The Roses debate got off to a fiery start, however ended amicably for all parties. As an unsuspecting audience we found it to be more eccentric than expected, with arguments revolving around the two opposing University mascots.
First place was awarded to Opening Government, commended for their straightforward and easy evidence claims. Closing Government received second place for a great showing, though judges felt they could improve by emphasising scale of impact more. Closely followed by Opening Opposition in third place. Judges saw real promise in their idea, yet believed it could be more relevant to the main argument.
Regardless of the result, there was great sportsmanship on all fronts and a really lively atmosphere in the room. Speakers made both their teammates and their competitors laugh throughout their arguments making it a thoroughly enjoyable watch.
The competition was fierce, the atmosphere was tense. The debate concluded with judges highlighting strengths and weaknesses among a really strong class of debaters. Despite the intensity of the event, both teams ended on a high, bonding over their shared hatred of Manchester.
One of the York speakers for the Closing Government team, Dan Gallagher, described the day as “tense”, clarifying that “a big part of comp debating is managing mental exhaustion as the day goes on.”
But he also added that: “it was really good fun being so intimately exposed, over so many rounds, to the unfamiliar debating styles of Lancaster, and trying to figure out to how counter it.
“Spending five hours arguing with someone would be enough to humanise them if they were from any other institution,” he jested, “we went in as the favourites to win, according to chatter on the circuit […] but the underdog Lancaster had one team which was truly spectacular. They weren’t necessarily flashy, but they did their basics better than us in two out of the three rounds.”
We are already anticipating what they can come up with next year!