• Find your nearest CLDS debate club

Our Debating Society

~ The official e-zine of the Central London Debating Society

Tag Archives: law

Video

Debating equal marriage

06 Wednesday Feb 2013

Posted by Tony Koutsoumbos in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

debating, equal marriage, gay rights, law, logical fallacies, parliament, politics, UK

When people look back at yesterday’s momentous vote on equal marriage, they will rightly remember the outcome of what proved to be a long and heated debate, but will they remember the debate itself?

I for one think it is awfully important that they do as a progressive society must first be a debating society for the laws that govern us are decided by the beliefs that define us and a belief is only as strong as the beholder’s ability to defend it.

A great way of spotting a bad argument is to screen it for logical fallacies and Steve Doran, CLDS debate trainer extraordinaire, gives a great summary.

Advertisements

The weekly digest

23 Wednesday Jan 2013

Posted by Tony Koutsoumbos in events, London

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

criminal justice, debating, education, government, Labour, law, Observer, parliament, UK

There’s a lot coming up over the next week, so here’s everything you need to know about what we’re up to in one short blog post.

We’re going to Parliament – twice!

house-of-commons546567876-1ht462t

This Thursday morning, a group of us will be joining up with the British Youth Council to attend the parliamentary debate on votes for 16 year olds. The motion is being brought forward by Liberal Democrat MP for Bristol West, Stephen Williams, a long standing supporter of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. You can find out more about this campaign on the British Youth Council’s website.

We’re back in the House of Commons (how I wish we never had to leave in the first place) on Monday night for the Debating Group’s first meeting of 2013. An exclusive debating society run by and for the marketing and PR industry, every month they give us a handful of tickets to sell on to our wonderful members at an equally wonderful discounted price. Their next debate will be on corporate social responsibility, with some very interesting speakers on the panel including: Keith Weed from Unilever, Hamish Pringle from the Institute of Practitioners of Advertising, Liz Bingham from Ernst and Young, and Mark Lloyd Davies from Johnson and Johnson. We’ll give you the full low-down on how it went next week.

Debating in the news…

Stephen_Twigg_MPLast week Shadow Education Secretary, Stephen Twigg MP, triggered a small media storm when he called on state schools to provide debating and public speaking lessons, as reported by the Daily Telegraph last Thursday. The following Sunday, however, he received a scathing response from Observer columnist, Barbara Ellen. So, we only felt it fit and proper to back up Stephen’s commendable proposals with our own response, which included a few letters to the press and this piece, written for the Huffington Post on Monday.

We, here at CLDS, feel very strongly about the importance of teaching debating in schools from as young an age as possible, so keep your eyes pealed as this won’t be the last you hear from us on this matter.

Our next debate: should the criminal justice system prioritise rehabilitation over punishment?

Prison_cellTomorrow night, we return for our fortnightly debate at the Old Cock Tavern, where we will be sorting out the criminal justice system – you can thank us later Mr Grayling.

The motion is: This house believes that the justice system should prioritise rehabilitation over punishment and as usual it will be CLDS members themselves who will be doing all the talking with at least one of our panel of four speakers taking part in her first ever public debate. We look forward to giving all of them a warm CLDS welcome and invite you to join us too.

Admission to the debate is free as is membership of the club, so simply drop in on the night and say hello. We start at 7.30 pm.

Kick starting 2013 with a debate on sex, drugs, and alcohol…

12 Saturday Jan 2013

Posted by Tony Koutsoumbos in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2013, alcohol, central london debating society, CLDS, consent, debate, drugs, law, morality, sex, UK

yes-no-maybe

Thus began the first public debate of the year at the Central London Debating Society. The motion: This House Believes it is morally wrong to sleep with someone who is under the influence. The teams: a good old fashioned girls vs boys debate made up of young professionals in their 20s who were in no way shape or form basing their arguments on their own experiences (of course not).

The preliminary vote, taken before the debate to see where the audience personally stands on the issue before hearing the speeches, put the young strapping lads opposing the motion in a decisive lead. The pressure was on the girls to come out fighting and that they did with their opening line:

“we’re not opposed to beer and we’re definitely not opposed to sex”

Hurrah!

But…they were opposed to somebody who was completely sober sleeping with someone who was severely intoxicated through alcohol or drugs, irrespective of whether that person had granted consent in their drunken state, because their capacity to give informed consent had been seriously compromised. This, they argued was an immoral action. Instead, the moral thing to do would be to wait until the next day when both people were in a fit and proper state to consent to sex.

The opposition fought valiantly against what they described as the imposition of an overly risk-averse society, but slipped up by defending people who preferred to approach highly inebriated prospective partners (guys and girls hitting on other really wasted guys and girls) on the grounds that such people may be too insecure about their looks or their confidence to approach someone more sober.

The final vote was decisive. 16 in favour vs 8 opposed – a significant reversal.

The question is: what else could the opposition have done to win the debate considering how reasonable a definition the proposition had advanced in the first place?

