Search This Blog

Monday, March 23, 2020

Guest Post #5 - Debating and mental health


This week we welcome a guest post from Laura Wallis on debating and mental health.

Laura Wallis is the Director of Debating Mental Health, an organisation that equips young people with mental health needs with the skills, confidence and knowledge they need to speak out on what matters to them in mental health.  She was involved in public speaking, debating and Model United Nations throughout her academic career and has also coached young debaters across the UK and internationally. She has been commended for her work by both Prince William and (when she was Prime Minister) Teresa May.

We were delighted to welcome Laura to Godolphin and Latymer School on March 12th 2020 for a stimulating workshop on debating and mental health as part of the school's inspiring Challenge Your Limits week.

What can debating do for students with mental health needs?

Learning to debate and participating in formal debate offers a number of benefits to children and young people.  These are not limited to but include: confidence-building; learning to structure and develop an argument; listening to others and; understanding perspectives that differ from your own.  These skills, of course, are important for all children and young people to develop, but are especially helpful for young people who may be struggling with their mental health.

Confidence and resilience

Young people who are (or have been) struggling with their mental health will often have struggled with low self-esteem, as the result of experiencing something that is still, to varying degrees, stigmatised and which may have resulted in extended periods away from education.  Problems with low self-esteem and low self-confidence may prevent young people from fully engaging at school or with mental health services and professionals they may be in contact with.  By empowering young people to speak out and be heard through debating, we support them to realise that their voice is powerful and that what they have to say is important.  That’s important because when children and young people believe in themselves, they engage better in school and feel hopeful for their futures, which improves their chances of success in whatever they decide they want to do. 

Competitive debate

When I tell people that I coach young people with mental health support needs to debate, I am frequently asked how debate can support young people who are, perhaps, vulnerable and lacking in confidence, when competitive debate potentially means losing.  Firstly, competitive debate can also mean winning; working closely with a team of your peers, throwing yourself into something and then winning, which is an exhilarating feeling.  Secondly, as exciting as winning a debate can be, not winning a debate also carries with it many lessons.  When a team doesn’t place first, they’ll go away and evaluate their performance, look to improve and work hard to achieve that outcome.  In this way, not winning also supports the development of resilience in children and young people, as they learn to cope with life’s knockbacks, to handle those appropriately and to move on.

The learning and practice of competitive debate supports young people to grow their confidence, raise their voices and be heard.  This can be life-changing for any young person, but for those who often feel silenced and stigmatised by society, the results can be even more powerful.



Sunday, March 15, 2020

Tricks of the trade #4 - metanoia, metaphor, paralipsis

Three more techniques to engage your listeners, from a debate on the motion: 'This house would make homophobic language illegal.'

Metanoia (saying something then retracting it)

You can use this to ramp up your condemnation of something you want to criticise, or increase your praise for something you want to celebrate, by finding ever more extreme terms. ‘Making homophobic language illegal is unfair. No, not unfair - it is absurd. No, more than absurd - it is tyrannical!’

Metaphor (comparing something to something else)

Metaphor includes simile. It is one of the first things you learn in English lessons from a very early age, and is much deployed in creative writing, so you should be familiar with it. You can use it very effectively in speeches too, to make your arguments more vivid. ‘Making certain words illegal is like making us walk around with a policeman sitting on our shoulder.’

Paralipsis (saying something that you say you’re not going to say)

This is when you say something while apparently denying you’re saying it. It makes it look as if you can’t say it because it is so shocking, and so adds to its power. ‘I’m not going to go into the consequences of homophobic bullying. The isolation of its victims. The despair. The depression. The anxiety. The self-harm. The suicide attempts. That’s not what we’re here to discuss. We’re here, according to the opposition, to discuss free speech …’

Sunday, March 8, 2020

Great speeches of history #1 - Obama's victory speech (2008)

Want to make your speeches better? Learn from the masters and mistresses of the craft.

By listening to and reading the great speeches of history (some from historical record, some imagined in drama or fiction) a debater can learn how to make their own speaking more persuasive. Be careful, though, not to get too carried away by the rhetoric. Your task is to take it to bits, to look at all the different working parts and see how each of them contributes to making the speech soar; to making it change the world. Just as you want to do with your debate speeches.

Our first speech was given in Chicago at midnight on November 4th 2008. I remember watching it live at 5 am London time during an election night sleepover for students at my school, wired on no sleep, too much coffee and a lot of hope. Barack Obama had just been elected as the first black American president. Whatever the rights and wrongs of his time in office, that simple fact was in and of itself a moment of history. Obama’s speech rose to the occasion.

