Staff Writers, Inaya Thanim and Isabella Steiner, explore the success of the launch of the King’s Union Debate.
In a room filled with blaring intellectual convictions and anticipatory faces, on Wednesday, the 26th of November, the King’s Union launched its first-ever debate. Held in the third lower ground of the Strand building, the debate concerned itself with the motion ‘This House Would Rejoin the European Union.’
It featured dynamic standpoints, including why re-joining the European Union would erode Britain’s sovereignty and how the laws of the EU protect countries from leaders such as Nigel Farage from becoming autocratic.
The body of proposition speakers included three students: Maddox Wolfe, Julio Medina, and Alex Fitzgerald. And three other students: Omar Hassan, Peter-Gabriel Atejetey, and Andrew Batty, represented the opposition. With the speakers having eight minutes of total speech time, the audience had the power to raise points of information to the speakers.
However, they could only raise points after the speaker’s ‘protected time’ of 90 seconds had elapsed.
According to the Union executive team, 109 official tickets were sold, and approximately 33 students attended. Roar livestreamed the event, collecting a total viewership of 400 people and between 5 and 10 viewers per average. The combination of live stream viewership and in-person attendance made it successful for a debut event.
What is a Debating Union?
A debating union is an organised, student-led society that provides a formal forum for structured discussion and argument. It hosts debates that typically follow the format of a motion, often beginning with, ‘This House believes that …’ —a structure derived from British Parliamentary debate traditions. Through this format, students can practise, observe, and participate in a rigorous exchange of ideas. Beyond building skills in articulation, public speaking, and quick thinking, a debating union also offers a space to explore complex or controversial topics in a respectful and intellectually stimulating environment. The core purpose of a debating union is to cultivate thoughtful dialogue and to provide students with the confidence and clarity to develop stronger oratory skills.
Opening Arguments
Medina opened for the proposition by presenting a stark picture of post-Brexit Britain: diminished diplomatic influence, rising prices, labour shortages, and billions lost from the economy. Citing Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama’s remark, ‘You left Europe, because you wanted more happiness. Now you are depressed’. He argued that re-joining was the only viable step to ‘give Britain a voice that seems to be getting quieter’.
The opposition countered with a systemic critique; they cast the joining of the European project in 1972 as the real mistake—one that compromised Britain’s democratic autonomy. Ajetey declared in his rebuttal, ‘You either have parliamentary sovereignty—or you lose it’. Economically, Hassan warned that re-joining would be ‘reckless’, binding Britain to obligations the public has long rejected. Bringing the Opposition’s case to a close, Batty made a final clarification that drew agreement from the audience—this was not a debate on Brexit, but on the European Union itself.
Closing Speeches and the Final Vote
Halfway through, the debate shifted into a more characteristically King’s format, as the floor was opened to the audience. Students challenged assumptions about sovereignty, scrutinised the credibility of Edi Rama as a source, and pressed speakers on Brexit-related statistics. It was no longer a debate between the two benches, as the audience became a part of the debate. This participatory style is exactly what President Mustafa says is central to the identity of the newly formed Union: a format shaped by King’s students—vocal, questioning, and unafraid to challenge.
After the closing speeches, the final vote was tallied. Before the start of the debate, the proposition had a narrow lead of 19 in favour of the UK re-joining the EU, and 14 against. However, this time it was a perfect tie—16 for the proposition and 16 for the opposition. The deciding call was announced by Vice President Archie, who awarded the night to the Opposition, crediting them with the stronger, clearer articulation of their case under scrutiny.
Audience Participation in a King’s Union Debate
King’s Union style primarily focuses on allowing the audience to raise Points of Information (POIs), establishing a stronger role of the audience in the debate.
‘We’re going to have a lot more audience interactions than [other debating unions] have. So that’s something we want to see at Kings,’ added Mustafa Dassu. He also commented that this would be the case, given that the ethos of King’s College London is founded on the outspokenness of students, ‘I feel like it’s a bit more vocal here’.
Another distinct aspect of King’s debate style is the informality of the voting procedure. For instance, in the Oxbridge style of debating, which is borrowed from British Parliamentary style (BP), the audience members physically exit through a door at the end of the debate to cast their vote. There is a door labelled ‘Ayes’ for those agreeing with the proposition, and another door labelled ‘Noes’ for those disagreeing with the proposition.
At the King’s Union, audience members cast their vote silently through an audience response platform called ‘Mentimeter’. This platform allows members to join a live poll projected on a screen to cast their vote in real time. Similar to the Oxbridge style, there is a pre-debate vote and a post-debate vote, placing emphasis on which side ‘swings’ more votes. This allows us to demonstrate which side had the most compelling arguments and was more persuasive.
And yet, despite these characteristics, the style of the King’s Union debate is undergoing a period of development. ‘We’ll evolve our own debating style over time, and we’ll see where it leads,’ added Dassu. The Union also recognises the role of member opinions in shaping society itself. “People will suggest feedback and criticise certain aspects, and we will amend and evolve over time”.
What’s next for the King’s Union?
Although the debut event received a small number of students as attendees and remained somewhat diverse in its selection of speakers, the King’s Union plans to extend far beyond what it is now. Starting with the solidification of the society itself, the presidents aspire to receive a King’s College London Students’ Union (KCLSU) ratification, receive funding, and increase their audience numbers.
A notable aspect of the first event was the lack of female speakers. However, the presidents clarified their ambitions to bridge the gap not only in terms of female representation but by broadening the range of ideologies, backgrounds, and career paths at future debates.
‘We’d like to see people from both the right and left, from think tanks, maybe from Parliament, like Lords and baronesses’, added the President of the society. He also placed emphasis on their plans of not just having students but also introducing experts and academics to the debates. ‘We want to grow this phenomenally, to become the largest society at King’s. We want the same amount of prestige as the Oxford and Cambridge Union’. With this, the President showcases the ambitious vision for a society that has just begun, putting into question how much of their plans will be achieved.
