Debate: Piracy

Two of our writers, Josh Mines and James Smurthwaite, try to get to the bottom of the highly contentious and topical issue of internet piracy.

Josh Mines: Against

However easy it is to feel angry about the recent news of the tightening of internet piracy laws, I find it difficult to see how one can have any massive opposition to this change. At the risk of sounding like those stern, over the top adverts that flash up just as you’re settling down with your popcorn: piracy is a crime. Don’t do it kids.

Personally, I love watching movies, and like it or not, films, whether they are Hollywood blockbusters or nouveau art house, cost a lot of money. Free internet streaming services take money away from the big screen. Though it’s easy to think of the film industry as a group of greedy, corporate suits, the consumer also has a duty to protect smaller emerging companies so we can keep enjoying original and quality film making.

It doesn’t have to be about constantly going down to the old picture house to watch the latest releases either. With the film industry moving on to the internet through legal streaming sites such as Netflix and Lovefilm, offer a slightly more cost friendly alternative to watch the latest movies and TV, without the inconvenience of moving all the way out of your bed. As well as that, who wants a great film undercut by murky picture resolution, constant buffering and pop up ads that often plague illegal streaming sites?

I don’t think it makes you a bad, morally insensitive person to watch the occasional film on a streaming site, but if you love cinema then it only seems fair that you should give something back in some way. The tough economic climate hits film production companies hard too, and as the age old saying goes, every little helps.

James Smurthwaite: For

On 22 November, five more internet streaming sites were blocked by major Internet service providers. The president of MPA described how he wants, “an internet that works for everyone… a place for investment, innovation and creativity”, but I wonder if he really appreciates what he’s saying?

You wouldn’t shoot a policeman then steal his helmet!
Image Credit: Newgrounds

It’s a similar problem to the ‘War on Drugs’, free sharing is always going to happen, you can block five sites, but ten more will undoubtedly replace them. If you remove a (relatively) safe avenue for viewers to go down, you only expose them to more subversive, more advert and malware filled websites, which only serves to bring in more money for the ‘Pirates’.

 Netflix themselves support file sharing, they follow trends on BitTorrent to see which programs work best on the internet, as opposed to live on TV, and therefore the ones they provide for their customers.

Furthermore, Vince Gilligan, creator of Breaking Bad, claims the success of his show is down to Internet streaming. It allowed word of mouth to spread the show’s popularity, an advantage that it would not have gained from its small initial TV audience. This is a sentiment echoed by producers of Game of Thrones.

I say, if file sharing is unavoidable let’s at least try to make it legislated. For people that want to pay for a more quality service, such as Netflix, let them, and I’ll be happy here with my slower to load and slightly pixelated version.

We know you all have an opinion on this! Let us know your thoughts on Let us know on Facebook, Twitter or by commenting below.

 

 

Debate – Did it live up to the book?

Its a debate! Iona Bepey and Ifeoluwatolani Omotola conclude our look at the success of film adaptations as they outline their opposing views…

Iona Bepey sympathises with filmmakers who have to deal with crazy fan reactions.

With film adaptations, the phrase ‘didn’t live up to the book’ has become fairly commonplace. We’re lucky enough to live in an era where barely a piece of print meets publication without talks of a movie being spawned from the pages, but can a ‘Page-to-Screener’ really ever do the original work justice? Is it pure sloppiness on the part of cast and crew that sees so many filmgoers leaving the cinema feeling let down? Or are we of a generation who simply underestimates the gravity of responsibility and pressure when it comes to the difficult task of producing not only a film in and of itself, but of material with a pre-existing, fiercely-loyal fanbase..?

I’m of the opinion we ought to pity filmmakers; that is, any filmmaker charged with adapting a popular novel into an international Hollywood blockbuster. Try to imagine the expanse of the task: 391 pages in Catching Fire, and two, maybe two-and-a-half hours to shoehorn them all into a format satisfying enough to appease the legions of The Hunger Games fans the globe-over, simultaneous to scoring the Big Time with critics, and even selling the story to those who haven’t encountered the original media before. As Suzanne Collins herself might say, the odds are most decidedly not in your favour.

