A leading boarding and day school for boys and girls aged 12-18 in Perthshire, Scotland
Report 3 February, 2012
Who needs business trips to London, Paris or New York? In the last week the Glenalmond Senior Debating Team have found themselves competing in The Donald Dewar Memorial Debating Tournament in Aberdeen and Auchterarder.
On 26th January, Marcus Buist and Simon Boendermaker debated in Perthshire whilst five days later Fern Whitelaw and Cameron Montgomery argued in Robert Gordon's College and on both evenings Glenalmond opposed the motion that 'this House would allow TV cameras in all Scottish courtrooms'.
On both occasions, there were four teams competing and only one would go through to the semi-final. The strongest arguments that these Sixth Formers put forward were that victims should remain protected from the eyes of the whole world and that 'we don't want anymore superficial TV presented by Ant and Dec'. Buist and Boendermaker did very well in sprinkling humour into a relatively dry subject whilst Whitelaw and Montgomery debated with calmness and thoughtfulness.
The draw for the next round is yet to be made, but if there is an all Glenalmond debate, then the two pairs will doubtless perform like over-charged cannons.
The Glenalmond Senior Debating Team have been fortunate enough to have had two pairs entered into The Donald Dewar Memorial Debating Tournament this year and both partnerships have successfully made it through to the second round.
In each debate, Glenalmond has proposed the motion that 'this house believes that the right to privacy is more important than the freedom of the press'. In the depths of December Marcus Buist and Simon Boendermaker (who made it all the way to the final last year) managed to overcome two of Dollar Academy's debaters by displaying confidence and injecting a touch of humour into proceedings.
More recently, Fern Whitelaw and Cameron Montgomery have debated in Dundee against Strathallan and both of them performed very well. Mention of Milly Dowler, Ryan Giggs, J K Rowling and Princess Diana, as well as discussions on what really is newsworthy, has engaged the audience on both occasions. Add to this the fact that a local press photographer was in attendance at one of the floor debates and it is not difficult to understand why the competition has been so worthwhile thus far.
We eagerly await competing in the second round in the next couple of weeks.
Report 2 November, 2011
At the risk of sounding like a loved-up hippy on tour to Amsterdam, I'm not sure that the Dutch have a poor worldwide reputation for their tolerance of so-called soft drugs. In fact if anyone jokes about the Dutch it might have more to do with clogs, tulips and edam. This year the Amsterdam authorities are cleaning up the drug tourist trail because it's not the Dutch who over-indulge, it's the Brits, Yanks and Kanuks who, on gap yahs, middle-class holidays etc. Get down with the funky groove and puff the magic dragon. Why? Well, probably because it's legal. Why? Well, probably because if it is legal then it can be controlled. The Dutch might turn a blind eye to green smoke and Bob Marley impersonators but class A drugs, it's like Thailand! In any case the juniors were well advised in not hitting the cannabis debate too heavily and focus more on the morality of drug taking and the obligation of the government to safeguard our welfare as Mr Wright pointed out "the only way is ethics"! The first debate was a timid affair with a serious discussion of economics. In our money-obsessed world I suppose this was always going to be a tactic; we can get lots of tax from those who indulge. That may be the case but what about the rise of addiction rates and crime and violence, contested Patchell's. The swings and roundabouts of the debate closed in on a few technical details in the end and Reid's walked into the final. The Home vs Skrine's debate came a few days too early with its fireworks but it was a real treat and possibly the best debate of the whole tournament so far (including the seniors) it was captivating from start to finish and was eloquent and elegant throughout. I enjoyed the way that points of information were dealt with and it was the narrowest of decisions to go with Home but all credit to Skrine's who, if they were in the earlier debate, would surely be through.
Report 12 October 2011
With a blistering Junior heat Skrine's, at the second attempt, charged through after opposition stiffer than a starched cod-piece from Lothian. It was nice to see for the first time a 2nd Form girl in the tussle and didn't she do well? Nice to see you, to see you, nice! The Lothian team were coherent and exacting but lost the day owing to some loose thread in the conclusion department and need to tidy up before they peter out. However, the Skrine's team were a little more entertaining and showed a significant flair which won them the day and a place to face the debating demons of Home. So one to nothing in favour of sports star not being responsible for their own actions! Interesting times.
The seniors came along post-prandial to the fray and Reid's launched into a discussion of cheese-rolling and humour only to be countered by a slightly hammy performance by Ed Wise who shrewdly threw in every acting bone in his body to a performance littered with glaring errors etc. But Reid's failed to capitalise on the breaches left wide open and left Matheson's relatively free rein to capitalise on their assault. John Sampson rejected such dramatic impulses and spoke naturally and well about the need for sports stars to earn their pay, it was a pity that he didn't challenge more when not in the hot seat but Cameron was left relatively unchallenged. Matheson's go through to face Home in the semis!