Below is an edited transcript of the speech, with my comments in bold italics. You can watch the speech in full here.

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

‘If there is anyone out there’ starts the speech by calling out to the audience and includes everyone who is listening.

‘all things are possible’ has echoes, like a lot of American oratory, of the Bible: ‘With God all things are possible’ (Matthew 19:26). This subliminally reassures the listener that God is on the speaker’s side (and also has a lot of resonance in a country like the United States which has a very strong Christian heritage).

The repetition of ‘who still’ uses anaphora, repeating a phrase at the beginning of a clause, and does so in a way that builds from the origins of the USA to a crescendo with the immediacy of ‘tonight’.

It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.

This sentence uses enargia, telling a little mini-story about democracy. It makes an abstract notion real by putting it in terms of recognisable people doing recognisable things in recognisable places.

It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled — Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of red states and blue states; we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

Here Obama expresses his vision of inclusivity by the way he structures his sentence. First. apparently opposite groups of people are linked by the conjunction ‘and’, and then a wide variety of communities are brought together by their inclusion in an asyndetic list (that is, one that does not use the word ‘and’). Finally, he invokes his country’s name, always a good way to appeal to the emotions. He plays on it by moving from the divisions inevitably created by an election (‘red states’ are those who voted Republican, ‘blue states’ are those who voted Democrat, Obama’s party) to a vision of unity expressed in the country’s name: the United States of America. Along with this admirable message of inclusivity, he is subtly putting into his listeners’ minds the notion that he represents 100% of Americans, and that he embodies the united nation.

It's the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day. It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

These two sentences use balancing tricolons (lists of three). The first lists all the obstacles to hope, ‘cynical, fearful and doubtful’; the second balances, and thereby cancels out, the obstacles by building to a crescendo, from ‘on this day’ (a normal occurrence) to ‘in this election’ (a special day), to the historic nature of ‘this defining moment’ (making it a moment of history).

‘put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more’ links an abstract noun (‘history’) with physical actions (‘put their hands on’, ‘bend’), thereby giving the listeners a sense that they can physically control the world - a very empowering sensation.

………………………………………………………………………

… above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to — it belongs to you.

Argumentuum ad populum - addressing the audience directly.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington — it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give $5 and $10 and $20 to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this earth. 

More enargia: telling lots of mini stories which make the story of his victory relatable. Also, by focusing on ordinary people, who can only give ‘$5 and $10 and $20’, he makes it seem as if, despite being about to become the most powerful man in the world, he is still just an ordinary person.

This is your victory.

Again addressing the audience directly, including them.

I know you didn't do this just to win an election, and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime — two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for college. 

More enargia: ordinary stories, this time of struggle and difficulty, showing that he understands that life is not easy, but subliminally reassuring the audience that he will help solve their problems.

There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year, or even one term, but America — I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you: We as a people will get there.

Slowing down the rhythm of the speech (pacing matters as much as content) in recognition of the seriousness of the task with two short sentences: ‘The road will be long. The climb will be steep.’ Then incorporating an element of ultimate reassurance with epistrophe (repeated endings), using the repetition of ‘will get there.’

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And, above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for 221 years — block by block, brick by brick, callused hand by callused hand.

Including the audience by promising to listen to them. Again, inviting them to control the world through physical action, this time in a diminuendo, moving from a large section of buildings (‘block by block’) to a small unit (‘brick by brick’ ) to something individual and human (‘callused hand by callused hand’). Note the ‘callused’, recognising the value of physical labour.

………………………………………………………………………

… to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world — our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down: we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright: tonight, we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.

Another enargia, including listeners round the world, from the powerful to the poor, imagining where they are listening. Then some anaphora, addressing all different attitudes to the United States. Both these techniques remind the audience that the whole world is listening (as it was), and therefore what he is saying is important. He ends with a crescendo of abstractions, culminating in ‘unyielding hope’, which implicitly acknowledges that there will be obstacles to be overcome, and stops him from sounding complacent.

………………………………………………………………………

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election, except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons — because she was a woman and because of the colour of her skin.

