Old Elizabethans’ triumphant return to Dinner Debate

It is just two years since Sudhamshu Gummadavelly and Ashwin Sridhar won the Elizabethan Union Dinner Debate as sixth-formers in the School’s 450th anniversary year.

Now the young alumni, who both left the School in 2023, have repeated the feat, successfully opposing the motion – This House believes social media is harming our democracy – which was proposed by Year 13’s Saim Khan and Zaki Mustafa.

The motion generated extensive debate, with many boys contributing from the floor to this, the 58th annual debate. A relaxed, convivial evening, it gives senior boys an opportunity to experience the sort of occasion they may later encounter at university and beyond.

Headmaster Neil Enright said: “This was a very high-quality debate from both teams, with many judicious, thoughtful contributions also coming from the floor. With contributors proving responsive to the points made by others, it made for an intellectually exciting discussion.

“Our thanks go to all those involved, particularly our returning OEs, who I am sure enjoyed the opportunity to relive past glories as a winning team once again!

The debate was chaired by Year 13’s Rohan Kumar, with the toasts at dinner presided over by 2024’s Chanakya Seetharam, also of Year 13.

Here is a summary of points made during the debate:

Saim (proposing) stated that fake news reached 1,500 people six times faster than true news in a study and pointed out the centralised control of social media channels by figures such as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg.

Ashwin (opposing) gave examples of social media being used to expose truth in the face of state oppression and propaganda and its use in giving a voice to the voiceless, citing the #MeToo movement.

Zaki (proposing) waxed historical, pointing to the story of Emperor Nero blaming everyone else when Rome burned in AD64, the salient point being that he was able to control the flow of information and thus turn people against each other. In like fashion, social media gives a platform to neo-Nazis and other extremists peddling misinformation and hate, such as those behind the January 6th riots in the US, and is not infrequently misused by national actors, such as China and Russia. Far from being neutral, it is the platforms which decide which material goes viral and who is silenced. Social media is purposely addictive and – with anger generating clicks – divisive.

Sudhamshu (opposing) countered that misinformation was entirely possible without social media, suggesting, in fact, that the proposers had promulgated misinformation in their speeches! The power of social media, he said, is that it is a conversation – two-way communication, able to be answered. In a world without social media, people would be less able to challenge politicians directly and governments would find it easier to control the populace.

Points and questions from the floor included:

• Is more free speech necessarily good? Much of the debate online is lazy and low quality.
• The tone online is often argumentative, which provokes people to reinforce their own views, leading to entrenchment and retreat to separate groups.
• Social media is used to organise violence, such as mosque attacks and attacks by the English Defence League.
• Counter examples were given of social media exposing corruption, particularly in developing countries.
• With algorithms driving social media, what you see is determined for you.
• Echo chambers were not a side effect, but the driving purpose of social media – pushing your own beliefs back at you.
• On social media you can publicly comment on and critique things. By contrast, if you send an email or letter to a newspaper, its staff will decide whether to publish it.
• Head of English Robert Hyland asked: “Who guards the guards?” Traditional media has editorial boards and regulators, but social media does not. However, his caveat was that perhaps the proposers were living in the past, harking back to what democracy used to be. Does it not evolve, with social media showing the robustness of that evolution?

The end result of the debate was a vote of 40% in favour of the motion, with 58% against, and 2% abstaining. Thus, the narrow lead for the proposition at the outset of the debate was overturned.

Earlier, a three-course dinner, with a vegetarian option was served.

• Click on the thumbnails to view the images.