North Caucasus Federal University » Student life » The third is not given

The third is not given

Date of material placement: 11-11-2013, 09:00.

The Institute of Humanities hosted the finals of the first contest by the NCFU Discussion Club Point of view. Alexander Voikov, the initiator and the host of the contest, started his speech giving an interesting fact – the organizers had had a long discussion as to how many teams should join the debate. This number was varying from 12 to 14 yet finally 18 teams came to compete! Only the strongest teams scoring most points had advanced to the semi-finals.

The Jury panel was grand indeed – First Pro-Rector Dmitry Sumskoy, Head of Department for Educational Activities Oleg Lyashko, the member of Stavropol Regional Parliament and the member of the Regional Committee for Education and Science Evgeny Brazhnikov. These people were here to select the best out of the four teams – Institute of Law (senior students); Institute of Economics and Management; Institute of Law (freshmen), and Institute of Education and Social Sciences.

The first encounter matched together the teams of the Institute of Law (senior students) and the Institute of Economics and Management. They were discussing amendments to the Federal Law suggesting mandatory establishment of student self-government bodies at every University. Would this initiative run contrary to the basic principles of self-government? The team of Lawyers argued PRO referring to a number of other laws and even to the origin of the word "self-government”. The Economists, in turn, were to prove that any initiative coming from "the above” would be a positive impact on the student self-government. They even appealed to the major terms of self-government – the State system, election, service, etc. This was a bright and vivid semifinals match. A serious argument pouched forward by the Lawyers was that 2 weeks before this law was rejected at the third reading.

The two teams finally came to the conclusion expressed earlier by a Senior Law student – it is the activity not the structure that matters most for student self-government. The Economists here proved stronger, so we have got one finalist here!

The other semi-finals match was no less interesting the topic under discussion being Teachers Under 35 Are The Most Efficient. The team of Lawyers (freshmen this time) again had to fight for PRO. The most heated argument here was around subjects delivered by young teachers. The team of the Institute of Education and Social Sciences (IESS) questioned the idea that a student would like to have a small talk with a teachers just a couple of years older to which the Lawyers retorted that it was not the age but the teacher’s attitude that matters most. The result – the team of the IESS won.

The match in the finals was the tensest and thus the most interesting. They talked about student monthly scholarships – Higher Scholarship Affects Student Activity. The Economists argued PRO and their Team’s Captain Inna Timonina said once "When reading a book you are not thinking any pay you could get for that, are you?”. The future economists argued selflessly and bravely, just like true idealists, that working for a group requires lack of personal interest.

The IESS team, however, insisted that payment stimulates student activity at the University. Getting ready for many events takes some funds and organizers often have to spend their own money – this was the major line vindicated by the "realists”.

Of course, the finals saw more questions from the audience than before. It could be either due to the fans trying to support their fellows or because of the topic being very urgent. Yet, all the questions were extremely complicated, interesting and, most importantly – relevant, and the teams answered really well demonstrating a high level of training and personal involvement.

Dmitry Sumskoy noted after the game:

- Everyone got so active by the finals. And the contest turned good indeed – the right place for those who wanted to have debate and who can do it; the topic was a very interesting one. By the way, this was a tough match with some stubborn struggle – you would not see any team just dominating all the time.

However there is always just one winner and the Institute of Economics and Management can be proud here – their team Quid Pro Quo won; the team of the Institute of Education and Social Sciences was second with the two teams of the Institute of Law taking the "bronze”.

Nadezhda Borisenko

Student press-centre

The third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not givenThe third is not given