Viewing archives for Debating & public speaking

Victory went to the School in this year’s Dinner Debate – the Elizabethan Union’s historic showpiece event.

Combining formal elements with a relaxed atmosphere and plenty of high-calibre debating, the 57th Annual Elizabethan Union Debate saw Year 13 gather in good spirits, enjoying the opportunity to socialise in a different context away from their normal day-to-day routine.

Year 13’s Anish Kumar and Shubh Rathod proposed the motion, This House believes governments are more responsible for climate change than citizens. They were opposed by Old Elizabethans Siddhant Kansal and Mark Markov (both 2015–2022).

Headmaster Neil Enright said: “The Dinner Debate is an event that intentionally bridges the gap from school to university. It blends the formality of black-tie dress, toasts and a traditional Extended Mace debating format with a relaxed atmosphere where the focus is primarily on enjoyment.”

The Elizabethan Union, QE’s debating society, is currently thriving, with debaters enjoying considerable success.

Proposing the toast to the Union, Siddhant Kansal (who was School Captain in 2021) reflected on his time at QE. Regaling his audience with a few anecdotes from his own Sixth Form experience, he also highlighted all the opportunities that were on offer within and beyond the classroom. Whilst QE can occasionally push you hard, it is all worth it and a time you will look back on fondly with great memories, he told the sixth-formers. Siddhant added that QE really does prepare you well for life at university, thanking staff for both pushing him and supporting him.

The debate itself was wide-ranging and packed with content. It was ultimately a victory for the proposition, but by a relatively narrow margin (45% to 37%, with 18% abstaining).

For the School, Anish and Shubh argued that governments have much greater ability to tackle climate change than citizens and should take responsibility for doing so. The role of governments is to protect their citizens, and they are failing in that task if they do not take more significant action. They stressed the importance of government regulation, and gave examples of how quickly action can be taken when there is determination to do so.

The opposition argued that the ability of governments is actually more limited and that big multi-national companies frequently have more influence and impact (and often more wealth). They spoke, therefore, about the power citizens have as consumers in a globalised, largely capitalist, world. Individuals can make choices about what they buy and from where. Mark stated that this power extended to what people eat: he stressed the significant impact of meat-eating on global emissions. The collective impact from these decisions could be profound. The alumni pair also highlighted the power of electorates to put into office people who care about the environment, and said that democratic participation is therefore crucial. They emphasised that, importantly, people do have agency – including everyone who had gathered in the Main School Hall for the debate.

However, the proposition pair noted that much of the world – including many of the largest polluters and contributors to climate change – is not governed democratically. People in those countries have no, or limited, choice in terms of the shape of their government. They argued that it is these governments, rather than their citizens, that have the wrong priorities and are choosing to promote projects and policies that worsen rather than lessen climate change, such as mega-building projects in the Middle East. There was discussion of the US Presidential Election and its potential consequences for climate action, and of the USA’s commitment to the Paris Climate accord.

The floor debate was finely balanced.

• Click on the thumbnails below to view the photos.

Twenty of QE’s youngest boys teamed up with pupils from a leading independent girls’ school to explore the environmental crisis and learn how to persuade others to take action.

The QE contingent headed to North London Collegiate School for the Year 7 academic symposium, starting the day with a critical examination of social media posts representing different viewpoints and highlighting different scientific data on the atmosphere.

Together with the NLCS girls, they then explored the power of persuasion, studying the speeches of Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, before enthusiastically taking up the opportunity to write and practise their own speeches.

Enrichment tutor and Chemistry teacher Xiangming Xu said: “It was an amazing display of collaboration and environmental responsibility, in which the aim was to educate young students about the environmental crisis and empower them with knowledge about their role as students.

“Thus, they not only expanded their knowledge on environmental issues, but also developed essential skills such as teamwork, quick thinking, and persuasive communication techniques. Overall, the symposium served as an inspiring platform for students to learn, develop, and take action.”

The start of the day was marked by discussions about the selected social media posts, with the boys and girls supporting or challenging the various arguments being propounded.

Next, they looked at the impact of different techniques employed in speeches, including the influential contributions made by Thunberg, who customarily challenges world leaders to take immediate action over climate change.

Later, in the afternoon session, they had the opportunity to apply these techniques and to deliver their own speeches targeted at specific audiences, including business professionals, politicians, primary school children, and teachers.

