Tag Archive for: Debate

European Youth Parliament – Pupil Report

Harry Williams, Form V, writes on his recent experience taking part in the European Youth Parliament.

From April 3rd to the 8th I was invited to a European Youth Parliament National Session which took place between Cork and Dublin, concluding with a general assembly in the Dáil Éireann. I was in Dunmore East at the time meaning my dad had the pleasure of driving me about two hours to Cork for the registration and first day. After saying goodbye I made my way to the table at the back of Cork College FET, filled with faces that I’d soon come to know and, after a few technical difficulties, I was up and running with my very own lanyard and committee that I would soon be a part of. Since I was there by myself and didn’t really see anybody I could recognize from the regional session I had done a few months prior, I was slightly by myself. There were kids milling about the large conference room, laughing and chatting amongst themselves. They all seemed quite content in their little circles of comfort, so I decided to put on my big boy boots and walked towards the nearest group of people and introduced myself.

I was terrified as I walked up, since you always expect a bit of shunning or some sort when meeting new children your age but, to no one’s surprise, everybody was extremely welcoming and considerate. Turns out there were a couple faces I could recognise from the Dublin session and after reintroducing ourselves (and, at the time, me remembering none of their names) we got to reminiscing on the whimsical things we took part in at the regionals. Remembering this helped a lot with reconnecting, and so did the absolutely amazing lunch of a cold service station sandwich they gave us. I would become very familiar with these in the coming days of the event.

After everybody registered they began with the introductions of the organisers of the event and ”energisers”. For those in the dark an “energiser” is just about the most mortifying thing you can think of doing as a cool and mysterious teenager, group singing and dancing. Typically an organiser will get into the middle of a large circle of adolescents and start singing a “sing after me song” in which the rest of the room copies what the organiser is doing/saying. After a couple of excruciating and also weirdly fun minutes, we assembled into our committees with our chairpersons making their own introductions. The chairperson is similar to that of the mom/dad of the group who is a couple years older and supervises the committee so we actually get stuff done. Then we moved upstairs and got to getting to know each other by playing name games, dancing, and debating morality and guilt.

Following this, we had some tea and biscuit (we were only allowed one) and went back to playing catch with the speaking ball or guessing which instrument the person next to us is likely to play. Once the group had decided I was a tin whistler, we had dinner (a slice of vaguely stale lasagna) and transferred over to our hostel for the next four days. After unpacking and meeting the roommates, I went down and began the nightly ritual of playing a game of cards with way too many people, putting a couple cards into my pockets, winning, and then heading to bed just as I was going to lose. The next day we continued with the team building, this time with competitions between committees.

After dominating every other group, we started thinking about ideas for our resolution. The committee I was on was called TRAN, or the Committee for Transport and Tourism. Our proposing question was “In light of the 2050 EU carbon target, how should the EU further improve the sustainability of domestic and international transportation?” As riveting as it may sound, for me it was actually my first choice. So I was happy to waffle on as much as possible about high-speed rails and how planes and rich people are bad. The following two days were spent on what was called “committee work”. In normal terms, a bunch of kids get together and try their best to come up with a solution to a major EU wide problem. It actually went quite smoothly, bar a few hiccups about monopolies and world domination.

Once we had finished with all of this committee work we were given a day’s break to go to Fotá, Ireland’s premier wildlife picture taking area. However the organizers of the event seemed to have forgotten that it was April in Ireland so Fotá, Ireland’s premier wildlife picture taking area, was closed due to storms. As such the organizers brought us to the next best thing, Kung-Fu Panda 4. After a mid-tier Kung-Fu Panda movie, we made the transfer to Dublin and had some delicious lunch (cold service station sandwiches). We unpacked our bags in a newer and nicer hostel and headed downstairs for more music and card games. That night every committee’s resolution was released for all of the other committees to critique and tear apart. This led to a few dorm wars but thankfully only a few lives were lost.

The next morning was a great healthy start with one apple for breakfast and the hope that I could make it the next 4 hours without eating anything. We made the ten minute bus ride to the Dáil Éireann and got our very own passes and metal detector tests before heading in. The chamber was exactly like on TV, but in real life. The whole situation didn’t quite feel serious until the speaker of the Dáil came and gave us a talk. At which point I began to understand that I was, in fact, sitting in the seat of major politicians in Ireland. After the Lord Mayor of Dublin spoke next, we began the General Assembly. This was a process in which one committee would give an opening speech, then there would be two position speeches (speeches given by opposing or agreeing committees), followed by three rounds of open debate.

These rounds of open debate would start by the jury calling on around six points of interest from opposing committees and then after which the proposing committee would respond as best they could. Once these debates were finished, there was a closing speech and then all of the committees would vote on the motion and whether it should pass. Once the votes were tallied, and the resolution passed or failed, the whole process was restarted. On the first day, there were three committees before lunch, two after, and then a coffee break. After the coffee break (still one biscuit) we began the final two. We finished around four o’ clock after which we went back to the hostel to enjoy more live music and dancing and cards. The final day we had three committees before lunch and then the final committee proposing after lunch. TRAN (my committee) was third on the second day, so I had plenty of time to tear out my hair over every single word on our resolution in an attempt to predict what people would criticize. Of course, I wasn’t even close to any of them but at least I felt like I was doing something. When our committee was proposing the time went by a little too quickly in the run up to my turn. I was responding to the second round of open debate which was stressful enough, but the whole operation being televised and having every team member throwing sticky notes with valuable information on them at me didn’t help. But I managed to get through it without making a complete fool of myself which I was quite happy with. On top of that I managed to tear down another committees’ resolution as they had forgotten to include a way to solve one major issue that they had mentioned in their very own resolution. So if that’s not indicative of a great time I don’t know what is.

Our ending ceremony was emotional as the organizers had spent the last 9 months doing what their names suggest, so their attachment was definitely reasonable and if I was in their position I probably would’ve shed a few tears as well. After the closing, we got a goodie bag from the government and after a few photos, exchanging numbers, and collecting bags, I said my goodbyes and headed back to school. The whole ordeal left me quite exhausted but also very satisfied. There is something very special about the EYP program. It teaches you how to become fast friends, as well as slight enemies. The competition was good-spirited and at the end of the day we were all just happy to have done it. I would highly highly recommend the whole thing to anyone who is even moderately interested in not politics, but making a small change.

An interesting story I heard about during the session was that one of the resolutions that got turned down in a previous national session was then redone in an international session. This was passed in the international session, which led to a committee in the actual European Parliament proposing a real proposition that was noticeably similar to the international sessions, and it then getting passed. So if you ever feel as though nothing you do actually impacts those around you, maybe reconsider. It could be that by doing one of the silly little regional sessions you’ll find that tearing apart other people’s ideas while giving no solution in the meanwhile is actually very very fun. 

/by
,

Transition Year Half Term News

The first eight weeks of Transition Year 2023-2024 have been typically hectic. In the classroom, the pupils continue to expand their knowledge and skills across a wide range of subjects and most recently received their Junior Cycle results. While we place a strong emphasis on academic progression in TY at St. Columba’s, there is still plenty of opportunity to explore interests beyond the classroom.

So far this term, the Transition Year pupils have welcomed Stephen Kiernan (motivational speaker), Alex Hibbert (Arctic explorer), John Lonergan (former Governor of Mountjoy), Fiona Boobbyer (expert on human trafficking) and Stephen Conway from Team Hope’s Christmas Shoebox Appeal. Visiting speakers are a great way of expanding the worldview of the pupils and we’re enormously grateful for all those who come and speak with our pupils.

There have also been several expeditions, with a visit to Flynn Park for outdoor activities an early highlight. They’ve also visited the Seán O’Casey Theatre to see ‘Bullied’, an excellent play on the theme, which was a Bullying Awareness Week activity. More recently, the TY biologists visited Dublin Zoo for an evolution workshop and, of course, had a chance to see the impressive animals there and explore the conservation work taking place there.

Charitable work is always at the core of our programme and we’ve been delighted to help fundraise for the Hope Foundation and Team Hope. The Transition Year pupils also organised a ‘Colour Run’ to help raise more funds for the Hope Foundation – it was a brilliant, colourful event and will surely cement itself in the College calendar.

The annual TY House Speech competition also took place. There was a high standard overall. Rebekah Fitzgerald Hollywood and Safia Walker were equal second, the clear winner being Grace Koch with her account of her great-grandmother, Freda Ulman Teitelbaum – you can read her speech here.

This week, the Transition Year pupils are completing their Community Involvement placement. This new addition to the TY programme sees every pupil work with a charitable or not-for-profit organisation, gaining valuable insight into teach charity but also building their knowledge of the world of work.

There’s been time for some fun activities too and most recently the TY pupils honed their pumpkin carving skills.

Well done to Ms Lynch and her team for putting together and coordinating the complex machine that is the Transition Year.

/by

Model United Nations 2022

The Model United Nations is a fantastic extracurricular schools programme, involving schools participating from all over the world. It challenges students of all abilities to develop skills and improve confidence. The Model UN simulates the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council, assigning countries to individual schools and asking them to speak and work on behalf of that country, usually on a specific issue e.g. climate change. Recently, the College Model UN team (supported by Dr Robson) took part in an online Model UN Assembly. Form V pupil Kate Higgins reports:

Last Friday January 28th 2022, our team of 12 delegates and 3 research assistants logged into a zoom conference modelled after the COP26 climate change conference that was held in Glasgow last November. Schools from countries all over the world, such as Australia, China, and the UK, joined us each assigned to represent countries other than their own. Our team was assigned China and, over the period of 3 weeks, we met after school to research China’s approach to climate change and formulate our responses to the various resolutions that had been put forward.

On the day itself, the zoom conference had almost 150 people logged on, and the conference started at 10am for us here in Ireland. First up were talks and introductions from various speakers along with an opening speech from a delegate from each school. Ours was delivered by Wong in TY who even got a special mention from one of the chairmen after the debating and is definitely a very talented speaker.

It was then around 11 o’clock when the debating began. We were divided up into 3 break-out rooms depending on which resolution would be debated. Within my break-out room, we were speaking about the phasing out of coal and subsidies, while the other 2 were about carbon tax and the protection of vulnerable communities. Two hours were to be spent in these break-out rooms debating anywhere between 8 and 12 clauses, however, within my own break out room we spent the entirety of the two hours only the first 4-5 clauses and ran out of time to finish the rest, showing how dedicated every delegate was.