  1. Address the definition
  2. Address the motion
  3. Address the implications of the motion

Addressing the definition:

A good rule of thumb for an opposing speaker is to begin by clarifying the dividing lines between the two sides. They do this by first highlighting what both teams can agree on and then move on to the issues on which they actively disagree, using the definition provided by the proposer as a starting point.

The opposition in this debate would have benefited immensely from declaring right from the off that they too, naturally, would discourage a sober person from taking advantage of someone who was totally paralytic and waiting a day to secure their full consent. The next question to ask on the back of this is: would stigmatising this particular action deter that person from sleeping with someone who was intoxicated under any circumstances and if so, would this be a good idea? This would lead them neatly on to….

Addressing the motion:

Motions can be broadly divided into policy motions and analysis motions. A policy motion normally starts off with the words This House Would…in which the speaker proposing the motion will normally call on their audience to endorse a specific type of action (e.g. This House Would reinstate the death penalty). An analysis motion normally starts off with the words This House Believes…and instead requires the speaker proposing the motion to prove that a certain statement is true (e.g: This House Believes religion is a force for good in the world).

The motion debated on Thursday was clearly an analysis motion. Our guys on the opposition had to prove the statement was false; and how do you prove anything right or wrong? You test it. If you’re speaking at the Central London Debating Society, you have just five minutes to test it and prove it wrong, so how do you do it?

First of all, pick three examples. You pick three as this will ensure you have enough material to keep you going for five minutes but not so much that you’ll run ridiculously over time. Three is also the magic number in public speaking, often referred to as the rule of three, the number of points you need to make to get your audience to remember anything you’ve said without overloading them with information.

The definition can be your first example, which you’ve already addressed. Great. So now you just need two more. In the case of this particular debate, example number #2 can be what happens if you’re on way to becoming drunk and you see your prospective partner is already pretty far gone. Would the definition offered by the girls proposing the motion suffice to prevent you from drinking any more so that you could retain a sober enough state of mind to NOT sleep with the other person? Most likely, yes. It’s not too far a departure from the original definition, which we’ve already agrees is a good idea.

However, what about example #3 where your prospective partner is totally sober, but tells you in advance that they enjoy sex most when they are drunk or high? Provided they still offered their consent whilst under the influence, would the girls’ definition deter you from sleeping with that person and should it?

Addressing the implications of the motion:

So far, their definition tells us it’s wrong to sleep with someone who is too intoxicated to give consent. It doesn’t say anything about what happens if we ask for consent before they get drunk or high and then ask for it again when they are intoxicated – just to be sure. What does this mean? It means that the sober person in this scenario might well be deterred from sleeping with someone without informed consent, but there is no evidence they would be equally deterred, upon receiving that informed consent, just because the other person is intoxicated. So, how can the statement in the motion be true? Surely, it should now read This House Believes it is morally wrong to sleep with someone without first gaining informed consent – no argument there.

Nevertheless, let’s say we answer yes to the last question. What would that mean? Well, the opposition could argue, it would mean that it doesn’t matter what the other person said when they were sober. If they are intoxicated, they are not capable of making that choice. In other words, the act of getting drunk or high invalidates any prior decision made when sober. That individual, therefore, cannot and should not be held accountable for a decision they freely made when sober if the action taken as a result of that decision is executed when they are intoxicated. 

What if we applied this same logic to driving instead of sex? Somebody drives down to the pub whilst sober and voluntarily imbibes to the point that they exceed the drink-drive limit. They then get in their car and drive home, but on the way they hit and kill a pedestrian. If the actions we take when intoxicated invalidate the choices we freely make when sober, how do we hold that driver accountable for the death of the pedestrian?

The outcome of example #3, it could therefore be argued, would be to create a society which places far stricter limits on both personal choice and personal responsibility than we are presently willing to accept. That would make the question with which the opposition actually did end their speech much more powerful: “is this the type of society you want to live in?”

You can follow the Central London Debating Society’s public debates live via our Twitter feed. The next one takes place at 7.30 pm on Thursday 24th February at the Old Cock Tavern, 22 Fleet Street, EC4Y 1AA. We will announce the motion on our blog next weekend.

Tony Koutsoumbos is the President of the Central London Debating Society and CEO of CLDS Debate Training 

Blogroll

  • Discuss
  • Get Polling
  • GlobalNet21
  • StoryWorks
  • Central London Debating Society (CLDS)
  • CLDS Debate Training
  • The Debating Group

CLDS Partners

  • Frontline Club Frontline Club
  • Debating Europe Debating Europe

Links

  • Society of Cogers
  • London Debating Hub

Recent Posts

  • Coming up next week….
  • Terrorism Debate – Thursday 30 May – Central London Debating Society
  • Public Debate: Faith Schools And Diversity. Do They Help or Hinder?
  • Next debate: This House Would pay UK companies not to use overseas sweatshops
  • Debates in London this week….

Upcoming Events

No upcoming events

Our Debating Society on Facebook

Our Debating Society on Facebook
Advertisements

Categories

  • events
  • London
  • review
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • November 2012
  • August 2012

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel