The aim of debates is not to change the mind of the opponent, but to persuade the audience. The supporters of each side usually claim a victory simply because the speakers they support came and just repeated their talking points.
Audiences that attend debates are rarely polled on their opinions. This is different to formal debates at universities, debating societies or public events where the audience is asked to vote. These are called ‘motion debates’.
Motion debates (debates structured around a formal statement or “motion,” such as “This House Believes…”, “This House Welcomes…”, or “This House Regrets…”) are most commonly known as Oxford-style debates (or Oxford Union-style debates). This is the standard term for the format used at university debating societies like the Oxford Union, Cambridge Union, Durham Union, and similar institutions.
Key Characteristics of a “motion debate”:
- A clear motion is set in advance.
- One side (Proposition / For the motion) argues in favour of the motion.
- The other side (Opposition / Against the motion) argues against the motion.
- Often features guest speakers + audience participation.
- Audience votes either for or against the motion.
It could be argued that audiences involved in motion debates, being asked to vote, do not account for their initial biases and prejudices. This is true; however, the mark of a good speaker and debater is that trends usually do present themselves over a long record of the motion debates they participate in. Indeed, the results of motion debates are even more telling if the motion discusses a religion or way of life that the audience does not believe in or adhere to.
Motion debates are important politically or culturally, not to demonstrate the skill of the debaters, but to show wider society how the (usually educated sections of the) public would react to seeing a fair debate on a subject between the best speakers available to represent each side. This is different to controlled or biased TV debates on news platforms, where the host controls the discussion and doesn’t have to give fair time to all guests.
Indeed, many people are more interested in attending debates that test their echo chamber against others, rather than watching lectures by speakers outside their echo chambers. Moreover, motion debates are even more popular, because audience members feel they can have their voices heard and their judgment counted in being able to vote on the motion.
The reasons above are why I attend motion debates, as they allow me to show how Islam, and generally the Muslim perspective, can effectively win most debates if given a fair platform. Of course, bias and prejudice are always an issue to contend with, especially in majority non-Muslim audiences. But if even these debates can be won, so much greater is the victory for the truth argued by the Muslim side.
Now the best way to account for bias in an audience is the gold standard of motion debates, where the motion wins or loses because of the vote-swing victory conditions. This means that the audience is polled before and after the debate, and the motion is passed or defeated based on which side changed the most votes, essentially, which side achieved the greater swing in the minds of the audience. These are called ‘swing-vote debates’.
So in light of these considerations, I’d like to present my record to the public to show why I feel there is great utility in presenting Islam and the Muslim case to the wider public using formal motion debates:
Victory Record in Formal Debates to non-Muslim majority audiences:
The first record we will look at is my debates at Universities, debating societies and formal settings where Islam, Sharia or an aspect of Islam or a topic concerning Islam, was debated in front of a non-Muslim majority audience:
Victories for Islam as the topic, in single (end vote) Motion Debates: 7/7 (100%)
Victories for Islam as the topic, in Swing-Motion Debates: 2/2 (100%)
Victories for Islam in ALL types of Motion Debates: 9/9 (100%)
This next section shows the record that includes all debates I did where I was called upon to discuss not just motions involving Islam, but also includes motions more generally including topics that the Muslim perspective would adopt a position on, like whether religion is a force for good, whether God is good or evil, or to support or disfavour patriotism or secularism, etc.
In the debates that touched on topics outside Islam, like religion in general, free speech, secularism and patriotism, etc, I won 6/14 (about 60%) single-vote motion debates. This is best explained by biases present within an educated generation of students who are increasingly less religious and more agnostic or sceptical of religion.
Victories in all swing-vote debates that touched on topics not exclusive to Islam: 4/4 (100%)
Victories in all single-vote debates that touched on topics not exclusive to Islam: 6/14 (about 60%)
Total Victories in ALL debates that touched on topics not exclusive to Islam: 6/18 (66%)
Now, if we include all my debates, regardless of topic, and see what the total motion debate victory record is, we get the following:
Total Victories in all swing-vote Motion Debates: 5/5 (100%)
Total Victories in all single-vote Motion Debates: 11/17 (65%)
Total Victories in ALL Motion Debates I’ve attended: 16/22 (73%)
All in all, I consider I’ve tried my best to advocate for Islam and also the Islamic lens in several theological topics as well as political and topical. I hope that the debates benefit people, and all victories came from Allah (SWT); all I did was prepare and turn up.