Each break-out room group had their own successes, my fellow delegates and I successfully argued for the removal of the 2nd and 3rd clauses, these clauses penalised low-income countries and made no allowance for historically differentiated carbon emissions. Our proposed amendment to the 4th clause was adopted, this made allowance for lower-income and developing countries to maintain strategically important fossil fuel subsidies while they progressed towards phasing out coal. We were also commended for our positive contribution and strong arguments with a special mention in the General Assembly for Cheuk Yin Wong for his commanding contributions. In the second break-out room, dealing with carbon tax, the delegates successfully amended the 1st clause of the resolution which embedded a higher and incrementally increasing rate of carbon tax contributions for countries based on the length of time for which they have been industrialised. These delegates were commended in Plenary Session (General Assembly) for their substantial and positive contribution. In the final break-out room, discussing climate finance and the protection of vulnerable communities, the delegates were initially thrown by an unexpected vote to delete clause 4 which was their primary target for amendments. They stuck to their task and collaborated very impressively in the ongoing debate, and successfully amended clause 8, concerning sanctions for non-compliance with climate funding commitments.

After these break-out rooms, we had a 20-minute break during which there were pastries, sandwiches and hot chocolate which was very kindly brought to the BSR by the kitchen staff. After our break, we returned once more to our various devices for feedback from the break-out rooms and a word of thanks from each school taking part; our thanks was relayed brilliantly by Elena O’Dowd, Form V. Our entire team consisted of 3 TYs (Cheuk Yin, Elizabeth & Lorne) and 9 Form V pupils (Elys, Isabel, Nikolai, Elena, Georgie, Kamilla, Florian, Monty, and I), then, of course, we had 3 Form V pupils helping with research in the lead up and on the day itself who can’t go without mention, MacKenzie, Elle and Tadhg. Of course, none of this would have happened without the brilliant planning and coordination of Dr Robson and a huge thanks is in order, it truly was a brilliant experience.

/by

Professor Luke O’Neill Live Webinar on Covid-19: Vaccines, Antibodies & Anti-Virals

Luke O’Neill is a Professor of Biochemistry and Immunology at Trinity College Dublin and one of Ireland’s leading science figures. He has been a prominent figures on Irish radio and TV over the past number of years and in particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic, providing evidence-based advice for the general public on minimising the risk of contracting Covid-19.

We are delighted to announce that Professor O’Neill will host a live webinar for pupils, teachers and parents on Friday April 24th at  7:00pm. The title of his presentation is “A frenzy of activity: vaccines, antibodies, anti-virals and anti-inflammatories against COVID19“.

To join the webinar simply click on FireFly logo above. This post contains the details of the Google Meet link  (you will need to log in to your FireFly portal to access). Professor O’Neill will give a short presentation before taking some questions from those attending (you can add your questions into the “chat” during the webinar).

/by

Debating News

This weekend was an important one, in the St. Columba’s Debating Calendar. Two houses, Glen and Iona came together in the House Debates Final. Tensions were high as boys’ house Glen -previously on 189 points- competed against girls’ house Iona who were twice winners of the previous rounds and on 181 points. The motion before the house was that “this house believes that, in the current era of climate change, non-violent direct action is vital”. While it was a wordy motion, adjudicators Mr Brett and Mr Canning felt that all speakers engaged in a high standard of debate. In the end, Iona were deemed House Debates Champions, “on the basis of their passion for what they argued”. Amy Cosgrove, Head of House for Iona, was awarded best speaker on the night.

Speakers on both sides included Ben Upton, Thady McKeever and Phillip Sheckleton for Glen and Amy Cosgrove, Sinead Cleary and Megan Bulbulia for Iona. A special thanks to Dmytro Kasienenko for his excellent chairing of the debate and Shannon Dent who acted as time-keeper. Third formers Amelia McKeever and Nina O’Flynn kindly set up the BSR and helped Ms Morley to coordinate the rooms.

In other debating news, Saturday was also the evening of the last round of Junior Debates. In a most engaging manner, pupils debated the motion that “this house this house believes that, in order to be allowed to vote, citizens must pass a mandatory test on politics, general knowledge and current affairs”. Points of clash included the question of inclusion, good decision making and the extent to which such a move would promote the kind of equality upon which democracies are built. Mr Swift, adjudicator for the evening, commended all speakers for their efforts, but particularly those who spoke with clarity and conviction.Winner on the night was first former Shannon Walker-Kinsella who first made her debut as winner of the second round of Junior Debates. The motion was successfully opposed. Christopher Atkins was awarded ‘best point of information from the floor’.

Speakers on both sides included Tadhg Rane O’Chianain, Lorne Walsh, Florian Zitzmann and Alex Hinde (all proposition) and Carl Krenski, Calvin She, Naoise Murray, Tyrone Shi and Shannon Walker-Kinsella (all opposition).

Best luck to Gioia Von Doenhoff, Elise Williams, Sinead Cleary and Aiyuni O’Grady who will represent the college in the second round of the UCD Leinster Senior Debates on Tuesday 21 January.

/by

Model United Nations

Dmytro Kasianenko, Form V, reports on his experience at the Model United Nations event in Wesley College last week.

