It’s fairly simple: Either you have a “boss” partner like Richard Robinson or you are from Leiden. In the latter case you can even win it as Ali Al Khatib and Rob Honig did from 2nd proposition against teams from Cambridge (1st proposition, Doug Cochran and Maria English), University College Dublin Law (1st opposition Christine Simpson and Mark Haughton) and Manchester (2nd opposition, Richard Robinson and Niels Schröter) on the motion “This house believes that Irish sovereignty can never be truly realized.”

Due to their outstanding performance during the tournament as a whole I asked the two Dutch a question that might be interesting for many of us: “What is the secret of your success in beating such strong teams as Cambridge or Kings Inn?” Rob answered at length:

“Teams like Cambridge and King’s Inn are very creative, experienced and eloquent. In most debates they will simply outshine all other speakers in the room and ESL-speakers in particular. In order to stay in the debate, I would advise ESL-teams to always present the adjudicators with a clear (and memorable) team line. Try to communicate and flag what your concrete contribution to the debate entails and how it relates to the motion. This increases the chance of your arguments being discussed during adjudication, instead of being forgotten or easily dismissed. Provided that those arguments are any good, you will have a good chance of leaving the room with precious points! One more thing: in order to win rounds against EFL-teams, you need to have top-quality adjudicators who are willing to look beyond your accent or peculiar choice of words and don’t judge purely on reputation. Ali and myself were lucky enough to have many of such excellent Irish and British judges in our rounds at Cork.”

Under the lead of convenor Anne O’Donovan the University College Cork Philosophical Society showed Irish hospitality at its finest. I asked Tom Jackson (Nottingham) what made the Cork IV so special for him: “How did the Cork IV differ from the English competitions you routinely attend?” Tom:

“The biggest difference had to be the hospitality – I’m not sure what they could have done better! At a typical two-day competition in England you can expect to be provided with three to four slices of pizza and plenty of drinks; meager compared with the two dinners, lunch and breakfast at Cork. Then there were the little things that help sustain you through a long day of debating: orange juice in the morning to stave off a hangover, a constant supply of tea and coffee, hot chocolate with mini marshmallows and a fantastic homemade christmas cake.”

The motions at the tournament were from my perspective very balanced and carefully crafted to suit all levels of experience designed by CA Ross Frenett, the full list of them reads:

• This house would ban fee paying secondary schools.
• This house believes the US should direct government hackers to destroy Wikileaks.
• This house would abolish state pensions and cater for the elderly on a case by case basis through existing disability support programmes.
• This house would assassinate Kim Jong Ill and his immediate family
• This house believes Ireland should default and leave the Euro Semi.
• This house believes that civil disobedience and violent protests are a legitimate form of political action in liberal democracies
• Novice Final: This house believes the state should uphold a right to die regardless of circumstance.
• Grand final: This house believes Irish sovereignty can never be truly realized.

Niels Schröter / apf

Niels Schröter is a member of the Berlin Debating Union and currently on an exchange in Manchester, England. His enthusiasm for debating does not cease with his being away: Many ways lead from Manchester to various international debating competitions as he just recently took part in Irish tournaments in Dublin and Cork. At this year’s Cambridge IV, Niels and his team mate Filip bubenheimer reached the ESL final.