Wandered into the Phil debate...

DeVore

I was showing my mate from Malta around TCD at night (which I always think of as a being straight out of Jack The Ripper's London era...).

There was a debate starting in the Phil soc and I asked what the topic was and was told "Defamation". So, I thought... lets have a look in here

Spent a great evening listening to some good speakers and then they said they could take two more speakers from the floor so I ended up speaking about Boards and our experiences with defamation!

Was good fun and my Maltese friend now thinks this is normal for Irish people

DeV.

Try walking through New Square on an evening with a bit of fog...

Time Magazine

Deleted User wrote: »

Try walking through New Square on an evening with a bit of fog...

Ibid's gonna get you.

What was the basis of your speech and the reaction to it, DeV? Some part-time boardsies are in the Phil.

Sleazus

Actually, it was a Law Soc. debate (apparently we have those now).

A good night for all involved, though, and the speakers were pretty cool (particularly the Senior Counsel, Brendan Kielty). DeV's speech was great - and very honest (I think he pointed out he was the first person to use the phrase "Internet" in the discussion, which had a very newspaper-centric approach up until that point, with the editors of two there).

EGaffney

Ya that wasn't a Phil debate. It sounded like way too much fun.

They did have the RTÉ people talking about the cocaine documentary scandal this week, though.

shay_562

Sleazus wrote:

Actually, it was a Law Soc. debate (apparently we have those now).

Has Joe O'Gorman been informed? Funding will need to be cut accordingly...

DeVore wrote:

my Maltese friend now thinks this is normal for Irish people

For some of us, it is.

*retires to plan for the 17 debates coming up in the next week*

ilovemybrick

shay_562 wrote: »

Has Joe O'Gorman been informed? Funding will need to be cut accordingly...

eh what?

Time Magazine

Joe feels that there are too many debating societies in College.

ilovemybrick

Ibid wrote: »

Joe feels that there are too many debating societies in College.

oh right. i thought there was some silly cloak and dagger silliness being alluded to.
ilovemybrick feels that there are too many debating societies in College being silly.

EGaffney

Well I've always thought we only really need one debating society. What do we have at the moment, four? There are definite gains to be made from rationalisation (and perhaps even semesterisation).

shay_562

EGaffney wrote:

Well I've always thought we only really need one debating society. What do we have at the moment, four? There are definite gains to be made from rationalisation (and perhaps even semesterisation).

Well, the Lawsoc' primary activities have little or nothing (as best I can tell) to do with debating - rather, debating is among their activities, in the same way as the Theo or the Politics society or any of half a dozen other societies might sometimes host debates on topics specifically within their remit without being "debating societies". On your more general point, while there would undoubtedly be benefits to a Phist unification (conversion of the lower floor of the GMB into a bar ftw), I think that (a) there's enough benefits to having a bit of rivalry keeping everyone on their toes and (b) it'll never, ever, ever happen. As for society #4, I'm really not sure what you're referring to...unless it's the Theo? But that'd be just a tad too generous to them, wouldn't it?

ilovemybrick wrote:

oh right. i thought there was some silly cloak and dagger silliness being alluded to.

Nope, pretty much just what Ibid said.

DeVore

The basis of my speech was a few very simple points:

1. We are applying laws which punish the conduit of information (ie: newspapers etc) because until now they were the ones who contributed the "power" behind the publication. With the rise of sites like Boards etc that is no longer the case, everyone can have their say on the same platform.

2. People should be taken to task for their own words. If you stand on a soap box and proclaim someone to be a paedophile maliciously then YOU should be held accountable.... not the soapbox maker.

3. The fear of legal action over a tiny tiny minority of posts effectively curtails the other 99.9999% of publication. To continue the anology above, the soapbox makers close up shop for fear of what might be said on their soapboxes. This effectively stiffles all speech , quite efficiently in fact.

4. Why am I (an unelected, unqualified member of the public) required to decide if I will stand over what YOU say and risk legal action as a result or alternatively to curtail your freedom of speech (or at least, retract our offer of an equal platform for all)?


As for debating socs... is 4 too many?? I feel and have felt, that the phil, hist, theo and law, always had different emphasises and cultures. I thoroughly enjoyed the debate the Law soc put on and they attracted some top quality speakers. I would recommend it to others and gave them my details so if they wanted me to speak again (with some more preparation) I could be contacted.

DeV.

paperclip

paperclip feels that it's a downright shame that one of the members of the Phil debating team cut off his ponytail. It suited his suit.