This House certainly inspires something. In the case of Goodacre's Junior team, it inspired a last minute struggle to get together an argument after having failed, for a week, to notice the notice. For Skrine's this House inspired victory for the seniors but it was "on a knife edge": inspiring decisions.
The junior debate was a bit of a damp squib with Patchell's much inspired debate being a little underwhelming in its action and a little overwhelming in its use of long words and tricky stats. It's a pity that the Goodacre's crowd (potentially quite A-okay, actually) fronted up with all the confrontational angst of a French rugby team; one suspects that masters Renouf and Gaskell would have been given rather a run for their money if a Goodacre's team had prepared their argument: inspiring luck!
However, in the Senior heat we were in for, well, a lot of heat. Capitain of ze Coll spoke first and defined the motion to within an inch of its life: inspiring being very exact about stuff. He was confronted by quite the point of information when it was laid before him like a Dracula victim that closing libraries was about as logical as closing schools. Mr McCleery had no response but to defer to some mythical later point in the debate where, hopefully, this point might be forgotten. Ed Wise spoke with studied sagacity and theatrical poise much in the hammy, eggy mould of the Olivier studio. This was about as sustainable as a Scotland attack and wore itself out on the rocks of e-books. When Herries (our Chair troubled over this relatively easy name) stood to take the floor we were in for an historical tour through the library's history "did anyone really regret the advent of the printing press?" therefore would anyone really miss the libraries? Good question. He spoke in measured tones and was than assailed by a rather neat and persuasive Monty who took to the podium with a point a second wild fire approach, it was not to be enough and in the end Skrine's were worthy winners but the Matheson's effort allows them to have another go next week against Reid's in the final heats.
The motion to ban organised religion is always a tricky nut to smash with the delicate issue of what constitutes organised? If you've ever been to a Barmitzvah or a Catholic funeral in Ireland you might well assume that religion and organisation aren't the best of friends.
Well, last night we had our jolly expert the Chaplain in with us alongside debating master of ceremonies Mr Wright for what proved to be two very close debates that came down in the end to teamwork. Now there's a sermon topic for Sunday! Reid's and Skrine's opposed each other (on the wrong side of the table) for the first heat and although the Skrine's team spoke well they were rather wedded to their scripts and the possibility of an off road raging tussle was never on the horizon. It's important to have the courage of one's convictions and really allow time to address points of information. The Reid's counter attack was well honed and the interplay between the speeches won the day. Reid's go through but expect that you might see Skrine's back in a few weeks time as they compete for a place on the best runner up ticket.
The senior debate was a little less gung ho than last week but was a little more sensitive and polished (it certainly kept to the rules a little more) and the Goodacre's crew were certainly well prepared although a little more spontaneity would have been the ace of spades. However, Charlie B lunged and Issy H parried, then Ben W roundhouse kicked and Fern W waxed off (that's a Karate Kid reference for any of you not around in the 1980s). It was a great sparring duel won methinks by the more subtle approach from the girls. So, well done to Home and Reid's and as an American might say "let's bring it, the next round of the competition, very much on, what?"
Once again, the much vaunted Inter-House arguing competition got off to a whip-cracking start with all sorts of fiery contests, raging suppositions and confrontational points of information. The topic this evening was "This House would allow Teachers the Right to Strike" by which we meant in a labour-market versus the horrible capitalists' sort of a way, not the right to strike children like in the good ole days. The juniors were up first and what a contest. Matheson's proposed the motions and were savagely cut up by Miss Dow's torrent of points of information. A slight pity that the Matheson's speakers were barely able to get their points heard but the conviction with which the Home team countered the proposition's propositions was quite breathtaking. There were a few very good and witty ripostes from the young Mr Wilson but he was unable to counter the well-researched factual assault of the talented Miss Arnaud. It ended with a few stern lessons from our judge Dr Byrom who called a Home win and then we were off onto the senior debate.
Here, I have to say that Lothian turned up with the expectation of going down to the Patchell's champion team (remember, they won last time) but in fact they had a well reasoned and solid case, it's a pity the confidence wasn't really there; once Miss Maclean-Boyd built up a head of steam she was all go but the stumbling start opened her up to some preposterous attacks from Captain of Debating Mr Galbraith - there was a moment of handbags at dawn and a class war emerging before the actual issue was laid back on the table. The atmosphere of the room erupted more than once and the gauntlets were being thrown around like mince pies at an elf's celebration. Mr Buist was elegant and witty but on more than one occasion spoke out of turn gaining a rebuke from the judge and on more than one occasion Patchell's were guilty of personal attacks rather than attacks on the issue in hand. Perhaps a firm hand in the Chair should have reminded the contestants of the rules: Mr Galbraith went for points rather than points of information, bending rules like shatter-proof rulers in a maths class. However, the law breaking was not enough to allow the girls to win, although it was a very close run thing - a little more conviction at the end from Miss Findlay, I think, would have sealed the deal. Perhaps we'll see them again in the best runner-up seat but we'll see what happens next time.
Strategic Marketing and Design by the Native Agency
