Congratulations go to Ashish Kumar & Michael Dunn Goekjian from Cambridge, the winners of the 2013 Birmingham IV. We’d like to thank everyone who came, spoke, or generally helped out, and hope to see you again next year.

The tab, courtesy of the awesome Tom Lake:

Teams, Speakers, ESL Speakers, Novice Speakers,  Final Rounds

(standings as an ODS File or as an Excel (XLSX) File)

Motions:

Round 1: This house would financially compensate children who fail to achieve employable grades at school.

Round 2: This house would establish quotas for immigrants on national sports teams.

Round 3: This house believes the European Union should lower the entry requirements and fast-track accession procedures for the Ukraine and other nations in the Caucasus.

Round 4: This house believes the USA should withdraw from its defensive pact with Japan in the East China Sea.

Round 5: THBT Lack of Intent should not be considered a legitimate defence in hate speech trials.

Semi Finals: THBT Governments should take public steps to disrupt and discredit the use of cryptocurrencies (e.g. Bitcoin).

Final motion: This house believes that South Africans should engage in a frank and critical discussion of the life achievements and legacy of Nelson Mandela, rather than continue to uncritically revere him.

On Wednesday the 4th of December, UoB Debating is holding our fifth public debate of the year, which is on whether Defend Education’s demands justify occupation.

As usual, attendance is free, and audience speeches at the end are encouraged, with prizes for the best ones.

The motion to be debated is “This house believes that Defend Education’s demands do not justify occupation.”

Speaking in favour:

Charlie Winch – President of Birmingham University Conservatives, studying International Relations.

Maximilian A. Shapiro – A war studies student currently writing his dissertation on counterinsurgency and the Iraq War.

Speaking against:

Hattie Craig – Vice President of Education at the Guild of Students.

Galen Reich – A physics student and Defend Education member with an interest in engagement on issues both political and scientific.

The motion to be debated is “This House Believes that limits should be placed on freedom of religious expression in Western liberal democracies”.

Speaking in favour:

Jamie Batchelor – Law & German student and quarter finalist at the European Debating Championships.

James Bowker – International Relations student and the Guild Councillor for the school of Government and Society.

Speaking against:

Abdel Rahman Mussa – A graduate of Sharia, a therapist with 11 years of experience, a business consultant, and a thinker, author, and speaker on Islamic politics and affairs.

Abdullah Al Andalusi – A speaker and lecturer on Islamic economics, Sharia, secularism, liberalism and atheism. Co-founder of the Muslim Debate initiative that promotes open dialogue and discussion between people of different backgrounds and faiths.

This Thursday (the 10th) at 6:30pm in the Arts Main Lecture Theatre, we’ll be hosting a public debate on whether God exists.

As usual, attendance is free and audience speeches will be warmly welcomed, with prizes for the best ones.

The motion to be debated is “This House Believes that God exists”.

Speaking in favour:

James Wood – Masters student studying Politics & Philosophy and an accomplished University debater.

Father Patrick Mileham – Catholic Chaplain at the University of Birmingham after six years as the parish priest of Burntwood in Staffordshire, regularly leads pilgrimages to Rome and the Holy Land.

Speaking in opposition:

Toby Betenson – Currently writing his doctoral thesis at Birmingham on ethics and the problem of evil. Studied Theology at Durham before moving on to a Masters in Philosophy at King’s College London.

Eliot Pallot – Accomplished University debater, successes including winner of the Cardiff IV 2013 and multiple national out rounds. He was also interviewed as part of a student documentary entitled ‘I could be wrong’ on the rise of atheism.

//////

The existence of a metaphysically ultimate being has been the subject of heated discussion by theologians, philosophers and scientists for thousands of years. The existence of a God remains incredibly important for many modern day religions, affecting millions of people world-wide.

