Search This Blog

Monday, October 19, 2020

Great speeches of history #2 - Greta Thunberg at the United Nations

 

 

Greta Thunberg’s address to the United Nations in New York on September 23rd, 2019 was a remarkable part of a remarkable story. A teenage girl had gone from being seen as a lone eccentric protester to becoming an international celebrity and the voice of the world’s conscience on climate change. In this speech she combines passionate feeling with a forensically logical presentation of the case for immediate action on climate change.

My message is that we'll be watching you.

Thunberg immediately challenges and engages her audience, both in the hall and around the world, by using the second person (‘you’).

This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean.

Short, sharp, direct sentences, presenting in an uncompromising tone what is wrong with the status quo.

Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.

Again, a direct address to her listeners, making us all implicit in what is wrong with the status quo.

And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing.

Now she moves on to verbs, ‘suffering’, ‘dying’, ‘collapsing’, pointing us to what is happening in the world around us.

We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

She sets up a dichotomy - a division into two - between what is happening (‘mass extinction’) and what we wish was happening (‘eternal economic growth’).

For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.

You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.

Now she’s focusing on pronouns. ‘You’ - initially her audience at the United Nations in New York, but by implication all of us, are failing; but ‘I’ - initially her, but by implication our own better side, still has hope. She’s done the work of pointing out what’s wrong with the status quo, the ‘now’; at this point she needs to show us the potential for a better ‘then’. A speech that is all despair and no hope will get few listeners.

The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control. Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist. So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences. To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons. How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just 'business as usual' and some technical solutions? With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than 8 1/2 years.

This is a passage heavy in what Aristotle would call logos. It has facts, figures, deductions from data. But mixed in there also is what Aristotle called pathos; an appeal to guilt and shame with the repetition of ‘How dare you?’

There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable. And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is. You are failing us.

Now she moves back to the second person, directly accusing her listeners of failing to respond to the clear logic of the data. She might be addressing the UN, but we all feel implicated.

The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you. We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.

By switching pronouns from ‘you’ to ‘we’, she moves from accusation to action, from anger to agency. The ‘we’ can take control and respond. We can move from being the ‘you’ who are accused to being the ‘we’ who act. So shame leads to action; this is the purpose of her speech.

Monday, October 12, 2020

Recommended podcast #5 - Talking Politics

 


Do you want to cut through the noise around politics? Would you like to get past competitive assertions of how awful Trump is / how good looking Rishi Sunak is / how Keir Starmer is really the model for Mark D'Arcy in Bridget Jones? Would you, in fact, like to know what is going on now by understanding what has happened before?

Then listen to Talking Politics. It is hosted by two Cambridge University professors, David Runciman and Helen Thompson. As you might expect, it tends to be pretty high powered and academic. Listening to it is like sitting in an oak lined study at Cambridge with the light filtering through the stained glass windows - but with your teachers keeping you vigorously on your toes. It’s well worth making the effort to engage with what they say; they are exceptionally well informed, highly intelligent and very perceptive. Best of all, they offer a wide historical and theoretical perspective from which to interpret current events, and keep a helpful distance from the hurly burly of everyday politics. Right now they are focusing on the US Presidential election, and are cutting through the confusing chaos into which it seems to be descending.

Trying to make sense of what is happening in the world may leave you stressed and anxious. Listening to Talking Politics will calm you down, because it will help you to understand.

Monday, October 5, 2020

Aristotle on rhetoric #1 - ethos


Aristotle (384-322 BCE) was one of the greatest philosophers of Ancient Athens, if not of all time. His published work covers science, literature, morality and politics. The book of his that is most relevant to debaters is
The Art of Rhetoric. Rhetoric - the art of persuasion, which is what debating is all about - was a vital part of life in Ancient Athens, as public policy was decided in massive assemblies to which all (male, non-slave) citizens were invited. There was a thriving industry of instructors in rhetoric. Aristotle was the best in the business, and his insights into how to persuade people are as relevant now as they were 2,300 years ago. In this series of posts, we’ll be looking at some of the key ideas from The Art of Rhetoric, and how you might use them to improve your debating. 


The first idea is ethos. It means how the audience to a speech feel about the person who is giving it.



‘I believe her.’


‘Why?’


‘I don’t know, I just do.’


‘But why? Did she give you reasons to believe her?’


‘It’s not about the reasons.’


‘Then why do you believe her?’


‘Because I just trust her, that’s why.’


How often have you had that conversation? Or at least that thought?


Debating is about getting people to believe you, but this belief is meant to be based on reason, logic and evidence. Provided the arguments are good, it doesn’t matter who makes them; to think otherwise is to fall into the ad hominem fallacy (attacking or supporting the person, not the idea).


But … we all know it isn’t really like that. Of course we are influenced by who’s talking, by how they come across, by what we think of them. Some people could make you believe night is day; other people could tell you the sun rose this morning and you still wouldn’t believe them.


This is what Aristotle calls ethos. It means the audience’s reaction to the person who is speaking. It matters a lot, and that is why he considers it accounts for at least a third of the persuasive force of any speech.


We can break ethos down into four parts:


1. Status: what authority does the person speaking hold, and how do they hold it? What impact will this have on how much the audience trusts them / wants to listen to them?


2. Identity: to which section of society do they belong? What impact will this have on how much the audience trusts them / wants to listen to them?


3. Setting: when and where are they giving the speech? What impact will this have on how much the audience trusts them / wants to listen to them?


4. Personality: what sort of person are they (or do they appear to be)? What impact will this have on how much the audience trusts them / wants to listen to them?



Let’s take some famous speeches and see how we can apply this analysis to them.



First, Barack Obama's speech on November 4th, 2008, the night he was elected President of the United States for the first time. We analysed the rhetorical techniques he uses in an earlier post, but let’s think here what difference it made that it was Barack Obama saying the words and not someone else. Why would people be listening to him with particular attention and faith in his words?


1. Status


He has just been elected as President of the United States, arguably the most powerful position in the world. This means a/ millions of American people chose to give him this immense power b/ he will soon be able to exercise this power. So, we want to listen to him because a/ we respect his mandate b/ we want to know what he is going to do with it.


2. Identity


He is the first black person ever to have been elected President of the United States, a country that was founded on the enslavement of millions of black people. Simply by virtue of his racial identity, he represents a unique historical moment. This in itself is inspiring and incentivises us to listen to him. (Unfortunately, there were - and are - some people in America who found it impossible to accept a black person in a position of power, and would refuse to listen to Obama for the exact same reason of his racial identity.)


3. Setting 


The speech has been timed to be given at midnight: the first minute of a new day, symbolising a new beginning for America. It is given in Chicago, the city where Obama has spent most of his adult life, and where he has a considerable following. And he makes sure that  the American flag, representing American identity, is very visible in the background.


4. Personality


Even Obama’s critics and opponents would accept that he is blessed with considerable charm and that he comes across as a warm, approachable, trustworthy person. This inevitably makes it easier to believe what he says.



Now, let’s look at Greta Thunberg’s speech to the United Nations on climate change on September 23rd, 2019. While Obama’s 2008 speech was very much in celebratory mode, aiming to make people feel optimistic about the future, Thunberg is here issuing a dark warning of what may happen if her listeners do not take urgent action. How does ethos work in her speech?


1. Status


On the surface, she has very little status. She is a sixteen year old schoolgirl from Sweden. Compared to the President of the United States, she has virtually no power. However, though she has no formal political authority, what she does have is moral authority. Her brave, principled stand has led her to be respected around the world, and has brought her invitations to the centres of power, such as the United Nations.


2. Identity


Again, she seems unremarkable compared to Obama. She’s just an ordinary schoolgirl, like millions of others. But that is precisely where her strength lies; in her very ordinariness. By seeming ordinary, she gives the message that fighting climate change is not something that should be left to powerful people, but should rather be undertaken by ordinary people - by all of us.


