For the University Philosophical Society (the Phil), lockdown is well and truly over: returning to the tradition-steeped Graduates Memorial Building (GMB), there was a palpable sense of gratitude for the opportunity to return to in-person debating this week. The motion of the evening was topical: “This House Believes All Houses and Apartments Left Vacant For Six Months Should Be Surrendered To The State.”
Homelessness is a prevalent issue in Ireland, a bleak reality that confronts anyone who strolls the streets of Dublin. For a motion more serious and political than some weekly debates, the turnout was a welcome show of solidarity with the homeless population of Ireland as the numbers steadily approach five-digit figures once again
On the proposition bench sat Martha McKinney Perry, Oisín Browne and Jack Palmer, representing Trinity. The opposition bench hosted Darina Andryichenko, Teodor Grama and Zahari Nikolaev from the University of Cambridge.
The topic up for debate was quite serious, and there was a great deal of appreciation and sensitivity for that in the room. However, this did not retract from the usual good cheer and bustle of the night. As the audience settled down, the hosts, in their usual fashion, began cracking jokes, and in an interesting turn of events the two benches even engaged in a quick dance.
Martha McKinney-Perry kicked things off with a piece for the proposition. Some excellent insights and points came from both benches, and both sides were met with rapt attention and an engaged audience. The sparkling delivery and amusing quips from Oisin Browne served as a highlight of the evening, as well as the well structured and scrutinising arguments made by the opposition from Cambridge.
Despite the opposition team snatching the win, due respect was awarded to both sides for some excellent oratorical skills and a plethora of wonderfully enticing arguments. Quite rightly, in a nod to the proposition speakers’ quick wit and good humour, Trinity’s Jack Palmertook the title of best speaker for the evening.
The debate did not set out to solve any deeply ingrained societal issues, but rather, tried and succeeded to bring those issues to the forefront of our imaginations. Students were encouraged to think critically and philosophically about one of the most pressing problems of our time, and this made for a characteristically enlightening and engaging discussion.
