowd of university
students in ‘Feel the Bern’ T-shirts to which we were accustomed. After the debate had finished, mounting tension underpinned the 15 minutes allocated for deliberation, before the judges finally emerged to announce Dulwich the winners. The trip generally restored our basic confidence that people from all backgrounds and countries are just as, if not more, educated and articulate as we are, and most importantly, we made it through an entire debate against Argentina without anyone bringing up the Falklands. I worry, though, that this account may make us appear more intellectual than is deserved: we used our one day allotted for sightseeing not to investigate Dallas’ cultural significance but to eat at the International House of Pancakes. But debating success is not exclusive to older students. Oxford and Cambridge universities alternate hosting the yearly International Competition for Young Debaters, which can only be entered by students in Year 9 or Year 10. This year, two Dulwich speakers, Kalan Kumar (Year 10) and Joe Atkinson (Year 9), passed an unusually gruelling regional round, followed by four in-rounds, a semi-final, and a final, ending with debating the motion ‘This House believes
in completely free immigration’. The competition is notoriously difficult, and everyone involved should be very proud of themselves, not least for showing that age is no barrier to participation in some of the most difficult political and social questions ever to trouble mankind. We have high hopes for the future. We wouldn’t get the results we’re known for without working hard. Officially the training is twice a week for a total of four hours, but in anticipation of the year’s largest events, it’s normal for Dulwich’s coaches to hold all-day training during weekends or holidays. It’s an activity that demands considerable preparation, and competing at the highest level means being able to pretend to be an expert on almost anything from social issues like gay marriage to the Iraq war to a government’s rights over freedom of speech and the electoral system. The most important factor, though, is trial and error through experience, and over four years it’s been a great privilege to have that experience – one that can change its participants immeasurably in terms of their self- confidence and ability to express themselves, all while making them more informed and better-educated people.
49
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker