The Literific Hosts the Irish Times Debating Final: Can Debate Prove Dialogue Isn’t Dead?

By Jess Donohue

The Irish Times Debate is the oldest university level debate in Ireland, with a highly prestigious representation. During the 65 years of Irish Times debates, both a tradition of excellence and rigorous debate has been maintained. [1] The high standards of debating in this competition are clear from its former participants Michael D Higgins and Mary Robinson, and past winners including Senator Rónán Mullen and activist and politician Eamonn McCann, who are amongst the many notable names throughout the history of this competition.

This year’s Irish Times Debate Final took place in Elmwood Hall at Queen’s University Belfast, hosted by The Literific (The Literary and Scientific Society) for the first time since 2013. The event held special significance, coinciding with Queen’s University’s 180th anniversary and The Literific’s 175th anniversary [2], making it a fitting moment to welcome this prestigious competition back to Belfast. This year’s motion, “This House Believes Dialogue Is Dead,” asks debaters to dispute about language itself, the very medium they depend on, in a wonderfully self-referential turn.

The Literific’s History with The Times

The Literific was founded in 1850 and is the oldest society in Queen’s University Belfast and is home to debating at Queen’s, the society hosts weekly debates on a variety of different social and political issues providing a platform for student voices. Hosting such a prestigious final (especially on its 65th year) has reaffirmed the legacy and reputation that the Literific holds as a strong debating society from Northern Ireland, a point Literific President Dermot Hamill emphasised:

“This years incredibly special for us, it’s our 175th anniversary, it’s 180 years of Queen’s. For us to hold it, it’s not only a mark of confidence from Irish debating as a whole as a whole that they trust in us what is the pinnacle event of Irish debating. This is the event, it’s the one that everyone wants to watch”.

Dermot also explains that hosting this event included a lot of dedication and planning, including “dozens upon dozens of meetings” and “ensuring that all the logistics of it comes together and everything just runs smoothly, so it’s a huge, huge operation for us.”

Beyond hosting this year’s final, Literific President Dermot Hamill has a personal connection to the competition, having once been a finalist himself. Reflecting on his experience, he shared not only how he enjoyed the “good wine reception before the semi-finals and finals,” but also how “it’s probably the best part of debating when you’re in a room against the 11 best you could possibly come up against.” He added, “It was a wonderful opportunity and I loved every minute of it.”

However, being in such a prestigious competition comes with its challenges. The year Dermot was a finalist in The Irish Times Debate, there were “presidents and auditors of other societies, there was people who had done the Times final a couple of times, former runners up…” He acknowledged;

“Whenever you’re up against the best, and you know you’re up against the best, and you’re coming from an institution where you don’t really have a legacy of winning, I think the most challenging part was either the debating against people or carrying the fact that it was an expectation for you to lose. You told you you but not lose and you didn’t really, you know, and to get to the finals and to get runner up was a huge… was a huge thing because it just didn’t really happen to Queen’s students and it didn’t happen to people from up here, you know, you got to the final, if you were lucky, we hadn’t had runners up. It wasn’t a thing.”

Dialogue About Dialogue

While the Literific hosting the 65th final of The Irish Times was a profound opportunity for the Literific, the debate itself did not disappoint. The motion itself was somewhat recursive as debaters engaged in discourse on whether dialogue itself was dead.

The debate featured four teams, each consisting of two speakers, along with four individual speakers, with two teams and two individuals representing each side of the motion. The teams came from the University Philosophical Society of Trinity College Dublin, the Solicitors’ Apprentice Debating Society of Blackhall Place, and two teams from the Literary & Historical Society of University College Dublin. The individual speakers included representatives from The Cadet School, two speakers from the College Historical Society of TCD, and the Literary and Debating Society of the University of Galway. The winners of the debate receive more than just a trophy and a handshake—they earn a place among the many successful past winners and a trip to the USA.