3. Setting


While Obama looks and feels completely at home speaking to a huge crowd in Chicago, she looks out of place. What is this schoolgirl doing speaking in the vast and powerful setting of the United Nations? But that is exactly the point. The very incongruity between the speaker and the setting points up the paradox: an ordinary schoolgirl talks more sense than all these world leaders with their armies of advisers. This paradox highlights the failure of those in power to deal with climate change.


4. Personality


Greta Thunberg is a person of very little guile; she says what she thinks, and what you see is what you get. This greatly increases the power of her message, because it is associated with sincerity and truth against the evasions and double talk of those in power.



Lastly, let’s look at a speech which, while it may not be the finest example of rhetoric ever, is certainly one of the most consequential ever given by a British Prime Minister. When Boris Johnson spoke to the British people on March 23rd, 2020 to announce a comprehensive national lockdown as a response to the spread of the coronavirus, he instantly changed the lives of every single person in the country in the most profound way, both then and for many months afterwards. How did he come across?


1. Status 


He is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the head of the government, so we have to listen to him telling us what to do because he is able to make us do it. In practice, Prime Ministers have much less power than you (or they) might think, and their speeches are often more about what they would like to happen rather than about what is actually going to happen. In this case, however, the national emergency meant that the Prime Minister had an unusual amount of power.


2. Identity


Boris Johnson was educated at Eton College and Oxford, two of the most elite (and expensive) institutions in Britain. He speaks with an accent associated with the English upper class. Maybe none of these things should matter, but they do. For some people they are a reason to turn against him, for others to respect him. At this moment in history, when people were frightened and confused, the sense of entitlement to rule often associated with his kind of background was probably more of a reassurance than otherwise.


3. Setting


He is inside 10 Downing Street, the residence of the Prime Minister. It is more usual for Prime Ministers to speak to the nation from the street outside, but this setting says that he is on the inside of government, that he is in charge and is getting on with the job. It also reinforces the key message that we too must all stay indoors to prevent the spread of the virus. He is sitting behind a desk, a statement of distance and authority. The Union Jack can be seen behind him, an expression of national identity, saying that we as a nation are united, and that he represents that nation. And he’s actually combed his hair, which he doesn’t normally do; things must be serious.


4. Personality


Boris Johnson’s normal personality - or at least the personality he chooses to project - is that of a jovial joker, who doesn’t take anything too seriously, but can get things done just by being upbeat and positive about them. None of this is appropriate for a national emergency in which thousands of the people for whom he is responsible are about to die from a virus for which there is, at the time of his speech, no vaccine. So you can almost see him physically restraining himself, keeping his facial expression serious, his tone sombre, his language clear and decisive; the stumbling, stammering, wisecracking image he has used to such effect in the past is firmly locked away for the duration.




How does all of this apply to schools debating? You’re not a President or a Prime Minister; you might well be a sixteen year old schoolgirl, but you’re not Greta Thunberg. You’re most likely speaking, not at a mass rally, or at the United Nations, or from Downing Street, but in an untidy classroom at the end of school, surrounded by discarded hockey sticks and Maths books. None the less, a skilful use of ethos can still help you to persuade the judge and thus win you the debate.




1. Status


Remember that, for the few minutes in which you are speaking, you have the highest status in the room, over the other debaters, over the judges, even over the teachers. Everyone has to listen to you,  whether they like it or not. Yes, the other side can make points of information, but it is entirely up to you whether you take them or not. You are in control. So act and speak like someone people should listen to, because that is who you are.


2. Identity


The important thing to remember here is that the identity you adopt during a debate is not the same as your actual identity. In this respect, debating has a lot in common with acting; you have to inhabit an identity which is not yours. And, just as with acting, the more fully you enter into that identity, the more convincing you will be. Sometimes this will mean you have to assume an identity you personally find repugnant. You might be an out gay person who finds themselves maintaining that gay couples are not fit people to adopt children; you might have to deny a significant part of your  cultural or family heritage to argue on one side or the other in the Israel-Palestine conflict; you might be a devout Catholic or Muslim who must make the case for abortion rights. But for those few minutes, you have to enter totally into that unfamiliar identity. The more convincingly you do this - the more the judges believe that you believe what you are saying - the more likely you are to win the debate.