As our team was registering for the Model United Nations, I, honestly speaking, didn’t expect much from it – just another debating competition. But, as it turned out, Model United Nations was one of the best experiences in my humble debating career. It happened at Wesley College on Friday and Saturday the 8thand 9th, about two weeks ago.

In regards to the structure of the debates, it was quite simple. First of all, each debating team was given a country to represent. In our case it was Canada. Secondly, each team member was assigned to a certain committee and was to represent the views of Canada on given topics. For example, I was in the political committee and one of the themes discussed was “Chinese neo-Colonialism in Angola”. Since all delegates in one committee had researched the topics beforehand, the argument for and against the motion was absorbing. Thirdly, each person in the committee had to use certain language structures, as for representing the country as a whole. For instance, we used the pronoun “we” instead of the pronoun “I”, or “delegate” instead of the pronoun “you”.

After committee work was finished, each team participated in the General assembly. In it, we had to debate all the clauses for the unseen resolution, which were written by all teams beforehand. At this stage of the MUN, we had to work as a team on the same problem. Interestingly, at the General Assembly, there was an ability to collaborate with other teams via passing notes from table to table. The note passing was done secretaries, who were walking around the room hastily.

Another thing worth mentioning was the organisation. All the organisation was led by Form VI pupils in Wesley College. They had put in place a lot of work to make that competition possible. It is somewhat like a tradition whereas many pupils as possible from Wesley participate in making the competition happen. They have set up a website, sent out the invitations to schools, decided upon the themes of the debate and even printed out the MUN newspaper. It was very enjoyable to participate and we felt welcomed since the age difference between all the people who participated in it wasn’t that big.

In general, it may initially seem like the UN style of debating is very rigid and disorganized. Although, it is the only known way to keep a respectful debate with many other countries. Nevertheless, even though this competition wasn’t particularly successful for us, in the next one we will know what to do better.

Finally, the big idea behind the competition is just to: have fun, make friends and debate along the way.

/by

Phil Speaks

Form V pupil Megan Bulbulia reports on her recent experience of the ‘Phil Speaks’ debating competition.

When I put my name forward to go to the ‘Phil Speaks’ debating competition in Trinity, I was very nervous about what was to come. What would the motions be? Would I even understand the motions? Would I get lost in the maze that is Trinity College Dublin? And perhaps most importantly, would there really be free pizza there!?

Thankfully I only got lost once and there was pizza ordered in bulk both days! As for the motions, more random than Harry Oke-Osanyintolu had warned us. Our first motion was  “This House Believes that the media has a responsibility to show the full horrors of war.” Katherine Kelly and I had 15 minutes to prepare our five-minute speeches. To say that this was stressful would be an understatement, the 15 minutes flew by and before we knew it we were strongly opposing the motion. It was an interesting and engaging the debate in which we placed 3rd. Not bad we thought, against a strong proposition.

The next motion was “This House regrets the American Dream.” This proved difficult to propose, as the debate became centralised on the concept of whether hard work equals reward, a central idea in our society and of course the educational system.
We emerged from this debate in 4th place but with increasing knowledge of debating strategies and approaches which would prove useful.

After a filling lunch of Apache pizza, we were given our third and final motion of the day. “This House Would delete all social media.” Katherine and I were proposing this motion, we used our gained knowledge of how to coherently structure a debate, forming it almost like a mathematical equation, proving points x and y, to our advantage. This round was a closed round, which means we don’t know where we placed, but our tactics were proving effective and became procedure in our two next debates.

The next morning we registered again, with a slight change to the teams. Katherine and I stayed together while Shannon Dent paired with Dmytro Kasianenko in place of Oda Michel who unfortunately wasn’t feeling well. The motion was announced and Katherine and I had 15 minutes to scurry off to the School of Histories and Humanities Arts Building, (this was when we got lost.) We were proposing the motion that “This House Regrets art that glorifies gaining material wealth”. With Dmytro and Shannon on our tea,m we gave the opposition a united Columba’s front! It was an interesting debate, focused around the excessive wealth of popular musicians and online influencers, each team managed to work an Ariana Grande reference into their speech as part of the ‘Goofball Challenge.’

Our fifth and final debate was “This House Believes that occupying vacant buildings in protest of widespread homelessness is a legitimate political act.” For our last debat,e Katherine and I used all of our gained knowledge from the four previous debates into a strategical and tactical argument. We both spoke for the full five minutes and we felt like we had strongly and convincingly proposed our last motion. Unfortunately, we didn’t earn a place in the Quarter Finals but what we definitely earned was a sense of achievement and a wider knowledge of how to structure and deliver a clear-cut speech within a debate. We also met secondary school pupils from all over the country, and we had an opportunity to explore Trinity also! I would definitely recommend The Phil Speaks Debating Competition to anyone and it was a very enjoyable experience.

/by
,

Senior Debate Final

Shannon Dent reports on the final round of the senior debate, which took place last week.

The idea of completely getting rid of religion over time seems like an impossible task with a lot of issues at hand. It is a very difficult motion to lean to one particular side. There are pros and cons to each, and listening to this debate was a very intriguing experience and well done to all of those to took part in it.