Afterwards, three of the QE participants gave their reflections on the day:

• Arnav Ghoshal: “We learnt about the environment – which is a major factor in today’s world – while doing engaging and fun activities, making it a great time. Also, as QE is an all-boys school, it is good to mix with other genders, too.”
• Aaron Khan: “The activity I enjoyed most was when we worked together as a group to create an ‘elevator pitch’ for our chosen audience. This trip helped build confidence and my communication skills with others whom I may not be so familiar with.”
• Thomas Leung said he enjoyed delivering a speech aimed at changing politicians’ minds, since politicians can have a significant impact. “They have enough money and power to change something. I felt more confident at the end as I knew more about the environment and learnt new facts.”

Year 10’s Mohith Sigirisetti was picked as QE’s representative at a regional public-speaking challenge.

Mohith won his place in the Barnet final of the Jack Petchey Speak Out Challenge by delivering a speech at QE about his determination to up his performance with the Rubik’s cube – all the while actually solving a Rubik’s cube as he spoke.

The talk – My Journey with The Cube – won him selection from among 30 of his QE peers, following a workshop for which all 30 boys took a day off timetable.

Geography teacher Eleanor Barrett, who is a QE Flourish tutor, said: “At QE, we recognise the importance of oracy: through this workshop 30 boys were able to learn new skills and develop their confidence in public speaking – not something that necessarily comes naturally, but something we can all work on.

“Being able to communicate cogently is important in most careers and helps build social confidence, too.

“Congratulations to Mohith on his performance and the multi-tasking involved in solving his Rubik’s cube simultaneously, which is quite a feat!”

Billed as the UK’s largest youth-speaking event, the Jack Petchey Speak Out Challenge is a programme managed and delivered by Speakers Trust, the UK’s leading public-speaking organisation. It is supported and funded by the Jack Petchey Foundation. Sir Jack Petchey, who is 98 years old, is a businessman and philanthropist who made his fortune in property and timeshare.

The aim of the challenge is to amplify young people’s voices by building confidence, developing skills, and creating platforms for young people to share their stories and ideas to empower not only themselves but each other.

After competing in the regional final at Friern Barnet School, Mohith was presented with a certificate by
Councillor Nagus Narenthira, the 58^th Mayor of the London Borough of Barnet.

“It was a great way to improve my public-speaking skills and talk about something I was passionate about,” said Mohith, who is a member of Pearce House.

Senior pupils from Queen Elizabeth’s Girls’ School joined A-level Art students at Queen’s Road for special life-drawing sessions during QE’s Arts Week.

Together with the girls’ participation in filming a promotional video and in a Sketch-off event held as part of QE’s Design Festival earlier in the Summer Term, the life-drawing sessions mark an expansion of the work of the QE Together partnership, which had previously focused on community activities.

Head of Art Craig Wheatley explained the sessions’ importance: “Life-drawing is rooted in a traditional and historical practice; students can develop their observational drawing skills and gain a better understanding of anatomy and human form.

“Our Arts Week seemed like a perfect opportunity to re-introduce this extra-curricular activity; inviting the girls was another chance for pupils from both schools to share a creative experience.”

Mr Wheatley paid tribute to the specialist teaching experience of his QE Art department colleagues, Jeanne Nicodemus and Alison Lefteri, who led the sessions. He added that feedback from the participating students was very positive.

Led by pupils from the two schools, QE Together continued its community activities, with musicians coming together for another concert for care home residents.

Pupils from QE and QEGS also teamed up to appear in the  promotional video for School Diversity Week for LGBT+ charity, Just Like Us.

Filmed by Deloitte and shown at a launch hosted by JP Morgan Chase, the film included the senior boys and girls holding up coloured card, with letters superimposed in post-production to spell out key messages for the week.

Not all the pupils who participated are part of the LGBTQ+ community; they are instead allies, supporting the promotion of inclusion in all schools across the country.

QE Together is one of the newest of QE’s partnerships. The School also has firmly established academic partnerships with North London Collegiate School and The Henrietta Barnett School.

During the Summer Term, Year 10 headed to NLCS for an inter-disciplinary symposium on Change and Renewal.

With HBS, in addition to Year 10 and 12 events, 144 selected Year 8 pupils from both schools vigorously debated contentious topics, including This House believes it was right to arrest the protesters at the King’s coronation.

QE’s first-ever in-house Model United Nations (MUN) Conference sparked powerful and passionate debate among the 48 delegates from Years 9 and 10.

Topics during the three-day, pupil-run event ranged from nuclear disarmament to the global economy, and from the conflict in Kashmir to the rights and wellbeing of indigenous communities.