A point of reckoning most of the novel-to-film genre’s harshest critics tend to forget is that if what you’re after is a page-by-page reading of the original book, these are not the droids you’re looking for. Lionsgate Films, I imagine, would have had a hard time meeting their $700 million box office landslide with Jennifer Lawrence reading an audiobook of the original The Hunger Games novel. The solution: learning to take what’s given to us at face value.

As a big fan of visual as well as purely transcribed storytelling, I’ve never balked at the idea of a favourite novel setting course for the silver screen, aware though I am that the book is usually better. However, I’ve made my peace with the fact that not every detail of the novel will make it into the script; annoying, certainly, but it shouldn’t detract from your enjoyment of the film for what it is – an adaptation.

Perhaps it’s as simple as changing the order you approach material; if we saw the film before experiencing the book, would we be as disappointed post-cinema?

My advice is see the film first; join the thrumming crowds of moviegoers and reviewers, ranting about ‘Terrific, sophisticated comedy’, ‘Film of the year’ and ‘Rated ‘Thor’ out of Five’ (with thanks to Empire Online) before you attempt to read the original. When you inevitably discover the book was better… well. At least you can walk away with the knowledge that at one point at least, you enjoyed the film too.

So let’s try for some sympathy, in particular for the poor sod charged with turning Fifty Shades into something almost watchable. Perhaps we’ll hit a benchmark wherein the film adaptation is actually the better of the two… Forgive me, though, for not holding out too much hope!

Iona Bepey

Whereas Ifeoluwatolani Omotola argues that films and books just shouldn’t be compared.

When a studio or author announces that a beloved novel is being translated for screen there is a rush of criticism, some good, some bad and some hysterical. Often readers don’t want their beloved characters altered in the page to screen translation. Alterations to a character or plot often occur as a result of cost or time, helping to cater to a wider audience since not everything in a book can work in film. The best part of a book is the imagination factor since, barring extremely vivid descriptions, with a book the world is your oyster and each person has their own subjective imagination. How I might imagine the hunky hero is very different from the physical characteristics my best friend may picture. In my opinion this is one of the key reasons for negative fan reactions. Most recently there was a small wave of controversy following the casting of the leads in the upcoming Fifty Shades of Grey film. When we attempt to solidify the vague literary imaginings that occur of the page (by defining what characters, places or even accents actually are like with films) it’s bound to contradict with someone’s own subjective idea. After all, one can’t please everyone.

Some films adaptations even have no similarity whatsoever to the books they claim to emulate. For me this was especially obvious with World War Z. Beyond the name and the concept of zombies the film was completely different from the book – although I did enjoy it. But once in a while I come across a film adaptation I find so terrible I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at what has been done to what might have been a great book. This was the case with my favourite book, The Host by Stephenie Meyer. I have read and reread that book dozens of times and, although it’s not by any means perfect, I love it. So when I found out it was going to be made into a movie I was initially sceptical. Anyone who has read the book before will know that there is a lot of internal thought and character reflections, so I couldn’t help but worry how this would work on the big screen. I was thrilled with the trailer, which was amazing. But I can honestly say that The Host was one of the worst films I have ever seen; the plot and concept just did not fit the medium of film.

So as The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is released to the general viewing public, I will be there front and centre, fingers crossed (much like I was with the first one). I sometimes feel that the books vs film argument is an unfair comparison. Books can be hundreds or thousands of pages long. With films something is usually lost in translation and that is why when someone asks me which I prefer I will always stick to the original.

Ifeoluwatolani Omotola

Leave a comment below or write to Books at the Facebook Group or on Twitter.

Does the Turn of the Page Still Terrify?

It’s the spookiest week of the year, and Thomas Davies and Maddy Walters discuss whether paper or celluloid gives them a bigger fright and whether books or screen provide nightmares for longer…

FILMS – In my mind to have a successful horror story you need three things: involvement, tension and the ‘whoa factor’: the actual scare. In all three of these areas films and games are far better at creating a good scare than books.

As for involvement, a film is more accessible than a book to most people. I’m not saying books are difficult, it’s just films are undoubtedly easier. With a book the words create a barrier of sorts that could stop you from accessing the full dread of a page; the elaborate nature of the language takes away from the raw horror of what unfolds. Games throw you right into the action – you can’t get more involved than that.