The debate was between our two finalists, Glen and Hollypark. Glen supported the motion while Hollypark debated against it. William Zitzmann was the very first speaker. He talked about the general issues that have been caused by religion. He didn’t just mention events of the past but also mentioned acts of violence because of religion today! He even played with the thought that Jesus was actually anti religion. William gave a introduction to what Glen believed the motion meant. Their main idea concentrated on how religion and faith are two very different things. The first speaker from Hollypark was next and that was Georgia Keegan Wignall. Georgia gave a very articulate speech about how religion was part of human rights, and how we should be able to decide to follow religion or not. She talked about how religion actually brings people together and helps people deal with the very scary concept of death. Georgia, just like William, gave us the main idea for Hollyparks argument.

Ji Woo Park was next as the second speaker for Glen. He gave eloquent and understandable argument that definitely drew everyone in. He further explained the main argument for Glen; religion and faith are two different things and he gave us some differences between the two. Ji Woo even quoted the Bible and showed us how there are many examples of immoral ideas, such as misogyny. He said that people can be faithful and not have to follow all the rules of religion. He also went on to talk about the vast differences of the world back then and the world now. The second speaker for Hollypark was Catherine Butt. She opened up her speech by asking the audience to imagine what life would be like without religion. She even acknowledged the problems religion has caused but how they didn’t necessarily have to be linked back to religion as these people are extremists. Another very valid point that Catherine brought us was the one of charities and how most of them have been built up by religion. She said “Religion teaches the art of giving and this is not just christianity”.

In Glen’s closing argument, given by Harry Oke, they wrapped up and reiterated some of Glen’s strongest points. He brought the debate back to him and showed us a personal view on it all. He talked about faith and religion once again and he even related back to Catherine’s point of charities and he said that charities would continue as they are built by faith, not just religion and the church. He finished off by saying “A person can be good without religion them to be”. Then Alexandra Murray Donaldson wrapped up by talking about how some people need religion to have a good life. It is comforting and a tradition. She also said that people cannot be restricted from religion, they should be able to follow religion if that’s what they want. She finished off by saying “Religion is part of a person’s family and soul. How would it even be possible to get rid of it”.

In conclusion, the debate was summarized by Mr. McCarthy, one of the judges. He announced the winners, Glen, and the best speaker, Ji Woo Park. He gave a bit of his opinion on the verdict as well as some comments to all the speakers. Thank you to our judges (Mr McCarthy, Ms Morley and Mr Brett), the audience members and to all of those who took part. Finally a big thank you to Ms Duggan for co-ordinating the debate throughout the year.

/by

Junior Debating Final

Tadhg Rane O Cianain reports on last weekend’s Junior Debate final.

To be serious about climate change one needs to give up meat. This was the motion of the final of the Junior Debate this year, held in the BSR last Saturday night . On the proposing side, there was Calvin She, Form I, who started his team off with a good speech showing that his work was well researched, giving many statistics and facts. Next from the proposing Emma Hinde, Form III, delivered her speech with a nifty use of pie charts to back up her argument while also putting the opposition on the spot with a couple good point of orders. Form III pupil Caroline Hagar projected her speech across the hall with great ease and confidence giving many good examples backing the already well-delivered speech, she also contributed strong replies on a couple tricky queries from the audience. Last but not least Alex Hinde from Form II rounded up his teams work, which is a hard job, but Alex managed with ease much like his sister. On the opposing team, Donald Thompson, Form III, started his team off with many good points about eating habits affecting climate change and how we can help climate change by buying from local organic farmers instead of big companies. Ben Patterson then delivered his verdict giving good examples on the argument and altogether laying down a good case. Next Christopher Atkins, another Form I pupil, gave his speech with ease bringing many interesting points onto the floor having experience from previous debates. Finally, for the opposing team, Daniel Murray, also Form I, who throughout the debate had viciously questioned the opposition backing them into a corner where they struggled to answer, attacked and dismantled the opposition’s argument with ease and with a great choice of words. In the end the proposing team reigned victorious through confident well delivered speaking and great choice of evidence. The best speaker was awarded to both Daniel Murray and Caroline Hagar, who both performed amazingly. All in all it was a great intense debate with a great topic and I am counting down the days until the next one.

/by

Senior Debates – Round 2

Shannon Dent reports on the most recent round of the Senior Debating Competiton. Motion: This house believes individual apathy is the greatest threat to our climate

Climate change, a very difficult topic to debate indeed. It is one of the main concerns circulating around the globe, so how could we be able to give solutions and answers? Well, we can’t but we can try, and this is exactly what some of St. Columbas’s pupils have done last Saturday activities.

The debates were really well done and I’m sure everyone enjoyed them. Some of the main questions that were discussed during the debates were: What will happen to people that live off of places that are negatively contributing to the environment? What about employees in big companies that would have to be fired if these companies were shut down? Are we too late? Is there nothing we can do? Debating in the Cadogan was Stackallan vs. Iona, a very good and thought-provoking debate indeed with Stackallan as the winners. Debating for Stackallan: Euan Dunlop, Oscar Yan and Juhyun Kim.  Debating for Iona: Kate Maylor, Raphaela and Laeticia Schoenberg. In the Lower Argyle, Hollypark vs. Gwynn, this was a wonderful debate with a lot of good debaters. Debating for Hollypark, who left victoriously, Aiyuni O’Grady, Elise Williams and Ailbhe Matthews. Debating for Gwynn, Daniel Swift, Kaspar Twietmeyer and Fintan Walsh. Finally debating in the BSR, Tibradden and Beresford vs. Glen, there was a very active debate with very passionate audience members and debaters. Debating for Tibradden and Beresford, Songyon Oh, Abigail O’Brien and Noah Leach. Debating for Glen, the winners of this debate, David White, Frank Babajide and Harry Oke.

