Debate with Stirling University @ Westlands 18.00 for 18.30 debate

Debate with Stirling University @ Westlands 18.00 for 18.30 debate

Not surprisingly given the circumstances that have prevailed, it hasn’t been possible to hold the (usually) annual debate between the Club and students from the University of Stirling Debating Society for two years.  So it was with pleasure that on Thursday evening the Club was again able to welcome students to the Westlands Hotel.

As has been the custom, the event opened with a serious debate, namely that “This House Believes that Austerity has been Europe’s Worst Policy of the Century.” Opening, Homoud Mahadin argued that fundamentally, austerity fails to achieve its goals, namely fiscal stability.  In a period of austerity, consumer confidence, and investment decreases.  Consequently, government revenue is reduced and the economy often enters a deflationary spiral, resulting in a failure to turn the economy around.  Opposing the motion, Clemens Ziesik claimed that austerity is not inherently a failed action; it is the circumstances and timing of its introduction that can be at fault.  Exercised at a time when other measures have failed, austerity can be the only means of restoring stability to the economy.  

Following interventions from supporting speakers and the audience, a vote was taken, resulting in the motion being heavily defeated.

After refreshments, the (at least in theory) less serious motion was that “This House Would Not Get Married”.  Opening, James Southern maintained that marriage was a failed institution.  Who, in his or her right mind, he asked, would willingly enter into a contractual relationship that had a 42 per cent likelihood of being a failure? Relationships have more chance of failing when, as with marriage, they are bound with unnecessary legal and financial commitments. Opposing, Ciaran Shearer argued that marriage provides the culminating declaration of a deep, loving relationship. It also provides a positive framework for raising a family. Adding her support, Ugonna Oleh argued that, as all life is full of risk, why not go for the best option and cement a relationship– in this case marriage  - which offers the warmth and stability of family life. 

Arguments, perhaps not surprisingly, often of a lighthearted nature, were then put forward by other speakers and members of the audience. When the motion was put to the vote, there was no ambiguity about the result: the motion was defeated with the audience almost unanimously in favour of marriage. 

President Russell said that he was delighted that the Club was able to welcome students back for the debate, and thanked all the participants for an entertaining evening.