Debates

This was the first online event of 2021 which was mainly scheduled for the first years. The debate saw active participation and was received enthusiastically. 6 rooms, each with a moderator and a judge were made available on the Webex platform to conduct the debate smoothly.

The participants were given a 2 minute time for the constructive speech followed by a rebuttal after all the speakers had spoken once. Apart from the participants each room also had some students as audience. After all the participants completed their rebuttals, the audience were given the opportunity to refute any of the points spoken and question the speakers. The rebuttals of the speakers were also very interesting and showed their attention to other people’s constructive speeches. The audience also had some questions for the speaker, the end result being an interesting and fruitful debate.

At the end the judges of each room selected a best speaker each for and against. The debate successfully ended with everyone leaving with a broader perspective on the topic.

With the rise of Over The Top Streaming Services such as Hulu, Netflix and Disney+, watching movies and TV shows has become as easy and convenient as the click of a button. No need to book a ticket and drive to the theater to watch the latest blockbuster. However, can streaming movies at home provide a better experience than watching on the big screen?

During the debate, participants debated the merits of convenience over luxury, how home theatres offer similar sound and quality as theatres, and the cost of overpriced theatre tickets as opposed to overpriced subscription charges.

Our third online event during the lockdown period enjoyed a limited but enthusiastic participation. The session was of about one and a half hour. The main take away for the participants was the awareness of poor condition of healthcare in India and the rapid change that is required to improve it. By researching on countries having single payer healthcare systems like Canada, Taiwan and South Korea we got to know why the model worked in those countries and realised that the situation in India is quite different.

This debate was also conducted online due to the lockdown.

We understood that the careers of many great and respected people have been destroyed due to false allegations against them. We also got to know after hearing both sides that the laws on “defamation” act as a double edged sword. A false defamation case can send the petitioner to the gallows. This however undermines the freedom of speech such that if the suppressed cannot produce enough evidence then they have to bear the brunt of being wrong.

At the same time the law also protects long built reputations which can crumble to pieces through a single false defamation case against them.

This was a fun event organised at the end of the semester to get participants excited about debates at the end of the semester.

8 participants were present for this debate and were divided into two groups by the moderator and given a side(for or against) at random irrespective of personal preferences. This was done to force the participants into the shoes of an opinion they did not agree with and actually look at the positives of both sides. Both groups were given 15 minutes to research on the topic. The debate began with the opening statement from the affirmative team followed by the opening statement from the opposing team. Another round of statements was given by both the teams, addressing any conflicts or issues in the opening statements of the team they were up against. This was followed by subsequent rounds of rebuttal and questioning which was strictly moderated to allow speaking of only one person at a time.