These were all very entertaining debates and the decision was very difficult to make as the winners of these debates will go on to participate in the final. As for the rest, there is always next year, but if you’re not willing to wait for that long there are lots of opportunities to debate throughout the year so don’t worry.

Thank you for all of those who debated, the people that judged them. Being able to debate is a very useful skill to have and it is also very fun. So get involved! You won’t regret it.

/by
,

House Debates & House Speeches

Last weekend saw the first round of House Debates on Saturday evening, both Junior & Senior, and the Transition Year House Speech competition on Sunday night – always a lively affair.

Shannon Dent reports on the Senior Debate:

The topic discussed in the first round was Voluntourism and if it should be banned or not. Some of the major key points that were brought up in the debates were the negative after effects of voluntourism and how it can be detrimental to a small disadvantaged community. As well as how voluntourism can have a positive effect on both the voluntourist and the people receiving the help by being able to provide an experience for both sides. This topic is a bit difficult to discuss because it can go either way. It brings up many questions such as: Do people receiving the help from voluntourism get used to it and do not try to improve their well being? What happens to the people after the voluntourists are gone? Are buildings created by voluntourists of good quality? Why would it be wrong to volunteer while on your vacation? Is it really helping? Do people benefit from it? The subject is different for every case but the debaters on the night did a very good job supporting their argument. Debating in the Cadogan, with a very thought provoking debate there was a combination of Beresford and Tibradden proposing against Gwynn. Speakers for Tibradden and Beresford: Caoimhe Cleary, Georg Mueller-Methling and Noah Leach. Speakers for Gwynn: Toby Green, Killian Morrel and Alexander Casado. Debating in the Lower Argyle, a very strong and interesting debate between Iona and Glen took place. Speakers for Iona: Amy Cosgrove, Éile Ní Chianain and Sinead Cleary. Speakers for Glen: James Park, Dmytro Kasianenko and William Zitzmann. Finally debating in the BSR, with a very engaging debate was Hollypark proposing against Stackallan. Speakers for Hollypark: Georgia Wignall, Alexandra Murray and Sofia Leach. The winners were Gwynn, Glen and Stackallan.

To finalize, this first round of debates was a great way to start a new year of debating. Congratulations to the winning houses and to all the speakers involved. Thank you to Mr Brett, Ms Lynch and Ms Morely for being the adjudicators of the evening. Well done to Amy Cograve, Jiwoo Park, San Lawrence and Toby Greene who awarded “best speakers” for the first round. Also a quick reminder that for the next round, electronic devices will not be allowed while debating, handwritten notes are accepted. Once you have your debaters for the next round we ask you to email them to Ms Duggan as soon as possible. Good luck on the next few rounds and do try to get involved!

Thea Walsh, Form III, reports on the Junior Debates:

My debating team consisted of Sophie Webb, Rachel Mungavin, Henry Johnson, Christopher Atkins and myself, Thea Walsh. We were proposing the motion ”This House Believes that Fast Food Should be Banned’. The opposition team was Emma Hinde, Akin Babajide, Miles Bubulia and Wolfgang Romanowski. There were some thoughtful and provocative speeches  presented on the night and also some very intelligent points of order, which put each speaker on the spot. A special well done to Christopher Atkins, new to the school in September, who was the only first former debating on the night. As there is growing interest in debating, Miss Dugan and I are floating the idea of a junior house debating competition to mirror the one taking place between the senior houses. At the end of the night, after questions from the floor, the winners were announced. The team proposing the motion won. Rachel Mungavin won the accolade of best speaker. A special thank you Miss Morley for adjudicating and Miss Duggan for making all of this possible.

Ms Duggan facilitating the Junior Debate.

It was a fantastic night overall and a great start to the year’s public speaking events. However, much like Dublin buses, you wait weeks for one public speaking event and the second one follows soon after. On Sunday, ten inspired Transition Year pupils spoke passionately on a wide range of subjects – from gun control & dyslexia to religion & the Leaving Cert – but it was Raphaela Ihuoma who emerged victorious. Iona were named the House winners. Well done to all on providing interesting, entertaining and thoughtful speeches.

/by

Phil Speaks

Harry Oke, Form V, reports on the latest debating team competition – The PhilSpeaks at TCD.

The PhilSpeaks debating competition is a yearly debating competition organised by the Philosophical Society (The Phil) in Trinity College Dublin. This is the second year St. Columba’s has taken part in this competition, as debating becomes an increasingly strong part of our community. There were four teams of two in total that went for this event. And regardless of the fact that most people had not taken part in this form of debating, we were all willing to give it a shot. The teams were Toby Green and Georgia Keegan-Wignall, Caoimhe Cleary and Shannon Dent, Jakob Hasburg and James O’Connor and finally Jack Stokes and me, Harry Oke..