The prestigious Best Delegation title went to the four boys representing India: Aahan Shah, Yashwant Sunkara, Abhinav Sandeep and Tunishq Mitra, all from Broughton’s Year 9 form.

The conference was planned and organised by Year 11 members of the School’s MUN Society – 12 volunteers, including Uday Dash, Koustuv Bhowmick, Saim Khan, Zaki Mustafa and Chanakya Seetharam acting as Secretaries-General.

Uday reports that the debates were “fiery, heated and fiercely contested”, fully showcasing the boys’ “thorough research, impeccable resolve, and eloquent arguments. It was an immensely enjoyable and thought-provoking three days, with lots of passionate debating, fruitful discussion and powerful speeches all around.”

Teams of four were drawn from the 12 forms in Years 9 and 10, with each allocated a powerful country to represent.

Two of the organisers, Uday and Saim Khan, opened the ceremony with introductory speeches.

Two days of contested arguments and resolutions followed, with each committee featuring its own battles. For example, Uday reported this about the proceedings of SOCHUM, the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Issues Committee: “From the delegate of Iran directly calling out the US for its own poor track record on indigenous rights, to the delegate of Australia decrying the alleged insurmountable financial burden it would place on nations to install separate healthcare systems for their indigenous communities, every delegate contributed to fiery, passionate debate.”

A resolution from SOCHUM relating to how the rights, cultures and wellbeing of indigenous people could be preserved was passed, earning the Indian delegation their title.

On the final day, the conference’s General Assembly was held in the Main Hall.

Some impromptu closing speeches from Uday and fellow Secretary-General Koustuv concluded what Uday called an “incredibly invigorating and successful conference”, before Physics Teacher & Academic Enrichment Tutor Gillian Deakin, who is QE’s MUN Coordinator, gave the final word to wrap up the event.

QE boys teamed up with pupils from a local leading girls’ school for a morning of enthusiastic debates on some of the hottest topics of the day.

After the initial quickfire rounds, the morning with the guests from The Henrietta Barnett School (HBS) culminated in a final impassioned debate on the motion This House believes it was right to arrest the protesters at the King’s coronation.

Hosted by QE, the debating challenge was attended by 144 selected Year 8 pupils from the two schools.

Headmaster Neil Enright said: “Our academic partnership with HBS provides a valuable opportunity for large numbers of our boys to work alongside young women, whether in subject-related symposia or, as on this occasion, in engaging with them in topical and political discussions.

“When it comes to developing your skills in debating, there is nothing like having to stand in front of a large audience – including many people that you don’t know – after a very limited preparation time and talking about something of which you may not have deep knowledge, setting out an argument concisely and then defending it adroitly when challenged!

“Such experiences constitute an important preparation for working alongside both women and men in pupils’ later lives, whether in higher education or in their careers.”

After the HBS pupils arrived at the start of the morning, they and the boys were split into six mixed groups in different rooms and given 20 minutes to work together using previously prepared material.

The event was run according to the ‘extended Mace format’, based on the long-running universities debating competition known originally as the Observer Mace. In this format, the debate is opened to audience participation after the first round of opening statements and rebuttals.

There were eight teams, comprising three debaters each, who took part in four debates. Other roles were a chair, who was responsible for keeping order and running the debate, a timekeeper and two reporters in each group, who took notes and helped teachers picked the best debater from their room.

Four debates took place over a period of 90 minutes. The motions debated were:

• This House would use animals for experimentation
• This House believes 16-year-olds should have the right to vote
• This House believes that all owners of large dogs should have to pass a test to prove they are able to control them
• This House would abolish homework.

After a break, the final debate took place in the Main Hall, featuring the best debaters from each of the six groups.

They were again given just 20 minutes to prepare. An initial vote indicated a roughly even split in the audience between those for and against the motion.

After the side arguing for the motion – the ‘Proposition’ – argued that the protest could have turned violent, the Opposition swiftly countered, pointing out that far from being violent, the protesters were not even disrupting the coronation, and adding that the police were, in fact, violating the protesters’ rights. The Proposition’s second speaker bolstered the arguments in favour of the motion by adducing the example of the Capitol riots in the USA.

When opened to the floor, there was a succession of attacks on the Proposition’s arguments, while the vagueness of the motion was itself criticised. After the audience debate, both sides summarised their arguments. A vote was again taken, and the result was now a landslide for the Opposition.