Viewing archives for Debating & public speaking

Twenty-four boys from Year 10 had the opportunity to learn how to compose a speech from scratch and then deliver it with confidence in front of classmates in a day-long workshop at the School.

The boys learned about the importance of the three corners of the Communication Triangle – delivery, content and structure – in making a successful speech. They gained insights into overcoming nerves and tips on how to listen and give constructive feedback to each other.

The event, run by Jack Petchey’s ‘Speak Out’ Challenge!, was led by author, coach and speaker Hari Kalymnios. Four participants from each of the six forms in Year 10 were nominated for the workshop by their form teachers.

Extra-curricular Enrichment Tutor Oliver O’Gorman, who organised the day, said: “This was a fantastic opportunity for a select group of Year 10 boys to develop their confidence speaking in front of their peers, as well as learning some top tips for public speaking.”

Jack Petchey’s ‘Speak Out’ Challenge! is supported by the Jack Petchey Foundation, which is named after entrepreneur and philanthropist Sir Jack Petchey and was established with a brief to inspire and motivate young people across London and Essex. The challenge involves an annual public-speaking competition with a number of rounds culminating – in normal non-Covid years – in a Grand Final held in London’s West End at which participants speak in front of an audience of around 1,000,  including MPs, mayors and other leaders.

The workshop, which was held in QE’s Conference Centre, included an opportunity for each boy to deliver a speech to the group on any subject of their choice.

One of the boys involved, Abdullah Khalid, said: “I really enjoyed participating. I learnt how to control my breathing whilst doing a speech, which I found really useful. I hope we can do something similar again!”

Those reaching the final held on the day as part of an assembly were Victor Shyptur, speaking on Winston Churchill, Ethan Nauth (the US election), Aman Padala (Leaving things to the last minute) and Moniejan Pagareethan (Laziness). Topics selected during the day covered areas including mental health, politics, sleep, video games and social media.

The workshop leader, Mr Kalymnios, has a degree in Physics and has worked in sectors from Law to financial services, and for employers from Accenture to Sainsbury’s. He also spent three years travelling the world.

He became fascinated with what it took to become a high-performance leader and has studied experts from a wide-ranging set of industries, as well as looking at topics from nutrition, practical psychology and personal development, to science, spirituality and business.

While Covid-19 has raged around the world this term, members of QE’s Model United Nations Club have been examining the very different approaches to the pandemic taken around the globe. 

The 24 boys involved were each allocated a country, from Australia to Iceland and from the USA to North Korea. Each member, from Years 8 to 10, was given a brief to research his nation’s response to the crisis and look at the treatment for the virus and the global distribution of a vaccine in the future. 

They met regularly using Zoom to discuss the huge issues and challenges facing the global community. 

Academic Enrichment Tutor Gillian Deakin said: “It has been great to see the boys adopting their different countries and examining their responses to Covid–19. Every week they have contributed fascinating insights into how different countries have responded. 

“With countries as diverse as Japan, Iran, France, Kenya and the USA, the participants have had to get to grips with their often very different respective policies and perspectives.” 

The club is an academic simulation of the United Nations itself, where pupils take the roles of delegates from different countries and investigate possible solutions to global issues. 

The boys have also been learning how to write policy statements and resolutions in preparation for an MUN event at Magdalen College School, Oxford, in February next year.  

“They have gained real insight and understanding of the function of the different organisations within the UN in addition to an appreciation of the possibilities and challenges of the global development and distribution of a treatment or vaccination for Covid–19,” added Miss Deakin. 

“The boys are all looking forward to returning to the School and preparing for next year’s mini–MUN conference.” 

 The participants are listed below, each with his allocated country: 

Danny Adey (Year 10) – Japan; Eesa Ahmed (Year 9) – Saudi Arabia; Tejas Bansal (Year 8) – Germany; Dhruv Chadha (Year 9) – South Korea; Karan Chauhan (Year 8) China; Tharun Dhamodharan (Year 9) – India; Rahul Doshi (Year 10) – Russia; Kovid Gothi (Year 8) – France; Pranav Haller (Year 8) – USA; Seyed Jalili (Year 8) – Iran; Shaurya Madan (Year 8) – New Zealand; Dhruv Syam (Year 10) – Sweden; Rahul Kesavan (Year 10) – Sri Lanka; Saim Khan (Year 8) – Pakistan; Zaki Mustafa (Year 8) – UK; Jai Patel (Year 10) – South Africa; Vignesh Rajiv (Year 9) – Switzerland; Chanakya Seetharam (Year 8) Canada; Anban Senthilprabu (Year 9) – North Korea; Abhiraj Singh (Year 10) – Iceland; Sai Sivakumar (Year 9) – Australia; Mukund Soni (Year 10) – Italy, Anirudh Terdal (Year 8) – Kenya; Antony Yassa (Year 10) – Egypt. 