His best example yet of enargia, using one of the many ‘stories that will be told for generations’. Obama uses one of the storyteller’s most important weapons: suspense. He delays the big reveal. First his subject is just ‘a woman’. There’s a clue in her state, though; ’Atlanta’ was notorious for racial discrimination throughout much of the twentieth century. She’s just like us, ‘the millions of others who stood in line’. Then we get the first remarkable thing about her: she’s 106 years old. Along with this, she is named, to make her into a real person. Her great age is made real by reference to specific aspects of the world she was born into ‘no cars on the road or planes in the sky’. Finally, the reveal: she’s black (and therefore would not have been able to vote for most of her life). Now we love this woman! We think of her frail little body standing in line on a cold November day! (And maybe think of our own grandmothers or great-grandmothers.) But the real masterstroke is the way Obama subliminally links himself with her by implication: for many years, she wouldn’t have been able to vote because she was black; for many years, he would never have been able to become President because he was black. So he’s associated with this loveable, admirable old lady (we have to assume she voted for Obama).

And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America — the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes, we can.
At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes, we can.

When there was despair in the Dust Bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes, we can.
When the bombs fell on our harbour and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes, we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes, we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes, we can.

Now a combination of enargia and epistrophe. Obama summarises a century of American history in a list of historic events, each illustrating the ways in which the American people have overcome obstacles, thereby making his listeners think that they can do the same. He reinforces this with the repeated ending ‘Yes, we can!’. This was his campaign slogan, and combines optimism (‘Yes’, ‘can’) with inclusion (‘we’). Something not right with your life? a/ it can be fixed b/ you won’t be alone. All in three words.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves: If our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

Some rhetorical questions pointing to the future, reminding us that he is the future now. 

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time — to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.

Anaphora with ‘This is …’, suggesting something that is present and immediate, about to happen (‘our moment’). Then a final crescendo ending in hope.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Rounding it all off by pushing the emotional buttons of God and nation.


So, in this speech, Obama persuades his listeners to feel good about themselves, their country, and, quite subtly, him as their leader for the next four years. Debate speeches are never going to carry quite the same weight, but there are many techniques here you can learn from for making your own speeches more persuasive.

Sunday, March 1, 2020

Guest Post #4 - Model United Nations

This week we are delighted to welcome a guest post from Florence Fernandez, a student at Godolphin and Latymer, on the Model United Nations, often known as MUN.

MUN is a close cousin of debating, and there are many overlaps between them. If you are interested in setting up an MUN team in your school, follow the link here.

As Florence points out, in our divided world there is more need than ever for the knowledge and understanding of cultures and perspectives different from our own that MUN offers.

What is Model UN?

The United Nations is a global organisation for maintaining international security. Without it, I firmly believe that humanity would have perished in flames years ago. It is the backbone of international cooperation and paramount for reaching multilateral agreements.  Model United Nations (MUN) is simply an organisation of students who wish to replicate this essential institution of peacekeeping. MUN can be seen as the incubator in which future diplomats are developed and enlightened. My belief is that, at a time when global issues seem to be ascending in severity, MUN will serve to limit future international disquiet more than any other extracurricular activity. Not only does it enrich every participating student with an impressive global understanding, but it’s also entertaining and enjoyable.

How does MUN function?

MUN is structured around organised conferences which are held at various schools and typically last from one to two days. In the weeks leading up to a conference, a delegate (any student who is chosen to represent a country at the conference) will be assigned their country and a committee. The UN is made up of six distinct committees which focus their debate on a specific category. For example, the UN’s third committee is named “SOCHUM”, which is an acronym for Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural issues, especially those related to human rights. This committee will focus the length of the conference on drafting resolutions to find solutions to global questions of human rights. The committee can discuss questions relating to the advancement of women, the protection of children, indigenous issues, the treatment of refugees, the promotion of fundamental freedoms through the elimination of racism , and many more topics. This is just one committee, which illustrates the large scope of debate that MUN offers. 

A resolution is a document consisting of numbered clauses which set policies in place, and it is from a resolution that the debate ensues. Up to three resolutions are debated in a committee, where the delegates are allowed to commend, criticize and amend resolutions put forward by other countries. In between debating, delegates are given lobbying time, to speak to other delegates and perhaps get them to advocate for your country’s resolution. Before the conference delegates will undertake research to gain a composite picture of their country’s stance on the issue. A successful delegate will incorporate their country’s stance into an exhaustive resolution which can be agreed upon by a majority of countries.