Another thing: one identity all debaters must assume is that of the expert. Even if you have only been thinking about the debate topic for the fifteen minutes you had to prepare it, and know little and care less about it, you must make it seem as if you have dedicated your whole life to the study of proportional representation, car free city centres or the universal basic income, and that no one on earth knows more than you about this vital issue. 


3. Setting


If you’ve managed to qualify for the final of the Oxford Union or Cambridge Union debating competitions, you will find yourself debating in a magnificent Gothic setting, deliberately designed to replicate the House of Commons. Most of the time, though, you’ll be in a classroom that looks and smells like a room does when a hundred teenagers have recently passed through it. 


You can’t change the room. But you can change how you position yourself within it. If you can, go to the head of the table to speak. Own the space; spread yourself and your notes over it. Use assertive body language: stand upright, with your legs apart, and your hands visible (though not too active, as this may be distracting). Make eye contact with the people in the room, one after another, but giving special priority to the judges. Project your voice, but don’t shout. Vary your tone and pace. Use index cards, but look at them as little as possible. Act like you are the centre of attention, and deserve to be. Because you are, and you do.


4. Personality


As with identity, you do not have to - perhaps are best advised not to - deploy your actual personality. Some of the best debaters are in fact deeply shy people who find public speaking terrifying. Other debaters are gentle, conciliatory people, who hate disagreement in their personal lives. In both cases, they have to leave their real personality outside the door of the debating chamber.


Which personality you adopt depends on the motion. If you are speaking for the proposition in a motion to change the status quo, you need to come across as an optimistic, upbeat person who has faith that humanity will one day be living in the broad, sunlit uplands of hope if only we make all school lunches vegetarian. If you are speaking for the opposition in the same debate, opposing change, you will need to become a person who is cautious, wise and protective, and cares deeply about the suffering that will be caused to young people if burgers are banished. If you are arguing for a change that will address a perceived injustice, you need to assume the personality of a dedicated campaigner, fired up by righteous anger at the monstrosity that is school uniform, homophobic language or homework. As with identity, it’s all about acting.




To sum up: although in theory ethos, in Aristotle’s sense of how the audience regard the speaker, should be irrelevant in debating, judges are still human and are bound to be influenced by how you present yourself. So it is worth paying some attention to how you come across, as well as to what you say.

Monday, September 28, 2020

Free speech #1 - what is the point of free speech?

 

Free speech is not only the basis of debate; it is also one of the key topics of debate. It raises many issues. What if people use free speech to say something that is not true? What if it causes offence? What if it provokes violence? And who owns free speech, actually? 

In this series of posts, we will be looking at some of the issues this vital topic raises, and considering what debating motions it might inspire.


What is the point of free speech?


This should be an easy question for debaters to answer. Debating itself is predicated on free speech; it’s all about the free, unrestricted exchange of views. A debate where only one side of the case could be put would not be much of a debate. 


This free exchange of views has a value beyond school debating clubs. It is one of the founding principles of democracy. 


Why do democracies value free speech?


Because it is a benefit for citizens


Free speech is one of the benefits that a democracy confers on its citizens: a key difference between democracy and dictatorships is that people in democracies can say what they think without fear of consequences. This makes them nicer places to live in. No one likes being silenced. A world where you are worried that you may lose your job or be sent to prison for saying the wrong thing is not somewhere you want to live. 


Because it makes democracies work better


It is also, however, one of the ways in which a democracy functions more effectively. A free exchange of views is more likely to lead to effective decisions being made. Why? Because all the options will be given a hearing; bad ideas will be exposed and rejected; good ideas will be made better by being refined. (All the things that you learn how to do in debating, in fact.) If those in power make mistakes, they will be challenged and corrected, and we will be better governed as a result.



So, free speech is an unambiguously good thing. It makes us happier, and it makes society run better. We can’t get too much of it, surely?