Broughton overcame Pearce by just two points in the final of the Year 7 Inter-House Debating Competition.

Broughton proposed the motion: This house believes that climate change is the biggest danger facing the modern world. The debate took place just before the current Coronavirus crisis erupted globally.

The debate provoked passionate and even provocative contributions, including the view that climate change was largely a ‘first world’ preoccupation, and a claim that a rising death toll due to climate change would have a positive side.

Pranav Challa, the main speaker, had five minutes to make his case. In support of the motion. Head of English, Robert Hyland, who organised the event said: “He was a confident, articulate speaker. He described what he sees as the three ‘cruxes’ of the dangers we face: food production, shelter and water.”

Pranav went on to describe how climate change will affect food production in a world in which more than 1 billion people are already suffering from malnutrition. He said that extreme weather could affect our future supply of drinking water, that rising sea levels are putting coastal communities in danger, and that 200 million people will be displaced in the next 20 years.

Pranav was supported by the second speaker, Kavin Rameshshanker, who spoke about drought, the impact of climate change on the global economy and the loss of bio-diversity, ten species becoming extinct every day.

In his five-minute response, Adokshaj Magge, of Pearce, sought to challenge the terms of the motion. He suggested that the preoccupation with climate change comes from the privileged perspective of developed countries. “He spoke passionately about poverty, about disease and about the lack of basic healthcare in many countries,” said Mr Hyland.

Adokshaj described the overuse of forest fuels and deforestation as the “mother of all problems” and argued that the 3 billion people living in, or facing, poverty do not have time to worry about climate change when they are battling for day-to-day survival, while often being denied their human rights. He argued that changes in the weather have been going on since the dawn of time.

Pearce’s second speaker, Colin Copcea,  suggested that we face more important issues than climate change, such as who will be the next president of the US, Brexit and terrorism. “Right now, climate change is not at the top of the list,” he said. He also talked about economic crises, referencing, in particular, Venezuela.

In the following floor debate, Adam Liang, Kayilai Dinesh and Ishaan Bhandari for Broughton pitted their wits against Jamie Reeve, Ayan Hirani and Johnny Yassa from Pearce. “Some great points were made,” said Mr Hyland.

Adam said that problems caused by human greed, such as deforestation, were intrinsic to the issue of climate change.

“There was a suggestion that climate change is actually helping to reduce over-population,” said Mr Hyland. “This was vigorously challenged!”

The opposition suggested that our focus should be on tackling treatable and preventable diseases, as climate change might not have a solution.

Chairing the event, Crispin Bonham-Carter, who is Assistant Head (Pupil Involvement), commended the boys on the quality of the debate. He announced the indicative vote from the floor was an exact draw – 68 to 68 – and noted that some boys on each side had voted against their own House.

Year 13’s Ryan Ratnam, who invigilated, congratulated all the speakers. “I was very impressed with the ‘three cruxes’ argument and the summary speech from the proposers. I also thought Broughton was a good team; there was good synergy between the two main speakers,” he said.

“Pearce made a very good point about our stance, as a developed country, being privileged. They also presented some really good information. I thought the floor contribution about over-population was intriguing.”

He described it as a very even and well-argued debate, but gave a decision to the proposing team, Broughton by two points.

The Year 8 Inter-House Debating Final was won by the finest of margins, following an evenly matched contest between Stapylton and Leicester.

After fluent and compelling debate from both sides, the Leicester team, opposing the motion, This house believes that censorship has no place in a democracy, prevailed by just a single point.

Head of English Robert Hyland, who organised the event, said: “At QE, we are fully persuaded of the importance of nurturing effective oracy and skills in public speaking and debating among our pupils. All the boys who took part in this final are therefore to be congratulated, as they presented an excellent, well-argued debate in the best QE tradition of closely competed inter-house competitions.”

Zaki Mustafa, the first main speaker for Stapylton, presented the proposition in his allocated five minutes. He argued that freedom of speech is a pillar of democracy and a key human right, adding: “Democracy means that we decide how our country is run – the government is there to implement our decisions, not to make them.”

