Debating round 2

One of the perks of being a teacher is the variety of things that you get involved in.  The local schools have a debating competition where each school puts up two teams to debate a contentious issue.

Last night I was called upon to adjudicate a debate between two schools.  The topic of the debate was  "That Australia is a nanny state".  This topic of course stirs our inner anarchist, they one. That wants to don the Guy Fawkes mask, march up to Canberra and set off fireworks whilst demolishing a public building.

Whilst I was very happy with the performances of the debaters, and it is becoming harder to give positive critique of their performances.  I was a little perturbed by some of the matter presented.  One would have expected some reference to state control versus anarchy, and this was given.  One expects a little flag waving Australianism. "We are young and free". Fortunately that part was absent.  The main thrust of the positive argument was that there are rules, which were made up by an anthropomorphised government (with slightly blurred lines between who was the government). That rules were bad, and therefore any rules were nannying.  Which although I am sympathetic to, I have met the average north Australian, and quite frankly maybe there needs to be more rules.  The central point of the negative argument was that these rules were guidelines, and because they weren't enforced very well it couldn't be a nanny state.  

The positive team did a great job of painting a picture of Australians as good solid decent people under an Orwellian big brother.  With the government snooping and making rules without thought.  The snooping arguments were exemplified as shoppers being spied on when they purchased stuff, so this was rebutted easily by the negative team.  The picture of Australians being solid decent people was not challenged, but the idea of an Orwellian government was challenged by examples of nannying simply not being done well. The second negative speaker giving a particularly good negative duck typing example.  "If it doesn't quack like a duck it isn't a duck".  The positive team were kind of sidetracked a lot by argumentative drift, instead of spending time giving examples of why Australia is a nanny state, they focused on saying that a nanny state was a bad thing.

The negative team delivered a solid and coherent argument that Australians were fairly free, they just had lots of advice.  Lots of advice!  In retrospect the first speaker could have delivered a powerful positive argument and only changed a handful of words on her palm cards.  

As I mentioned in my introduction I was a little surprised by what was left out, rather than what was in the matter speeches.  Compulsory voting would have been a great example to have explored, this would have steered well into the positive camp, Australia is the only country to compel the vote, yet this opportunity was missed.  Perhaps because the students agree with it, they may have felt it was a bad example, because it is "good nannying". Another great example would have been to look at the opening scenes of V for Vendetta, how many actions in that film which are commonplace elsewhere are banned in Oz?  Well for start the fireworks, the public gatherings without permission, even the standing on a rooftop may be considered odd here. 

Debating evenings rarely seem to settle the argument, it seems often that the conversation merely gets some fuel.  In the classroom the morning after there is frequently an analysis of the teams performance the night before.  That's the real fun of student debates.