For build-up in films and games we have sound. A well-placed soundtrack can do wonders for a scary scene: the odd noise, the whistle of the wind, the dramatic score of Psycho or Jaws, from creepy to heart-pounding. A book can’t provide quite the same experience. It can describe scary sounds but you, the reader, have to make them up in your mind which doesn’t have the same effect as actually hearing a sound. The anticipation of hearing a twanging string piece as the full moon rises is unparalleled in the world of literature even by some of the most evocative descriptions.

Finally, it’s the ‘whoa’ factor where films and games triumph over literature. It’s one thing to read about a goblin jumping on someone from behind, it’s quite another to watch it happen. The horrified expression of the victim, the repulsive look of the monster’s face and the desperate struggle that unfolds before your eyes is much more powerful on screen than when you read about it. This is particularly true in games where you are the victim; there’s definitely an added adrenaline as you fight off demons or zombies that appear out of nowhere. We humans use sight as our primary sense, and it’s films and games that exploit that to their fullest.

Horror films, games and books have a lot of things in common, but it’s only films and games that fully use all the tricks to their advantage. The visuals, the sound and the action suck the audience into the scene and force you to believe in the tale. You may create your own chills from books, but horror films are your worst nightmares.

Thomas Davies

BOOKS – We’ve all had the night: innocently drowsing, the mind wanders, and eyes lose their focus. Suddenly, the shadow created by the clothes hanging on the wardrobe transforms to the shape of the murderer/villain/mad-person from the horror story you haven’t quite been able to shake.

For me, it’s Jack Torrance, protagonist of The Shining. However, it is not Jack Nicholson who haunts my nightmares, but the image I invented for myself when reading the book as an innocent 15-year-old. Since then, I’ve watched the film, and, masterpiece though it is, there is no way the motion picture can compare to the captivating horror of the book.

This is due to the inherent process of reading itself. A book only provides descriptions, and leaves it up to the reader to colour in the details: the look, the person, the setting. The reader becomes part of the story and more importantly, the story becomes part of the person. The direct communication reading provides to the imagination-centre of the brain, the area that (for me, anyway) kicks into gear in the minutes before sleep, means that these are the images that greet my closed eyes on the night the wardrobe and its shadows begin misbehaving. Despite watching horror films before and after reading this book, it’s Jack that haunts my dreams, never the Ring-girl or Jigsaw.

When reading, the mind is active; it cannot look away. When watching, the mind is passive, we can close our eyes, hide behind the pillow, and shield ourselves from the images on the screen. When the images are inside the mind, they become harder to ignore, and possess us in a very real way.

I’m not going to deny that films can be terrifying. Many a night I have spent regretting my decision to watch The Ring, The Exorcist, or Saw, but the fact is that the two hours-or-so spent in front of the television are far more fleeting than the week-or-so spent with a novel. They take up more of my time, and thus become a greater part of my life. And while these films have the power to scare, they exist and will always exist as things in the physical world, regardless of whether I watch them or not. For me, however, a book comes alive when it is read, and much like a horror-story character, once I have given them life, they never seem to leave me alone.

Maddy Walters

[poll id=”63″]

Find Exeposé Books on Facebook and Twitter and tell us what you think!

5 Things Comment Learned From the Blurred Lines Debate

Exeposé Comment went to the Blurred Lines debate on Wednesday in an attempt to figure out why it was actually being held. Here are the five things we took from the experience:

1. Blurred Lines is Not the Issue.

During the course of the debate, nobody mentioned Blurred Lines apart from when it was unanimously agreed that the song was misogynistic and sexist. For all intents and purposes it may as well have been the case that nobody had actually heard the song in full, or seen the video. The arguments put forward were the same that were rolled out during the referendum on The Sun and the debate was once again focused on what is or is not censorship and what, exactly, constitutes a ban.

“Does The Sun rhyme with, “hug me”? We’ve lost track.
Photo Credit: Niklas Rahmel

2. Nobody Really Cares.

As shown by the low turnout and significantly less enthusiastic debate on online forums such as Facebook, this campaign has failed to capture the University’s interest this time round. At least this time, there’s been no mention of, “political lesbians”. Even the key members of the campaigns didn’t want to speak at the debate and there’s a definite feeling that everyone is just going through the motions and campaigning out of some sense of duty rather than real conviction.