Each speaker was allotted seven minutes, with the first and last minute being uninterrupted. During the remainder of their time, they were challenged by counterarguments and points of information. The proposition side presented a range of ideas, including the extinction of languages, the failure of dialogue in addressing issues like violence against women, the spread of misinformation in the media, and the distinction between dialogue and monologue. In contrast, the opposition highlighted various examples where dialogue remains vibrant, including in podcasts, the origins of dialogue from natural curiosity, the use of art to perform dialogue, and the role of dialogue in peace processes like that in Northern Ireland. They also argued that dialogue empowers us to control social media algorithms, rather than being controlled by them.

The debate had a lively atmosphere, blending humorous remarks with a high level of interaction, while also addressing a range of social issues. The event was supported by the Law Society of Northern Ireland, with Lady Chief Justice Dame Siobhan Keegan providing introductory and conclusionary remarks, including positing important points that had been made during the debate.

The Dialogue Itself: This House Believes dialogue is dead.

After the judges took some time to reach a decision, Liam Boyce from the Literary and Debating Society of the University of Galway was named the individual winner, while Rob Fitzpatrick and Adrianne Ward from the Literary and Historical Society of University College Dublin were named the team winners. Both winners were on the opposition to the motion.

Liam’s debate highlighted how Michelle O’Neill’s position was made possible through dialogue and how, thanks to discourse, we no longer worry about bomb threats. He ended his speech with a powerful question: “So to my friend in the proposition, I will ask you this: if dialogue is dead, then why aren’t we?“

In the team category, the connection between Rob and Adrianne stood out. They spoke about their friendship and shared memories, all formed through dialogue. Rob discussed how dialogue is alive and thriving in education, social media, and liberalization. He emphasized how dialogue pushes humans into “important and interesting conversations that people engage in because they want to understand and connect with others.” “So no, dialogue is not dead, it is thriving,” Rob stated.

Adrianne addressed how, through dialogue with social media, we can control algorithms—they don’t control us. She countered the argument that dialogue is dead due to misinformation, arguing that “today we are more acutely aware of misinformation than ever.” She noted, “Schools teach media literacy, laws like the Digital Services Act address fake news,” and concluded with a strong statement: “Dialogue isn’t dying, it is evolving, and we have new tools for truth.”

After the debate, Liam Boyce, the winner of the individual category, expressed his surprise and delight. “I was in ‘absolute shock’ and ‘really delighted,'” he said. “I was in the final two years ago and wasn’t successful, but I learned from that, worked hard at it, and I’m absolutely delighted to have won this year.” Commenting on the motion itself,

“Dialogue has changed a lot; it’s not the same dialogue as before – I thought it was a difficult motion to argue either way.”

Adrianne Ward reflected on the preparation required for the competition: “We put in a lot of work, it takes hours to prepare for these, so over the last 2 months, we put in a lot of work in all the different rounds. So it’s great that it paid off in the end,” she said.

Rob Fitzpatrick shared a memorable moment when they found out they were the winners: “When we found out we knocked over a chair, so that’s probably the highlight of my life,” he said.

The 65th Irish Times Debate really highlighted the tradition and prestige this competition has built over the years. It was a great display of the hard work and skill that goes into the event, and it really brought the theme of dialogue to life. With Liam Boyce winning individually and Rob Fitzpatrick & Adrianne Ward taking the team prize, it was clear that dialogue is far from dead. The Literific demonstrated great skill in hosting the event, highlighting their role and reinforcing their tradition of fostering intellectual debate. The Irish Times Debate continues to show just how powerful conversation and free speech can be, and has shown it deserves its reputation as the most prestigious debating competition on the island.

References

[1] O’Brien, C., (2025). “UCD and University of Galway students crowned winners of the Irish Times Debate”. The Irish Times, 28 Feb 2025. https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/education/2025/02/28/ucd-students-crowned-winners-of-the-irish-times-debate/

[2] Literific, “History of the Literific”. https://literific.org/about/historyoftheliterific/

Credits: Images (if not stated) – Literific, https://literific.org/, and to The Irish Times for the orchestration of the competition.