When I describe MUN to my peers in this way, they say it sounds rather arduous - this is completely false! It is axiomatic that public speaking needs to be entertaining in order to be effective. The latest conference resulted in my entire committee giggling as one very passionate delegate gave a furious speech on how the Palestinian territory outlined in Trump’s deal of the century looks more like a piece of swiss cheese than a country. From delegates putting on false accents, to passing war-waging notes, a committee is never short of entertaining banter. Nevertheless, anyone even mildly interested in global politics will be amazed by the sheer passion of the delegates and the indescribable happiness that comes with a group of delegates commending you on your resolution and asking to co-submit it with them.

Avid debaters make good MUN delegates, being quick with statistical evidence and a stern determination to make their point heard. This is crucial in MUN debate, although it is also vital that MUN debaters know how to compromise and agree. You don’t have to be versed in every last word of the U.N. charter to be a success, but you need an interest in global politics and the desire to have fun, fruitful debate.

Sunday, February 23, 2020

How to think about politics #4 - what is a nation?


What is a nation?

It’s an area of land which has borders (or a coast), a head of state and a government. There are 195 of them in the world.

Or, it’s a way of defining who you are. It’s a way of saying where you belong.

What does it mean to be British? To be American? To be French? Are British people inherently different from people born outside the UK? How is someone who was born or lives on one side of the road on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, or between France and Germany, or between the United States and Mexico, different from someone who was born or lives on the other side? Why should I be expected to share an identity with someone who lives inside some lines on a map, and not with someone who lives outside those lines? Aren’t we all human?

According to the political theorist Benedict Anderson, a nation is an ‘imagined community’. That is, it exists only in people’s minds. And yet, there are things which people of a shared nationality are likely to have in common. Language; food; landscape; climate; how society is structured, how people behave; a system of government.

Then again, they could easily share any or all of those things with people of other nationalities. English is spoken in over 50 countries around the world; Indian food is not confined to India; democracy is practised by dozens of countries, and aspired to by many more; there is arguably such a thing as ‘a Mediterranean identity’, or ‘an Arab identity’, which incorporates many nations. Moreover, large countries such as the United States or China contain within them a wide variety of landscape and climate. Winter in Alaska is a very different experience from winter in Alabama; China is home to both Mount Everest and tropical plains. Some countries include a variety of languages and identities: official business in Switzerland is conducted in German, French and Italian. The powers of national governments are often dissipated by transnational bodies such as the European Union - arguably even more so by the power of transnational corporations.

Nations do exist, though, and not just in people’s minds. No matter how deeply you believe that we all share one humanity and that divisions between us are artificial, nations are, at the very least, convenient and necessary administrative divisions. 

It isn’t enough, either, to dismiss nations because they exist only in people’s imaginations. The imagination is a powerful force, and there is a strong emotional component to the way people see nations. Why do some people tear up (and / or stand up) at the sound of the National Anthem? Why do they treat a flag as a kind of sacred object to be treated with reverence, rather than just a piece of coloured cloth? For some people, their nation is like their family, an essential part of their identity and a way of understanding themselves. They feel it should be defended and protected as they would defend and protect their own family. Others fear the whole idea of nationhood, perhaps because they feel excluded from the nation in which they live, or because they feel threatened by other nations, or because they have seen the consequences, in war and division, of excessive national loyalty.

This brings us to three key words for understanding nations and how people feel about them: patriotism, nationalism and internationalism. What do they mean? 

If you love your nation, you are a patriot. If you hate or fear nations which are not yours, you are a nationalist. If you believe that our first loyalty is to humanity as a whole, and that nations are artificial divisions, you are an internationalist. Social liberals are more likely to be internationalist; social conservatives are more likely to be patriots or nationalists. (See our earlier post on social liberalism vs social conservatism.)

A good example of patriotism at its best might be the football World Cup, where, every four years, people come from 32 countries around the world to support teams which embody their national identity. They dress in national colours, wave flags, and sing national songs. They cheer on their nations to beat other nations. They enjoy being part of a national group, and often this effect spills back home, lifting a whole country in celebration of their team’s achievements. There might be the odd late tackle, but no one gets killed. In some ways, it’s ridiculous to be overwhelmed by emotion just because eleven men or women who happened to be born in the same general geographical area as you manage to kick a ball into a net a few times. But then we are emotional creatures; we need emotion. We also need a sense of belonging, and patriotism can give us that.

Nationalism at its worst brings exclusion, racism, war. The mass slaughter of the First and Second World Wars, and the horror of the holocaust, were born of nationalism: the need to dominate and control other nations, and to exclude those who are not part of the nation because of their race. In a less extreme form, nationalism is behind the harsh treatment of immigrants by the Trump administration in the US and by some governments in Eastern Europe. People tend to turn to nationalism when they feel abandoned, forgotten or overlooked.