“Degree deadlines? But people have opinions contrary to my own!”
Photo Credit: Libby via Compfight cc

 3. Freshers Can Steal The Show.

In an otherwise predictable and dreary debate Cal Barcivic, who made a last minute showing for the opposition, stole the show with an energetic, passionate and engaging performance. Although at times he wasn’t very well informed on the campaign’s manifesto, we were impressed to learn that he is only in his first year. At the very least, events like this debate give a great platform for new students to make their mark on campus politics and the wider student community.

If it takes our campus politicians this long to decide whether we should “remove” some Californian pop, what hope is there for tomorrow’s Britain?
Photo Credit: opensourceway via Compfight cc

4. Nobody’s Changing Their Mind.

There was not even a mention of a vote of conscience, nor a concluding one. Nobody came to this debate because they didn’t feel like they had enough information, or because they were on the fence and needed convincing. What transpired was an hour of back-and-forth between the main members of the campaigns asking both the proposition and opposition formulaic and lazy questions, picking them up on irrelevant or petty details.

How long until this political Cold War spills over into a punch-up outside The Ram?
Photo Credit: SteveD via Flickr cc

5. There Will Inevitably Be Another Issue.

This is not the end of activism vs. censorship in Exeter. We’ve had The Sun, we’ve had Blurred Lines and a vote on renewing our boycott of Nestlé products on campus is extremely likely in the coming months. We’re going to go out on a limb and predict that we’ll have two groups: “Vote to renew the ban on Nestle products” and “End the tyranny of choco-censorship on campus”. One side will insist that to continue the ban is to deprive students of their democratic right to a Kit-Kat and the other will say that if you really need one that badly you can run off to Saunder’s for your mysoginistic Yorkie fix. We’ll be there to capture every crucial debate.

“It sends a message!” “It’s censorship!” “ACTIVISM!” “FREEEEDOOOOOM!”
Photo Credit: bucaorg via Compfight cc

James Bennett and Dave Reynolds

[poll id=”53″]

Could you be bothered to turn up to the debate or are you fed up to the back teeth with all things Thicke? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Breaking Bad: The Debate

Not a single social occasion has gone by in the last two weeks without somebody mentioning the ending of Breaking Bad, usually resulting in irate splutters of disbelief (“What do you mean you haven’t seen it?!”).

So to avoid further cat fights, we’ve gathered a few of the dominant opinions from Screen Editor Rob Harris and News Editor (and naysayer) Louis Doré, who ask: is it really worth the hype?

Rob says:

After five years, 62 episodes, seven Emmys and what must have been millions spent on psychiatrist’s fees, Breaking Bad is finally over. With expectations for the final season driven skyward by a legion of critics and dedicated fans alike, anything less than a work of genius from creator Vince Gilligan would have left scores across the globe grabbing their pitchforks and torches before storming AMC headquarters.

All-time low: Walter White (Cranston) past the point of return.
Image credit: AMC

Through the manipulation of the prior four series’ undulating storyline of triumph and catastrophe, the final season instead tackles anti-hero Walter White (Bryan Cranston) at his very lowest, with little prospect of ever fighting his way back to the top of Albuquerque’s criminal underworld.

And it’s not just been Walt who has shifted from season to season. Jesse (Aaron Paul) sees such an intense change that each episode will leave you in agony over the memory of how he used to be nothing more than a small-time, naïve kid.

Be it recurrent shots of characters and landscapes or a muttered line of foreshadowing in the very first episode, nearly everything drips with such significance that you cannot help but grit your teeth, put on season one and start the whole experience again.

In its last moments, once all the chaos, complications and revelations put before you sinks in, Breaking Bad achieves something that not many would have expected – it makes you smile. Not from laughter or from joy, but from an overwhelming sense of satisfaction. To those of you who are bogged down mid-season or are even yet to start, there is only one thing I can say to you: it’s more than worth it.

Louis replies:

Breaking Bad has finished its run as one of the most critically acclaimed TV shows of all time. No doubt you would have heard of the IMDb-topping Ozymandias episode, read the hesitant claims among critics that this is the greatest show in recent history. It is all just hype.