Not quite. There might be times when free speech is not a good thing.


There are restrictions, after all, to free speech in a debate. You’re only allowed to speak when it’s your turn, and only for a limited period of time. You are allowed to challenge what someone else is saying, but only in unprotected time, and not if they don’t take your point of information. You’re only allowed to talk about the subject of the motion. You’re not allowed to make personal attacks on the other side.


So, some restrictions of speech are necessary in a debate. They are also necessary in the wider world. Free speech may need to be restricted, for example, when:




  • It threatens violence


  • It threatens our security


  • It is monopolised by those with wealth or power


  • It spreads damaging untruths 


  • It causes offence




The difficult questions are: what restrictions? Who imposes them? When? How? 



All these questions are matters for debate. We will be looking at them in future posts.


Motions that go with this post:


  • This house would abolish all censorship


  • This house believes that free speech is the highest good


  • This house opposes all restrictions to free speech

Monday, September 21, 2020

Bad arguments #7 - The straw man


 ‘Hannah, tidy your bedroom.’


‘Why?’


‘Because with the mess it’s in you can’t find anything. Remember you lost your English essay the other day and got into trouble for not handing it in on time?’


‘Oh, right, Dad, so you’re literally saying that if I don’t tidy my room like this afternoon I’m going to fail all my GCSEs and end up living on the streets?’



Of course, Hannah’s Dad isn’t saying that. But saying that he’s saying that makes his case for her tidying her bedroom look ridiculous and harder to believe. Hannah is using a very common bad argument; the ‘straw man’.


A straw man is an inanimate object made out of straw which looks like a man, but is not. Because it is made out of straw it is easy to pull apart, and does not fight back. Similarly, a ‘straw man’ argument looks like a certain argument but is not that argument, and has been made in such a way that it is easy to pull apart. It is a distortion of the other side’s argument which makes it absurd and therefore easy to demolish. It is tempting to resort to using the straw man argument to attack the other side when you are under pressure, because it offers a quick win. Tempting, but unwise; it prevents you from engaging with the actual arguments, and judges will notice this and mark you down for it.

 


 Let’s take an example of a straw man argument from a debate.



The motion is ‘This house would make the use of racist language a criminal offence.’ The proposition has defined ‘racist language’ as language which demeans people of colour on the grounds of their race.


In a point of information, an opposition speaker says: 


‘So, if this motion were carried, anyone walking into a cafe and asking for a ‘black coffee’ could end up walking out in handcuffs.’ 


This makes the proposition’s proposal look both ridiculous and tyrannical: how can describing the colour of a drink be a crime? But the proposition’s definition of the motion is not ridiculous or tyrannical, because describing the colour of a drink does not demean anyone on the grounds of their race, and these are the grounds they have chosen for denoting language as racist. So, although the opposition speaker is right to say that arresting someone for speaking out loud what coffee without milk looks like would be absurd, she is wrong to say that this is what the proposition is arguing for. She has built and dismantled a ‘straw man’, but has left the real man untouched.


How should you deal with a ‘straw man’ argument?


Gently but firmly (if possible, without sounding petulant) guide the conversation back to what you are actually saying. So, in the example above, the proposition speaker could say:


‘Cafe goers would not be criminalised under our proposal because, as I have said, we would only criminalise language which demeans people of colour; using the word ‘black’ to describe coffee does not do this. Language that actually does demean people of colour, however, has serious consequences because …’


So, to sum up:


  • Engage with the arguments as the other side are actually making them; distortion and ridicule make your rebuttal less strong.


  • If the other side use a straw man argument, patiently reiterate and reaffirm your argument as you actually made it.

Monday, September 14, 2020

How to debate #12 - the counter-mechanism



 How do you take control of a debate? 


One way is by seizing the initiative, by setting the terms on which the debate is conducted, requiring the other side to respond to those terms. It looks like only the proposition are able to do this. They get to define the motion; the opposition have to respond to their definition. They get to devise the mechanism; the opposition have to respond to the mechanism they choose.