We were required to prepare a debate in fifteen minutes after we were told the motion without the aid of any sources except our minds. There were four sides, Opening Government, Opening Opposition, Closing Government and Closing Opposition. Jack and I found it relatively easier than the others as this is our second year but were still faced with the challenge of creating points that could win us the debate. Nevertheless, we all rose to the challenge and were able to work together and give well structured speeches.

Some of the topics were, “This house would ban homeschooling”, “This house would ban UFC” and “This house would force priests to report any violent or serious crimes they are told in Confession”. These were very different topics but I felt that we all complemented each other in our respective teams. Each person brought a different perspective to each argument, and produced an interesting and lively debate. Each side has to be original as you get no points for stating what a previous side has stated.
Unfortunately, none of our teams made it to the final, which was discouraging, but it was a fantastic weekend where we met a lot of wonderful people, created new experiences, fostered our deep passion for debating and overalls had an amazing time. I especially want to thank Ms. Duggan for all her hard work and this could have not been possible without her unwavering support.

/by

European Youth Parliament

Caoimhe Cleary reports on her recent experience at the European Youth Parliament. 

Earlier this term Harry Oke and I were invited by Ms Duggan to take part in an event called “The European Youth Parliament”. The European Parliament in essence is a simulation of the EU democratic process, and seeks to show its participants how legislation is actually passed in Europe. This is done by separating everybody at the event into the different committees and giving each group a motion. We then had two days to develop and prepare to argue for the implementation of our policy. I would fully recommend this event to everybody for two main reasons.

Firstly, this was a really informative and educational experience. I feel as if I really understand how legislation and bills are both put forth and denied now and, as someone who isn’t a European native, I walked away with a much greater understanding of the European system. It also helped train my ability to work with others to develop and defend a debating motion. I also learned how to argue against an argument in real time.

The second reason I would encourage somebody to attend EYP would be just because of how fun it is! As dull as taking part in the European democratic process may seem, it’s surprisingly enjoyable! The organisers and team leaders are very friendly, and you really do make friends! The friends I made I am still in contact with today. There was also a disco on the second day, which was amazing. I’m still not sure which part of the legislation process that fits in with.

/by

French & Spanish Debating

The first round of the Joutes Oratoires, the national French debating competition organised by the Alliance Française, took place on Monday evening and saw the St. Columba’s team of Nyla Jamieson (captain), Georg Müller-Methling, James Park and Sophie Wainwright propose the motion Il faudrait interdire les zoos (Zoos should be forbidden) against a team from Sandford Park School. The debate was heated with some very well-researched and well-constructed speeches delivered by both sides, along with some sharp rebuttals and counter-rebuttals, all through French. However, the impressive level of teamwork and comprehensive consideration of the motion saw St. Columba’s emerge victorious and proceed to the second round in November.

There was similar success in round one of the inter-schools Spanish debating competition, held is Castleknock College last week. The team was made up of Grace Goulding, Lucia Masding, Anna Laurenceau, Suji Franckel and Alexandra Murray Donaldson. The motion for their debate was “This house does not support independence for Cataluña” and they successfully supported the motion against a strong team from Mac Dara’s of Templeogue and they now move onto the next round after half term. A particular well done to Anna Laurenceau who won the award for best speaker.

/by

Senior Debating Team News

Form V pupil Harry Oke writes this update on Senior Debating in the College

It is great to know debating and public speaking has become something greatly valued in St Columba’s. So far this term we have been involved in our own in-house Debating Competition, the Oxford Schools Debating Competition, the European Youth Parliament and the Concern Debates.  The first round of the Senior House Debating Competition began September 30th with the motion, “This house would ban users of performance enhancing drugs for life”. The line-up was Glen against Hollypark, Tibradden & Beresford against Stackallan and Iona versus Gwynn. Glen, Stackallan and Iona were victorious but who knows what the future will holds for all houses in round two of the debates in the second half of the Michaelmas term.

The 2017-18 Concern Debates have also begun and St Columba’s put forward a team led by Jack Stokes. Unfortunately, we were not able to carry the motion “To end hunger, the world must embrace GMOs” against a formidable team from Tallaght Community School. The most important thing from all these debates irrespective of winning or losing is what you learn and gain from the experience. Debating informs us about things that are happening in our world. It affirms or challenges our original beliefs and encourages us to question everything. Debating makes us use what makes us different from all other animals, our minds. I deeply encourage anyone to give debating and public speaking a try because it is worth it. It makes us act instead of being observers and it makes us assertive. It makes us independent and there is nothing better than being your own person!

/by
,

‘Phil Speaks’

The ‘Phil Speaks’ Debating Competition 20th /21st January

Harry Oke-Osanyintolu reports:

The Phil Speaks competition 2017 was nothing close to what we imagined; it was much better. We arrived at Trinity College, Dublin at around 9:00 am before the first round. We had to register our names and our school’s name and then came the hard part, we had to talk to other people or else we would stand out as being socially awkward individuals. This was easier for some of the members of the team because they knew some people but for me, it was harder than the debates. They announced the first topic which saved me from embarrassing myself in front of strangers which was ”  this house would abolish monarchism”. This was an unfamiliar topic to me but not for my better half, Jack Stokes who knew exactly what he was saying. There was a twist in this round because we had to go against our other team made up of Sophie Matthews and Marie-Pauline Bleyl. Both of them were capable opponents and lived up to expectation. I felt we debated this topic well by mentioning how monarchism led to patriotism and also mentioning aspects of monarchism that led to our present civilization. We mentioned the Oyo kingdom as a form of monarchism that brought music, art, architecture and other aspects of development into Nigeria and other countries in Africa.