Farcical: Walt during the IMDB-topping episode Ozymandias.
Image credit: EW

Simply due to its subject matter, it cannot compare to the greater shows that came before it. The formulation of one of the greatest villains ever before our eyes was a fantastic feat, but Walter White cannot compare in complexity to characters such as Omar from The Wire, or C.J. Cregg from The West Wing.

The problem arises from the farcical nature of the show – from the beginning it has revelled in going from the sublime to the ridiculous and back again, throwing the gleeful viewers’ trust out the window and cauterizing nerves in the process. The Vince Gilligan smash cut has been used so often, it is now not relatable.

I have struggled to keep emotional connections with the characters in the show, not because of poor acting or scripting, but because they can verge on the caricature. This is not to say the characters are hollow, but I don’t believe this farcically fantastic story could be true. Jesse could be argued to be the breakout character simply due to believability.

It is worth your time, it is one of the best things you can possibly watch at the moment, it deserves every Emmy it has won. Aaron Paul is sublime, and everyone should watch the show. But then watch The Wire, The West Wing and The Sopranos.

[poll id=”50″]

Is Breaking Bad your baby in blue? Or do you side with Louis, and think the show’s just too unrealistic? Let us know on Facebook, Twitter or by commenting below.

Green Party leader on campus for talk

Image credit: Exeter Green Party

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett is to attend a talk at the University of Exeter today, about the effects of fracking on the environment.

The event will start with a screening of ‘Drill Baby Drill,’ a documentary criticising the consequences of fracking, and will be followed by a question and answer session with Bennett.

The free talk is to take place at 18:00-20:30, Lecture Theatre 1, Queens Building and is organised by Exeter Green Party in conjunction with Young Greens at University of Exeter.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is the process of recovering gas and oil from shale rock by drilling down into the earth before a high pressure mixture of water, chemicals and sand, is directed at the rock to release the gas inside.

The process has revolutionised the energy industry in the US where it is most advanced; this activity in the UK is still in the exploring stage, where companies are drilling test wells. Fracking however carries environmental risks and in 2011 the process was suspended following two seismic tremors in the Blackpool area.

The ‘Drill baby drill’ title is an ironic reference to a term coined by the U.S Republican Party’s campaign in 2008, which expressed support for increasing domestic production of oil.

Journalist by profession, Bennett was elected to her position on in September 2012. Exeter Green Party is the political voice of the city’s strong green movement, who believe that to improve lives of local people we need a fairer society, a healthier environment and a sustainable economy.

Andrew Bell, Exeter Green Party policy officer, said: “This is a fantastic opportunity to learn more about fracking and what it could mean to the South West if it is ever given the go-ahead. It is also a great opportunity to meet the Green Party leader and find out more about our progressive social, economic and environmental policies.”

Alexandra Lapshina, News Team

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

Comment at the North Korea Debate

Exeposé Comment‘s Debate Correspondent Fiona Potigny reviews Debating Society‘s Friday night debate discussing the credibility of North Korea’s threat to the West.

Once the audience had seated themselves to the smooth tones of “Groove Series 003” – oh DebSoc, you never disappoint in providing us with a toe-tappingly good yet arbitrarily-chosen soundtrack – the debate was prompt to begin. This week’s motion: “This house believes that North Korea presents a credible threat to The West”.

Dr John Heathershaw started by defining his definition of “threat” as uncertainty, drawing on his knowledge gleaned as a leading academic in the field of Security Studies. He argued that this uncertainty stemmed from North Korea’s three previous launch attempts, unceasing antagonistic rhetoric, and complete hostility to the international relations that Western nations have sought to defend since 1945. “In Security Affairs, if there is any uncertainty, measures must be taken in order to decrease potential impact. And so to oppose this motion,” he concluded, “is to oppose the maintenance of national order.”

“Equally, due to [North Korea’s] isolation from international expertise, their declarations of possessing ten warheads are likely no more than a nationalism-stirring device and, moreover, a distraction from the widespread starvation and malnutrition in their country.”
Photo Credit: yeowatzup via Compfight cc

Dr Heathershaw’s argument was succinct, logical, and carefully detailed with examples, thus it is a shame that much of this was directed at the sheet of paper before him rather than to the audience. Nonetheless, he flourished under audience questioning, providing swift yet well-thought-out responses (even if they did include over-usage of the word “bellicose”).

