Pah.

Well, we didn't get through.

Furthermore, Phil wimped out. Katrina was there, which was a nice surprise, but it would have been good to see Phil as well (especially as so many schools didn't turn up).

First topic was "This House Would Legalise Prostitution"; Alex and I were first prop team (this competition involved two teams on either side of the debate, which I'm not overly struck on). Unfortunately that meant I was first up, and had to define the motion. While I normally like this position, I took a while to get going and my definition in particular was a mess. I of course got somewhat targetted for this (though I think the opposition did their usual and made up stuff about what I said).

Second debate was "This House Would Publish the Danish Cartoons" - we were first opposition team this time. I was glad I'd actually seen the cartoons in advance (cheers Ian) and I get the feeling I - and possibly Alex; I asked him but have forgotten what he said - may have been the only one to have done so as I brought up the example of one of the cartoons and that was then continually referenced by the other speakers. I was far more pleased with that debate and Alex was amazingly restrained (as he said after, a part of our argument was about the importance of not trivialising important issues, so it would have been sort of inappropriate).

Then we had to wait around for ages. The entire thing was something of a shambles regarding organisation - we took ages to get started (partly because of so many schools not turning up, and us waiting around to see if they would and trying to reorganise the debates for this) and the people took a while to make decisions. Apparently Puzey also got complained at by some of the other teachers for the arrangements - like the fact there was nothing to drink other than water; nor food. But then again, if Oxford Union isn't going to pay (it was the Oxford School Debating Competition), then we can't be expected to.

Finally we got back results - 6 teams went through this time (four from King Edwards VI, although that included King Edward VI College, whatever that is) out of the 22 or so. I also got feedback from the judges in my debate - apparently I had good points, but didn't bring them to the fore enough (things like, for the second one, we already have limits on free speech), and apparently Alex and I didn't always split our stuff well enough (although we did work well as a team in terms of referring to each other).

Still, the best moment was in the first debate. One of the opposition was arguing that the legalisation of prostitution would cause Britain to become a location of sex tourism, and as an example said "Amsterdam is known for one thing now". At this point I put forward a point of infomation, which (quite rarely for the evening) was taken and I said "Canals. Amsterdam is known for its canals."

Anyway, disappointing but that's how it was. Quite possibly that was the last school competition I'll be in, but Uni should present more opportunity. And anyway, Alex and I spent a good bit of time laughing during the evening which - from looking around - the vast majority of other teams didn't. It's better just enjoying it and not doing too well than it is to take it ridiculously seriously and get through.

That's what I tell myself, anyway.