Proponents suggest that the complexity of the universe could only have been created by an all-knowing being, whereas some atheists suggest that the lack of epistemological proof of a God means that such a being could not exist. What is the sufficient criteria by which we can determine the existence of a God? Does it matter if we cannot prove that God exists?

This promises to be an incredibly stimulating debate, calling into question many of the assumptions made about the characteristics of a God, and asking one of the potentially most complex questions of our time. Join us for an interesting insight into the academic arguments on either side, and be prepared to question and critically analyse your own views.

Come along for what promises to be a fantastic debate, sponsored by the ever-generous Allen and Overy.

Dress code: formal. Put on your Sunday best and whip out the scents, this is one of our premium events (I’m a poet that knows it!).

Following the debate there will be a drinks reception with alumni and representatives from Allen and Overy, so it’s also a great chance to do some cheeky networking.

For those of you who don’t know where the Guild Council Chambers are, walk past Spar and you’ll see some stairs. Go up one floor, turn right then turn right again!

We’ll be meeting up in Mermaid Square outside the Guild at 7:15 and going from there.

Check out their menu here.

As usual, attendance is free, and audience speeches at the end are encouraged, with prizes for the best ones.

The motion to be debated is “This House Believes that it was wrong for the West to threaten Syria with military intervention”.

Speaking in favour:

Jack McGuinness – Final year War Studies student at the University of Birmingham.

Dr. Adam Quinn – member of Political Science and International Studies Department (POLSIS) with a PhD in International Relations. Lecturers on US Foreign and Security Policy.

Speaking against:

Dr. Haifaa Jawad – Senior lecturer in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, specialising in the socio-political study of Islam, Modern & contemporary Islamic Thought; Islam and the West and Middle East politics.

Jordan Anderson – MA in Intelligence and International Security from King’s College London, winner of multiple debating competitions, and ranked the 10th best debater in Europe in 2011.

On the 21st of August there was a frightening new development in the Syrian Civil War as the government launched a chemical attack against the opposition. It was the single deadliest incident of the war so far. The use of chemical weapons has long been against the international norms of warfare due to the massive collateral damage they can cause in civilian populations.

President Obama, who had previously stated that the use of chemical weapons would be a red line for US intervention, as well as David Cameron and Francois Hollande all responded by threatening a military strike on Syria’s chemical weapon facilities. While British involvement was ruled out by a historic vote in the Commons, a joint Franco-American strike was only averted when Russia negotiated a deal for Syria to voluntarily decommission its chemical weapons.

Was the Assad regime incentivised to sign that deal due to the impending threat of military action or were Obama, Cameron and Hollande too eager for conflict without first attempting the diplomatic approach? Does the West now seem irrelevant in the face of Putin’s superior diplomacy?

To that end we will be debating the motion “This House Believes that it was wrong for the West to threaten Syria with military intervention”. The debate will take place on Thursday 10th October at 6.30pm in the Arts Main Lecture Theatre.

To give you a taste of what to expect at our debating workshops as well as our public debates for the coming year, we invite you to a special Welcome Week public debate on whether offensive comedy does more harm than good.

It’s free to attend and you’ll be able to participate, with prizes given for the best audience speeches. Afterwards, join us for a relaxed social.

Comedy often treads a fine line between humour and offence especially when dealing with topics such as religion, disability and death. What some people find funny others take to be deeply insulting. Should we listen to those people who say that some topics should be taboo or just accept that “it’s all a joke”?

To that end we will be debating the motion “This House Believes that Offensive Comedy does more harm than good”

Speaking in favour:

Tito Sarrionandia
A university debater from Aberystwyth who reached the Quarter Finals of this year’s World Universities Debating Championships.

Matthew Szeto
Nationally respected alumni of UoB Debating and winner of numerous competitions.

Speaking in opposition:

James Bowker
A member of our very own debating society and our debating workshop co-ordinator.