Sir Nick Harvey, MP and former Minister for the Armed Forces, expressed doubt over the actual capabilities of this “basket case” nation. He outlined the absurdity of believing that North Korea would take on the giants of the West owing to the vulnerability of their already “cranky” regime, and their notable lack of allies. Equally, due to their isolation from international expertise, their declarations of possessing ten warheads are likely no more than a nationalism-stirring device and, moreover, a distraction from the widespread starvation and malnutrition in their country.

Sir Nick’s delivery was tinged with well-justified cynicism and an honest disbelief that anyone would consider North Korea a genuine threat. Despite thorough audience questioning that kept both sides on their toes, Sir Nick remained unflustered, providing a good range of counter points. For example, when the proposition rightly pointed out that even an attack on South Korea would at very least send ripples of economic instability throughout the West, he responded that North Korea would only be threatening itself in doing so, being just miles from the border.

Providing the night’s injection of humour was Richard Foord from Exeter’s International Office who spoke in favour of the motion. His argument was based around the fact that if technology in its “infancy” includes a nuclear warhead able to reach Hawaii or Guam, North Korea will soon be able to perfect a missile with a range far enough to reach the UK. He also spoke of North Korea’s rejection of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the fact that they are still technically at war with the South.

Foord’s delivery radiated confidence and conviction – as one Tweeter pointed out, “someone’s been attending the Monday workshops”. During audience questioning, Foord would wait patiently for his partner to reply before providing his own humorous  addition and looking sufficiently smug after doing so – perhaps thinking that he had secured himself the “Zinger of the Year”, DebSoc’s prize for the best quote. One such example would be his play on George Bush’s “axis of evil”, referring to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of ebay”, due to their constant “bidding” for international aid, which merited a chuckle from the audience. Nonetheless, it was Foord himself who had the last laugh, as he had only been defending the motion as part of his research – he was actually in full agreement with the opposition.

Ryan Aldred of the South-West faction of the Socialist party was sent in place of Deputy Secretary Hannah Sell, who had pulled out at the last minute. Though Aldred started strongly when dismissing North Korea’s rhetoric as a way of being internationally assertive and indicating the discrepancy between their words and actions, he perhaps lost sight of the motion a little as he began his lament of the real threat: the capitalist class.

As his discourse became increasingly aligned with his political stance, the credibility of his argument seemed to become undermined, at least for some members of the audience who audibly tutted and “hmm’d” when he expressed his belief that North Korea serves as a “boogie man” distraction from poverty and austerity in the West. Despite this, credit must be given to Aldred for taking the stand despite the short amount of time in which he had to prepare. Equally, he did not shy away from audience questioning, and provided a series of persuasive responses: that Kim Jong Un’s inadequate leadership would undermine his own position in a war scenario, and that the West must therefore engage in diplomacy that allows the leader to save face.

The final vote showed a remarkably even split, with the opposition winning by just two votes.

Fiona Potigny

Next week’s debate is discussing the best sport in Britain. Vote now to give us your initial thoughts.

[poll id=”43″]

Did you attend last Friday’s debate? Is this an accurate version of events? What could the opposition (or proposition) have done or said for a more convincing victory? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

DebSoc set for big attendance at Thatcher debate involving Katie Hopkins

Image credit: DebSoc

The University of Exeter debating society continue their successful start to the year this Friday with a debate about the legacy of Margaret Thatcher.

The motion ‘This house believes Margaret Thatcher was a global force for good,’ will be debated by a heavyweight panel battling for members’ votes. On the proposition is local Conservative Councillor Percy Prowse and controversial TV personality Katie Hopkins. The latter is an Exeter alumnus and recently sparked accusations of a class warfare by revealing on This Morning that she judged her children’s classmates based upon their names. The opposition is being represented by Labour MP Alison Seabeck and leader of the South West Trade Union Coalition Nigel Costley.