Our opponents mentioned King Nero as a form of bad monarchism but we were able to use the fact that King Nero closed the Amphitheater for 10 years to ensure the safety of the people of Pompeii. We came second and our other team came third. This was a great first round outcome especially for our third team made up of Emily Devereux and Abraham Lozano who came out on top even though they thought they were supporting the motion while they were opposing it for the first minutes of the debate which I found outstanding.

The next round took it up a level, we were against people who were at our standard and the topic of “this house believes that  feminist icons such as Beyonce and Taylor Swift and others like them have contributed positively to the feminist movement”. The moment we saw this topic our jaws dropped and we knew we had to bring out our inner feminist to ensure our victory in supporting the motion. This was very difficult but  we used our fire and ice approach which was Jack would be calm and I would heat the place up by show of enthusiasm. We came second again but our other  teams both came fourth which was a surprise because they thought they performed  better.

As an event we were invited to, we felt it would be of a low standard but the truth is that it was far from it, We were served pizza which we all loved and also enjoyed spending time with different people who shared our love of debating. This concludes our first day.

We felt confident after our first day and our other teams were ready to rumble and our topic was that “this house believes that we should not trade with countries that have bad humanitarian records”  This was a closed debate therefore, we don’t get our results but we felt confident that our fire and ice approach worked its magic. The next round was an,other closed debate but the first  two debates on this day would dictate whether we earn a spot in the semi finals. after this round they served us nice warm crepes which were delicious and after this was the qualifying round. The topic was “this house would remove social media as a news source for younger people” We were in support of this motion but we felt we didn’t reach our fool potential but we kept our faith. We had our diner which was a burger and fries which was also great. After this was the moment we all had been waiting for, they announced the teams but when they said our college it sounded like they were saying something completely different but we did it but sadly only we made it, not our other teams. We knew that the level would be raised even higher. Our topic was that ” this house would ban politicians who don’t believe in climate change from seeking office”. We were against this and we tried our best to win it  but our best was not enough when we found out we didn’t make  the finals.

/by
, ,

Debating final

Ciara Murray reviews last Saturday’s debating final.

Saturday nights riveting Senior House Debating final ended in victory for Gwynn’s Douglas Boyd-Crotty, Henry Carroll and Ivan Moffit. Hollypark is delighted to have made it to the final and, despite being understandably disappointed with our loss, recognise that Gwynn was deserving of their win. Unlike last year’s house singing competition, we are not claiming to have been “robbed”.

Douglas’ engaging, humorous and powerful speech earned him best speaker. His teammates Henry and Ivan gave similar deliveries, ruthless in their evaluation of Obama’s presidency and bold in their statements, such as that he was the ‘worst ever American president’. While this may be true, it’s no secret that Dr Banister has a soft spot for Russia, making it likely that Gwynn’s references to the improvement in American/Russian relations may have won them a few extra points?

The Hollypark team were equally as strong in their performance, questioning the reliability of Gwynn’s sources and quick to retort to points of order. As mentioned by the Hollypark team of Ciara Gumsheimer, Courtney McKee and Ciara Dempsey, unlike Obama, Trump has the advantage of becoming president during a period of economic growth. Being an American and a loyal supporter of Barack Obama, Courtney was particularly passionate in her opposition to the motion that ‘Donald Trump will introduce better policies than Barack Obama did’.

There was a clear divide in the audience, with evident loyalty from the girls and boys houses. Points of order were heated and when questions were taken from the floor junior pupils were keen to participate; there were even a few questions strategically planted in the audience! As Hollypark’s team was composed solely of sixth years, we would encourage younger students to take part in debating next year as it is a really enjoyable and beneficial experience. Mr Brett was critical of those who read directly from their scripts, pointing out that it is essential for debaters to engage with the audience; bear this in mind future debaters!

/by

Staff v Pupil debate

Jiwoo Park writes: The pupil versus staff Christmas debate took place in the BSR on Monday 12thDecember. The staff, represented by Ms. Smith, Mr. Jones and Reverend Owen proposed the motion ‘This house believes in Santa’. Opposing the motion was Harry Oke, Freddie de Montfort and me. The debate was introduced and chaired by Ms. Duggan and Maria Weinrautner was the time keeper. Happily, quite a few spectators came along to join in the festive spirit of the debate.

There were some excellent arguments presented about the human need to suspend disbelief in the bleak mid-winter and make merry with the idea of a benevolent benefactor. The chaplain was given a run for his money by Harry Oke, who quoted liberally from the Bible. In short, there many great speeches, but the emotive arguments –coupled with a dollop of bribery and the appearance from the man in the red suit himself – won out in the end. Minced pies and sweets were shared by all and the debate was settled: St Columba’s does believe in Santa! It was an enjoyable event, and I hope it becomes a permanent fixture on the debating calendar.

/by