Internationalism is most clearly embodied in institutions like the European Union and the United Nations, where nations come together to share resources and solve problems together. These institutions exemplify the idealism of internationalism, but also its limitations. They can be unwieldy and slow moving, and are at risk of being captured by their most powerful members. However, at least they are trying, reminding us of our common humanity.


So are nations good or bad? Like so many other things, it depends what you do with them.


Motions that go with this topic:

  • This house would abolish immigration controls

  • This house would abolish the United Nations

  • This house would institute a world government

  • This house would only admit immigrants with particular skills

  • This house would grant independence to Scotland

  • This house is proud to be British / American etc.


  • This house would rejoin the EU

Sunday, February 9, 2020

Tricks of the Trade #3 - epiplexis, epistrophe, erotema and hypophora

Four more rhetorical techniques this week, with examples of how to use them in speeches on the motion: 'This house would make homophobic speech illegal.'

Epiplexis (a series of rhetorical questions)

This is when you ask several rhetorical questions (see erotema below), usually to express anger or indignation. ‘Are we going to stand by as gay teenagers are bullied? Will we do nothing as they self-harm? Will we remain silent as the suicide rate mounts? Will we be able to sleep at night if we do nothing? Are we really that unfeeling?’

Epistrophe (repeated endings)

This is a kind of opposite version of anaphora, in which the same word or phrase is repeated at the end of phrases or sentences. 

‘Controlling what people write in newspapers is oppressive; saying what they can and can't write online is oppressive; dictating to them what they message or say on phones is oppressive; policing what they say to each other is oppressive; forcing them to censor, perhaps, even their own thoughts, can only be described as oppressive.’

Erotema (rhetorical question)


A question which can only have one answer; one which will reinforce your argument. ‘Is it right that gay teenagers should walk in fear?’ ‘Do we want to live in a society where you can be sent to prison for what you say?’


Hypophora (asking yourself questions and answering them)


This is a technique much used by politicians, as it makes it look as if they are subjecting themselves to scrutiny, when in fact it is the equivalent of setting your own exam and then marking it yourself. However, it can be an effective, easy to follow way of setting out a case. ‘Why should we make homophobic speech illegal? Because words are not just words; they lead to actions. How do they lead to actions? Abusive language licenses violence. How does it license violence? If you demean people in the way you speak about them, you make it more acceptable to attack them physically.’


Sunday, February 2, 2020

Recommended book #3 - The Noisy Classroom


When I began teaching, over thirty years ago, it was considered a badge of honour if people could walk past your classroom during a lesson and think there was no one inside. That has changed for the better. Teachers recognise that students can and should learn by talking, and students value the opportunity to discuss, argue and debate in lessons. Oracy - the ability to speak and listen well - is now considered as important as literacy and numeracy. A noisy classroom can be a productive classroom.

Someone who has done more than most to promote the values and practice of oracy is Debbie Newman, the founder and leader of the excellent consultancy The Noisy Classroom, which runs, among other things, the popular Up for Debate competition. Now she has published a book sharing her ideas for teachers to use in the classroom. 

The Noisy Classroom: Developing Debate and Critical Oracy in Schools is packed with practical suggestions for things to do in lessons. These range from formal debates to easy to set up, quick fire activities, all of which will get students engaging in debate and discussion. She shows how debating in the classroom does not have to be restricted to the humanities, but can extend to Science and Maths as well. 

She also makes a powerful case for the value of debating in schools and beyond. In answer to the criticism that debating teaches children the kind of dishonest tricks used by unscrupulous politicians, she points out that ‘not listening to their opponents, failing to answer the questions posed to them and asserting arguments without providing evidence or thorough analysis … would have them knocked out of the first round of any debating competition.’ She reminds us of the value of debating in protecting young people from manipulation when she says, ‘Far from equipping tomorrow’s demagogues, giving all students the skills of debating will help to build a more politically literate society whose members are better able to tell a good argument from a bad one’, and she shows how debating can actually build a more united society when she argues, ‘Giving children the ability to argue both sides of the case does not rob them of their principles; rather, it helps them to see that there is usually more than one side to every story.’

This book should be on the shelf of every teacher of every subject, even if they’re not actively involved in debating. If you’re a student, tell your teacher to buy it - it will make your lessons more fun and more productive!