by Fraser Raleigh
What was supposed to be a serious look at the Middle East turned into a farce last week at the Union as the original line-up boycotted the debate following the withdrawal of the invitation of the controversial academic Norman Finklestien. The chamber was left confused as instead of experts, 5 Union debaters and Paul Usiskin, Chair of UK Peace Now walked towards the front benches. After many members had shown their disdain by walking out and the President had struggled to avoid being drawn into a stand up argument with a protester, the debate got under way.
Ben Jasper tried his best to make the case for a proposition that he acknowledged was neither popular nor easy to defend but he was overly complicated despite being well-meaning. Alex Worsnip did a better job in terms of argumentation, structuring his speech well by talking of the dangers of abuses of rights and of civil war and picking holes in the Proposition’s case as did his partner Andrew Goodman who spoke of the absurdity and unlikelihood of any form of coalition under one state. Jamie Furness, last speaker for the proposition, was one of the few good things to come out of the debate as he at mixed charisma and arguments effectively. Peter Usiskin, speaking for the second time, was sufficiently experienced in the question to shed some real light that had been missing from the other speakers.
This in itself highlighted the problem with the debate. The Union debaters did very well technically and substantively, especially given the very little time they were given to replace the original line up, and they should be praised for this. But they were just debaters, given a brief and told to argue it. Unlike outside speakers, they often didn’t really believe what they were arguing and as such the debate was ultimately flat. No punch, no passion and ultimately, no point.
