Debating

This year, Westminster debating achieved substantially more success than last. Although all the debaters who represented the School were inexperienced at the start of the year, as the season went on, and the team gained experience and confidence, our performance improved.

The standard in the internal society remains high as ever. Attendance is always rather disappointing, and this year we had additional problems due to the reluctance of many pupils to stay after school, combined with the iron grip of the Music Department over lunch-times. However, those who do come are more committed than the members of most societies. Internal motions varied from This House would abolish government funding for the Arts Council to This House would look before it leaps; there have been many speeches memorable for their wit.

We achieved only small success at the Observer Mace - a very variable competition. Thomas Munby and Laura Bender made it through to the second round, where we finished second with one to qualify, after debating censorship and Robin Cook's 'moral foreign policy'. The University Competitions were much more successful. Thomas and Laura reached the Finals Day of the Cambridge Union, where we were placed eighth out of the twelve finalists, and out of about 150 teams nation-wide - a very satisfying result, especially considering neither of the two debaters had ever spoken at a finals day before. Issues there included EMU and the Millennium Dome, in which Thomas put the floor into hysterics by his forensic analysis of the possible motives for celebrating the millennium. Our greatest achievement was in the final competition of the year, the Oxford Union, where Mohan Ganesalingam and Laura not only got to Finals Day, but qualified for the Grand Final, finishing in the top four of over 200 schools across the country. The day began with three preliminary rounds, followed by a semi-final which covered topics ranging from the ethics of trade to proportional representation. The motion of the Grand Final was This House condemns the role of America as policeman to the world and, although challenging, led to a very stimulating debate.

The final event of the debating calendar was The Common Room Debate: held at the end of May, on the subject This House believes that a woman's place is in the kitchen it lived well up to all expectations. Sharon Newman and Laura Bender spoke well, but - brutally - Michael Davies, Robert Wilne, James Gazet and Thomas Munby so much better that, while the motion was roundly defeated, the sentiment which informed it still seemed to have some resonance. The future of debating, even as mixed sport, is potentially very bright, with Thomas Munby taking over the reins of the society, and he and others currently in the Sixth Form poised to form promising teams for next year. Many thanks to Jonny White for his support and encouragement during the year.

Laura Bender (Grant's) & Alex de Jonquieres (Rigaud's)

Junior Debating

Advertised in the Choice form as 'Training for future Observer Mace', Junior Debating is, perhaps, one of the more exemplary LSAs. Though scorned by some, it is in fact a fortnightly hour of stress relief by way of open confrontation. It is the perfect way to end a heated afternoon spent thrashing out the finer points of Rectilinear Propagation.

The year kicked off with the - at the time - topical motion of This House would canonise Diana, Princess of Wales. Despite a fluently convincing case for the motion from Frederick van der Wyck, victory went to Arash Taheri with his argument that it would be inappropriate.

At the height of the furore over the British nurses in Saudi Arabia, Junior Debating reflected the feeling with the title This House believes a country's system of justice is its own concern. Tempers ran high and in the end Ferdinand Koenig, our resident Dennis Skinner, defeated the motion on the side of national sovereignty. The Christmas debate over the Festival's own abolition was beaten down by some captivating arguments from Alexander Rubner.

Generally speaking, the results of many of our debates and the well-structured contributions from the floor show Westminsters to be fair, just and morally conscious individuals. Sharyah Raza carried the motion that Charity should begin at home while the Debating Society stubbornly beat down my own argument against the Free Press. It was therefore interesting when Frederick van der Wyck convinced the House that Cheating to win was better than losing honestly. Clearly Westminsters are open-minded enough to interpret ethics according to need.

Julian Elliot (Dryden's)