The debate follows the death of Baroness Thatcher earlier this year. The former Prime Minister divided opinion during her time in office with a strong economy countered by the loss of many jobs in the unions. Her other controversial policies included privatisation and the poll tax.

DebSoc had a record number of sign-ups at the Freshers’ Fair and had to turn people away from last week’s debate on Pornography. The debate on Friday has been upgraded to the larger Newman A lecture theatre and will start at the normal time of 7pm, with spectators being advised to arrive early to avoid disappointment.

Scott Pepe, President of DebSoc, said: “I am so excited about this Friday’s debate. There seems to be a lot of people talking about it on campus which helps to build the atmosphere and is one of the reasons we have had to move to a bigger room.”

“In true DebSoc fashion we have a controversial motion with a controversial panel to debate it. I thoroughly look forward to a fiery debate in Newman A, and then an enjoyable social in the Ram after!”

Simon Dewhurst, News Team

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

DebSoc begin the year with controversial pornography motion

Image credit: Exeter DebSoc

The University of Exeter Debating Society is tonight preparing for one of the biggest events in its history, with a high profile panel debating a controversial motion on pornography.

The first proposition of the year, entitled ‘This house believes pornography provides a good public service,’ will be discussed at 7pm this evening, in the Amory Moot Room. The proposition will be represented by feminist columnist Jane Fae and erotic author Zak Jane Keir. Opposing the motion will be former porn star Dr Shelley Lubben and anti-porn campaigner Tiffany Leeper. The debate has attracted national media interest and is set to be a highlight of Freshers’ Week. It will be followed by a White T-Shirt social in the Monkey Suit. Scott Pepé, President of DebSoc, explained: “We are known for holding blockbuster debates but I’m really excited about this one. We have our first all-female panel which will provide an interesting perspective. At a time when politicians can’t stop talking about porn, Exeter’s oldest society remains the best place to discuss contemporary issues.”

James Roberts, Third Year History and Politics Student, said: “DebSoc are putting on a strong performance in their first debate with excellent speakers and a controversial motion. It should be a top event for Freshers’ Week and I hope that DebSoc can maintain the high standard in their next few debates.”

Simon Dewhurst, News Team

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

Review: XTV DebSoc cannabis coverage

On Thursday 29th of November, the Debating Society pondered the motion ‘This House Would Legalise Cannabis’, and XTV were there to broadcast the event live online.

In a fantastic example of mutually beneficial cooperation between societies, XTV gave DebSoc’s evening an international platform and sense of occasion, whilst DebSoc provided XTV with entertaining, intelligent content. According to XTV crew member Jon Jones, covering regular debates is also the perfect way for the society to improve.

In a change of venue from DebSoc’s usual home of the Amory Moot Room, this debate took place in a packed Streatham Court. The sheer number of eager student heads made it difficult for those at the back to see the speakers, so perhaps it would have been better to watch via XTV at home. XTV’s four cameras certainly coped well with the different challenge of Streatham Court, delivering a range of perspectives on both the audience and the speakers.

The debate itself served up plenty of rhetorical treats, whether you were watching online or on campus. The star of the show, love him or loathe him, was Mail on Sunday columnist and Question Time regular Peter Hitchens. His considerable public speaking experience was evident from the outset. Regardless of whether you agreed with his arguments, Hitchens was simply of a different calibre when engaging with his opponents. His putdowns and ripostes brought about the best laughs of the night.

Stephen Davies from the Institute of Economic Affairs made the best case for the proposition, emphasising the benefits of legalisation and regulation. Peter Reynolds, leader of Cannabis Law Reform, put forward less convincing evidence. The leaflets from his organisation, distributed around the auditorium beforehand, contained one supposedly positive quote that summed up the flaws of their campaign: a cannabis user was quoted as saying, “I do not know how I would cope without it”.

The night ended in dramatic fashion, as the final vote was so close that a recount was needed. Somewhat surprisingly, given a strong vote for the proposition at the beginning of the evening, the opposition recorded a narrow victory. The audience filtered out but XTV had more work to do, clearing up and interviewing the star speakers. Thankfully, their broadcast had been a resounding success, drawing in a total of 505 views and more than doubling the figures from their previous live event.

Find all of XTV’s live broadcast online here: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/xtvonline

Liam Trim, Screen Editor