Law Society v Politics Society Debate

I'm a bit late blogging about this, but it's better late than never, as they say.

Last week some fellow law students and I participated in an internal Law Society v Politics Society Debate. For all those that are not accustomed to Debating, there are particular rules, timing and an overall structure (it is not a free for all debate as one may see in the House of Commons). Although someone should have notified the Politics Society of these rules before we commenced!
The teams consist of 2 people; the first and second speaker. One team is for the movement, the other is opposed.

For our debate, there were 3 teams in total with 3 different movements. My team was the first to debate with the movement:

"This House holds that the decision to almost treble university fees contravenes human rights and equality laws."

As a law student, and a former Matrix Chambers employee, I have great in-depth knowledge of human rights and equality laws, thus I was rather happy with the movement. With quite a bit of research, my partner and I commenced the debate with many relevant statistics and quotations from Rabinder Singh QC, Aileen McColgan (Matrix members) and Phil Shiner (a human rights lawyer). 

It was clear from the moment the politics team attempted to rebut and construct a coheret debate that their argument was not as strong as ours. I just hoped that the audience was not biased (as the politics students significantly outnumbered the law students). 

The debate came to an end, a sense of relief yet disappointment overcame me as I was enjoying myself too much to stop (you know I like a good, controversial debate). The audience voted in our favour by a huge majority and congratulations followed by the lecturers and fellow students.

This was a thoroughly enjoyable event, topped off with a successful win, making me crave advocacy even more!