Professor Christie Davis
A professor of sociology and co-editor of Censorship and Obscenity (1978), author of Ethnic Humor Around the World: a Comparative Analysis (1990 and 1997) and of Jokes and their Relation to Society (1998) amongst other works. He has also been a regular contributor to national and international newspapers.

As previously mentioned there will also be time for audience speeches, with prizes available for the best speakers from the floor.

We hope to see you all on Thursday and if you can’t wait until then here are some videos to get you thinking:

Our awesome CA team:

Richard Hopps – Three-time EUDC quarter-finalist (2011, 2012 & 2013)
Karin Merckens – WUDC ESL finalist (2013)
Matt Handley – EUDC Open finalist & WUDC Open Semi-finalist (2013)

We are also lucky to have an excellent equity team, made up of Becki Howarth & Holly Moorhouse.

I (Jamie Batchelor) have just spent a year in Berlin, and I’ve realised just how awesome the continental European debaters are. We want you guys to come and enjoy Birmingham too, and as such we’ll be offering a discount to international teams, and also having an ESL final and tab.

We’re close to Birmingham International Airport, and not too far away or expensive on the train from East Midlands or Liverpool Airports.

Over Saturday 21st and Sunday 22nd December, we’ll hold 5 rounds of 7 minute speeches, breaking to Open Semi-finals and an ESL final.

Registration costs:

IONA with crash – £50 per team
International with crash – £45 per team
Any without crash – £40 per team

For those of you hoping for more comfortable accommodation, the University Hotel is offering a significant discount to participants. It will cost £39 per person to stay at the hotel for the weekend, which is around a 5 minute walk from our venue, and this price includes breakfast on both Saturday and Sunday. We’ll give you the full details of this in due course.

The registration cost includes a 2-course traditional Christmas dinner on the Saturday evening.

Provisional Schedule:

Friday:

20:00 onwards – Pub Social – The Bristol Pear.

Saturday:

9:00 – 9:30 – Registration
9:30 – 10:00 – Announcements
10:00 – 12:00 – Round 1
12:00 – 14:00 – Round 2
14:00 – 15:00 – Lunch
15:00 – 17:00 – Round 3
17:00 – 19:00 – Round 4
19:00 onwards – Head to venue for Xmas dinner and social.

Sunday:

9:00 – 9:30 – Registration
9:30 – 11:30 – Round 5
12:00 – Break announcement
12:15 – 13:00 – Lunch
13:00 – 15:00 – Open Semi Final & ESL Final
15:30 – 17:30 – Open Final
18:00 – Winners announced.

For more information get in touch with us on Facebook or email bhamiv2013@gmail.com

See you there!

As usual, attendance is free, and audience speeches at the end are encouraged, with prizes for the best ones.

The motion to be debated is:

“A self-regulated press is preferable to the Leveson reforms.”

Speaking in favour:

John Hemming MP – Group Chair of the Liberal Democrats on Birmingham City Council and a prominent campaigner against the Leveson recommendations.

Raphael Sheridan – Former editor of Redbrick and final year Political Science student.

Speaking against:

John Mair- Journalist and Associate Senior Lecturer in Broadcast Journalism at Coventry University, and a former BBC current affairs producer working on Question Time and Watchdog, has also worked for Channel Four and ITV.

Richard Hopps – Hugely successful competitive debater studying maths and economics. Twice quarterfinalist at EUDC and a finalist at the 2012 Birmingham IV.

/////////

Following the News of the World phone hacking scandal, the government set a public inquiry into the culture, ethics and practices of the British press, which concluded that the Press Complaints Commission should be replaced with a new, independent regulatory body, backed up by new legislation. However, concerns have been raised regarding the effect such a body would have on press freedom in the UK. Those of this view propose a system of self-regulation in order to safe-guard these freedoms.

Is the phone hacking scandal proof that the press cannot be trusted and therefore must be regulated, or would legislation be unacceptably damaging to fundamental freedoms of the press, regardless of circumstance?