He also referenced the Watergate scandal, suggesting that the suppression of information resulted in “disastrous consequences” leading to US President Nixon’s resignation. He also pointed out that in Turkey, censorship has led to the arrest of journalists which, in turn, has affected information flow to the public.

Ady Tiwari, who recorded the highest individual score on the day, presented a robust argument for the opposition in his five minutes: “Not all speech is equal,” he said. “Censorship reduces the impact of hate speech. Hate speech historically has led to oppression such as slavery and the denial of the vote to women.” He pointed out that live broadcasts by groups such as the Ku Klux Klan are illegal – clearly a case where censorship “stops hate and promotes equality and justice”, he said.

He also suggested that, for reasons of national security, government information needs to be kept secret. He argued that removing censorship would help terrorists and other criminals, such as identity thieves.

Ady added that censorship is needed in many key areas of society, including the internet, television, film and the media, and that, without censorship, children could search online for information about pornography and buying drugs. Democracy necessarily “includes censorship and we should use it to make the world a better place”, Ady concluded.

Among the topics covered by Stapylton’s second main speaker, Koustuv Bhowmick, were parental controls: these were an effective way of controlling children’s internet use, yet they could be classified as restriction, rather than censorship. He also looked at the deleterious effects of censorship in regimes such as North Korea and China, arguing that, in the latter case, it was abuse of censorship that had led to the coronavirus scandal.

The opposition’s second main speaker, Adi Kaneshanatha, returned to the dangers of hate speech, stating that “hate crime causes violence” and warning that it increases the social stigma of the groups discriminated against, which, in turn, affects mental health. He looked at the issue of fake news, arguing that censorship will help stop it, and urged speakers to trust the Government’s judgement in ensuring that its citizens are not exposed to inappropriate material.

Three speakers from each side raised points or questions from the floor. For Stapylton, Joel Swedensky, Harrshiv Vyas and Akshat Bajaj touched on the importance of educating people with negative or hateful views rather than just silencing them. Leicester’s floor speakers, opposing the motion, were Abhay Halyal, Nikhil Mark and Pranav Haller, who cited as an example of the serious dangers of an absence of censorship the fact that terrorists can learn to make bombs online.

The event was adjudicated by Dharrshan Viramuthu, of Year 12, who is a member of QE’s Cambridge Union Schools Debating Competition team. He congratulated all the speakers and also dispensed some advice, suggesting inter alia that they try to minimise reliance on scripts.

He awarded opponents Leicester 59 points out of a possible 70, thus just pipping proposers Stapylton, who picked up 58 points. An indicative vote from the floor was fairly evenly split, but again just favoured the opposition.

Tackling topics as diverse as privacy laws, genome-editing and social equality, 50 sixth-formers from QE and North London Collegiate School enjoyed ample opportunity to air and develop their views in a joint academic symposium.

The event, hosted by QE, is an important means of helping final-year pupils with their applications to university, said organiser Nisha Mayer, who is QE’s Head of Pupil Enrichment.

“All these students expect to be interviewed in the coming weeks for places in Medicine, Science, Engineering, Law, PPE [Oxford’s Philosophy, Politics and Economics course] and Economics,” said Mrs Mayer. “This annual academic symposium collaboration with NLCS is invaluable in this preparation.”

QE’s Assistant Head (Pupil Development) Crispin Bonham-Carter fired up the participants with a rousing welcoming address: “I reminded them that ‘symposia’ were ancient Greek dining parties where young adults were expected to debate important ideas and subject themselves to scrutiny.

“I also pointed out that the Greek word for debate, ‘agon’, gives us both ‘agony’ but also ‘protagonist’ – and I urged on them the importance of performance when stepping into the role of the ‘public expert’.”

Mr Bonham-Carter added that the symposium participants should not be afraid to ask if they had any questions, “as it was unlikely they would be alone”.

Reflecting on a successful event afterwards, Mrs Mayer said: “The students were highly engaged and articulate, the discussions constructive and purposeful.”

QE pupils engage in a number of such symposia throughout the year, aimed at different year groups, all with the aim of encouraging independent thinking. Headmaster Neil Enright highlighted their importance when he was invited recently to give a speech on scholarship to the Girls’ Schools Association’s Annual Conference for Heads.

“Discussion and collaboration are key features of our partnership work with other schools,” he told the independent school heads assembled in Bristol. “These sessions have obviously played an important role in enabling our young men to engage with equally capable, and often more confident, young women, but also in furthering academic curiosity.