The opposition cannot change the proposition’s definition of the motion. Nor can they change the proposition’s mechanism for delivering that definition. However, they do have another way of taking back the initiative: the counter-mechanism.


What is the counter-mechanism


The counter-mechanism proposes an alternative way of achieving the ultimate outcome implicit in the motion.  It means accepting the intention of the proposition, but offering a better way of achieving that intention. It moves the debate closer to the middle ground, because it implies that both sides agree on where they want to get to, but that the opposition has a better way of getting there. By agreeing on the fundamental premises, it makes it harder for the proposition to attack the opposition, because the grounds of disagreement are much smaller.


Let’s look at an example.


The motion is: This house would take down public statues of people guilty of racist attitudes or behaviour.


The proposition say that the existence of these statues in public places endorses racism and is an assault on people of colour, so they must all be taken down, but legally, by the authorities responsible for those public places, not by direct action. That’s their mechanism. Implicit in the mechanism is that removing statues is the best way to counter racism.


The opposition could simply accept this mechanism, and argue against the dismantling of statues on the grounds of free speech and opposition to censorship, setting freedom of speech up as a higher good than opposition to racism. This would create a clear divide between them and the proposition. However, it would also concede quite a lot of ground to the proposition. It would give them a monopoly of the case for anti-racism. Better, in fact, for the opposition to advance into the proposition’s ground and to take over some of their anti-racism. 


How?


They can do this by agreeing with the proposition that the existence in the middle of cities with a significant black population of statues of slave owners, implicitly celebrating their ‘achievements’, is an assault on people of colour. Then, they can say that there is a better way of dealing with this assault. They would add plaques to the statues detailing the racist actions and attitudes of these once celebrated people. This is their counter-mechanism: a course of action which is different from the one proposed in the motion (the statues stay up), while accepting the existence of the problem implicit in the motion (the public celebration of racists is wrong).


This action would have the advantage of both supporting one of the opposition’s strongest arguments (censoring history by editing out the parts of it we do not like will stop people from understanding it), while also supporting one of the proposition’s strongest arguments (racism must not be celebrated). It is also, like all the best mechanisms, practical (plaques could be added easily and at very little expense), enforceable (provided the plaques were accurate, few could object to them) and simple (it is very easy to explain and justify in the limited time allowed in a debate). It is also easier to defend than the proposition’s mechanism, as it doesn’t raise the tricky question of what should replace the statues once they are taken down.


So, to sum up:


  • An opposition using a counter-mechanism accepts that the problem implied in the motion is real.


  • It agrees that action needs to be taken to fix this problem.


  • It offers a counter-mechanism which is a better way of fixing the problem than the mechanism offered by the proposition.

  • The counter-mechanism should be practical, enforceable and simple, and it should be more of all these things than the mechanism.






Tuesday, September 1, 2020

The Debating Book - everything you ever need to know about debating


The Debating Book is your one stop guide to debating. Written with authority, passion and wisdom by Julian Bell, one of the leaders of UK debating, it will tell you everything you ever need to know about debating.

The Debating Book is for you if:


  • You have never done debating before and would like to start.
  • You have only just started debating and you would like to get better.
  • You are an experienced debater and you want to be the best you can be.
  • You are a teacher who would like to set up debating in your school and you aren’t sure what to do.
  • You are an experienced debating coach and you would like to support your students even better.
  • You are the parent of someone who does, or would like to do, debating, and you want to support them.


 The Debating Book covers:


  • Why you should do debating
  • How debating works
  • The basic skills of debating
  • Bad arguments to avoid (and how to attack them when other people use them), and good arguments to persuade people
  • The big issues and ideas that debates are about
  • Useful facts about the world that debaters need to know
  • Tricks to make your speeches more persuasive
  •  How you can use debating in lessons
  •  How to set up and run debating in your school
  •  A full transcript of an expert debate with close analysis, explaining what star debaters do and how they do it. 

Order your hard copy here.

Order your ebook version here.


'There is literally nothing Julian Bell doesn't know about schools debating.' David Paton, Principal, Radnor House, Sevenoaks.