The Great Debate

Tonight is the Law, staff v students, debate, hosted by the LSA. You may have read some of my thoughts on this, amongst other things, here. You may, or may not have agreed. I would like to hear the man pictured above debate. Unfortunately, he is dead, so I don't think this is possible. I further have it on good authority that he has also not been cloned. So while I can't attend a live debate, which he will be speaking at, I can read his speeches in many places, such as here. This afternoon the decision is difficult: irrelevant non-law reading vs relevant law reading. It's a difficult one, but guess I should lead by example: relevant law reading! Wins.

The topic for this evenings debate is: Coporal punishment is the answer to juvenile crime.

The students are arguing the negative, the staff are arguing the affirmative. My sister was a fantastic debater at school, she won lots of awards and things like that. If I've ever had to debate I've always run screaming, pulling my hair out and panicking to her. She always put me back on the proverbial garden path.

It would be good if the students won. The staff team, consisting of David Field, Duncan Bentley and Jo Hinz will be a formidable force. I'm a bit worried about the student side after asking one of the debaters what the topic was. They responded: Coporal punishment. I asked again "no the topic of the debate," their response was the same. Then I said "no what are you arguing, what do you have to argue for or against." They responded with: 'neg.' mmmm. Hopefully the 3 student debaters can work as 'a team' (something not often heard of around Bond lately) and teach each other a thing or two.

The debate, hopefully will be interesting. It would be great if one or more coherent arguments could be advanced by either side. Sounds simple but after the law debates I've attended here I think it must be a difficult task to accomplish. The point of the debate is also to entertain. It is possible to entertain, present a coherent argument and be funny! Really, it is. I had a conversation with an individual, who will not be named, after the previous debate. I observed that the speakers used their time to crack jokes and get arise out of the crowd. Someone would be forgiven for thinking it was a stand up comedy evening, not a debate.

I love watching the great debate on Channel 10. These are also hysterically funny, and also very insightful, informative and skillful. They recruit some of this country's most talented public speakers, flying them in from around the continent, normally to Melbourne. I don't like leaving the television, even for Haighs chocolates!

A friend of mine attended both debates at the Melbourne Comedy festival this year.

The legal comedy debate, hosted by the Law Institute of Victoria was: That In the sport of law, even lawyers need performance enhancers.

It was prefaced with this commentary: "The practice of law is one of the world's most gruelling sports. Lawyers must wrestle with legal logic, overturn heavy precedents and run complex litigation. What do they need to do to stay on top of the legal game? Will their competitive streak and natural attributes of stamina, cunning, wit and analysing power ensure that they win the contest? Or do lawyers need to enhance their performance to win the largest briefs?"


The 17th Annual Great Debate, brought to you also by the Comedy festival. The program said this: "If you like your comedy with a bit of fight, you won't want to miss the 17th Annual Great Debate. This year's Debate promises to be every bit as hard hitting as a 6.30pm current affairs show and a whole lot funnier than Question Time in Canberra. Don't miss your chance to see six of the greatest comedy minds battling it out for the glory of being right."
The topic was: That Coming First is All that Matters.

Any arguments that could be used by either the staff or students can be posited here as comments and I can forward you remarks on to the individuals involved!