“Of course, the stimulation of the source material is challenging in its own right, whether it is developing critical listening skills from studying Prokofiev and Tchaikovsky with Year 7, enabling Year 9 students to evaluate philosophical arguments, or challenging our sixth-formers to consider the nexus between water and community in a geographical study.

“Another key scholarly benefit lies in the socialisation that they encourage and develop – the ability to argue and deliberate with fellow students; to work together collaboratively towards conclusions; or simply to experience the cut and thrust of academic debate.”

Thirdly, academic symposia also develop action and responsibility, enabling participants to become those who can exercise choices according to their own values, and are not therefore “confined by the curriculum, or timetables, or teachers, or examiners”, Mr Enright added.

He concluded the section of his speech on symposia with these words: “We are all well acquainted with extra-curricular interaction with other schools – on the sports field, perhaps in the performing arts or academic competitions, but these collaborative academic interactions seem to work as a catalyst for inspiring further academic enquiry.”

From starting a speech in Shakespearean-style verse to drawing in an audience with intense emotion, QE’s debaters expertly rang the rhetorical changes when they competed at the European Youth Parliament’s National Session.

Having won their places with a barnstorming performance at the South East Regional Session – the third consecutive year in which QE has progressed – the Year 12 team were well-prepared for the four-day national event at Liverpool Hope University, for which the theme was Tomorrow’s Europe: Making every voice heard.

They worked in committees with pupils from other schools, rather than in their own team. After the first day’s team-building activities, there was a full day of committee work in which they collaborated to find a solution to a topical problem, presented as a written resolution. In the final two days, the resolutions were debated in the General Assembly, where the delegates gave three-minute ‘defence’, ‘attack’ and ‘summation’ speeches, but could also debate from the floor.

Academic Enrichment Tutor Helen Davies said: “All our students made well-researched and thoughtful points throughout the session that were relevant and brought new ideas to the forum – a very professional and efficient approach to the weekend’s activities.”

The team also broke new ground for QE, at least over recent years, by taking part in the session’s Saturday-night ‘Euroconcert’. “Introduced by the organisers as ‘the UK’s hottest new boy band, the whole team gave an enthusiastic and tuneful performance of the Backstreet Boys’ I want it that way. Frontman Saifullah Shah stole the show and really engaged the audience!”

Earlier that day, in the more sober setting of the General Session’s debate involving the Committee on Legal Affairs, Saifullah had had his hearers equally entranced. He made a closing (‘summation’) speech on a motion exploring how the EU could ‘ensure that the internet remains a place where marginalised communities and different ideas can continue to prosper, while keeping it a safe space for all’. And he began with a paraphrase of Hamlet’s ‘To be or not to be’ soliloquy: “Freedom of speech, or protection, that is the question: whether ’tis nobler by Law to suffer the slings and arrows of online harassment, or to take arms against a sea of hate speech and by opposing end it.” It was, said Miss Davies, “received very well by the audience”.

In the session devoted to the first of the two Committees on Employment and Social Affairs (‘EMPL1’), delegates debated the isolation of the elderly. Deeps Gandhi was among a committee that submitted a motion which, inter alia, urged EU member states to appoint a minister for loneliness and subsidise care for the elderly by providing means-tested financial aid to families.

In EMPL2’s session, which was debating the EU’s response to the poor employment standards suffered by textile workers internationally, Aryan Jain gave the opening defence address. “It was a compelling and emotional speech, which also showed deep understanding of the topic. Aryan urged the delegates to ‘uphold the moral fabric of the European Union’ by preventing the exploitation of foreign workers,” said Miss Davies.

Other highlights of the debates included clear, well-researched summaries of complex issues by Hanif Gofur, a well-presented and well-written speech from Mehul Shah, and arguments from Viraj Mehta supporting the use of an ‘app’ to increase popular engagement with politics (on a motion before the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection exploring how the EU could make use of IT to further the inclusion of citizens in the decision-making process, given growing mistrust in EU institutions).

In addition to the Euroconcert, which had a theme of Glitter and gold, social activities included the opportunity to sample food from more than a dozen different countries and a ceilidh (Scottish folk dance), which the boys also enjoyed, Miss Davies reported.

Subsequently, Saifullah Shah and Mehul Shah learned that they had been individually selected for the International Round of the European Youth Parliament, which takes place later in the year, following their excellent performance.