MY DEBATES RECORD IN FULL:
Results Record on Two-Vote (Vote Swing) Motion Debates
VENUE: Chatham House (London, UK), 7th Dec 2017
ORGANISER: Royal Institute of International Affairs
MOTION: Should Religion be Separate from State?
My Position: “No”
RESULT: “No” (Audience changes of position: +9% No, +4% Yes)
Win for our side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: University of Bath [UK], 15th Nov 2016
ORGANISER: Bath University Debating Society
MOTION: This House Believes that Religion has become irrelevant in today’s society
My Position: OPPOSING MOTION “No”
RESULT: MOTION DEFEATED (Audience change of position: overall % gain by “No”, -30% loss to “Yes”)
Win for our side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: Manchester University [UK], 12th Feb 2015
ORGANISER: Manchester Debating Union
MOTION: This House REGRETS the republishing of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons
My Position: SUPPORTING MOTION “Yes”
RESULT: MOTION PASSED (Audience change of position: +21% gain by “Yes”, -9% loss to “No”)
Win for our side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: Master Builders Hotel [Hampshire, UK], 21 Nov 2014
ORGANISER: Lord Strathcarron (Member of the House of Lords)
MOTION: This House Believes That Shari’ah Law is Fairer than English Law
My Position: SUPPORTING MOTION “Yes”
RESULT: MOTION PASSED (Final Vote: No 75% / Yes 25%, % audience vote change: +14% gain by “Yes”, -14% loss to “No”)
Win for our side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: Nottingham University [UK], 18th Nov 2014
ORGANISER: Voice Your Rights
MOTION: This House Believes in a Secular Society & that Religion Should be Completely Separate from State
My Position: OPPOSING MOTION “No”
RESULT: MOTION DEFEATED (Audience changes of position: +11% gave by “No”, -17% loss to “Yes”)
Win for our side of panel [Not yet published]
Record of My One-Vote Motion Debates
VENUE: Oxford Union [UK], 17th June 2026
ORGANISER: Oxford Union
MOTION: This House Believes The West is Right to Be Suspicious of Islam
My Position: OPPOSING MOTION “No”
RESULT: MOTION DEFEATED(60% against, 40% for)
Win for our side of panel [VIDEO TBC]
VENUE: Durham University [UK], 8 November 2024
ORGANISER: Durham Debating Union
MOTION: This House Believes Palestinian Leadership is the Greatest Barrier to Peace
My Position: OPPOSING MOTION “No”
RESULT: MOTION PASSED (TBC)
Lose for MDI side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: Durham University [UK], 9th June 2023
ORGANISER: Durham Debating Union
MOTION: This House Believes Islam is Compatible with Human Rights
My Position: SUPPORTING MOTION “Yes”
RESULT: MOTION PASSED (43% against, 57% for)
Win for our side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: Durham University [UK], 10th October 2019
ORGANISER: Durham Debating Union
MOTION: This House Welcomes the Decline of Organised Religion
My Position: OPPOSING MOTION “No”
RESULT: MOTION PASSED (TBC)
Lose for MDI side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: St. George’s Medical School, University of London [Republic of Ireland], 16th Oct 2018
ORGANISER: St George’s Politics and Debating Society
MOTION: Has Religion Been Mainly the Cause of Peace or Violence?
My Position: Religion Mainly the Cause of Peace
RESULT: WIN FOR Religion Mainly the Cause of Peace (75% Religion-Peace, 25% Religion-Violence)
Win for our side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: University College Dublin [Republic of Ireland], 27th Sept 2017
ORGANISER: Literary & Historical Society
MOTION: This House Believes God is Evil
My Position: OPPOSING MOTION “No”
RESULT: MOTION DEFEATED (Simple majority of hands [not counted])
Win for our side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: University of Manchester [UK], 18th Feb 2016
ORGANISER: Manchester Debating Union
MOTION: This House Believes Science has an undeserved Monopoly on the Truth
My Position: SUPPORTING MOTION “Yes”
RESULT: MOTION DEFEATED (Simple majority of hands [not counted])
Lose for our side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: University of Warwick [UK], 5th Nov 2015
ORGANISER: Warwick Debating Union
MOTION: This House Would Completely Separate Religion from State
My Position: OPPOSING MOTION “No”
RESULT: MOTION DEFEATED (Simple majority of hands [not counted])
Lose for our side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: Durham University [UK], 23rd Oct 2015
ORGANISER: Durham Debating Union
MOTION: This House is Proud to be Patriotic
My Position: OPPOSING MOTION “No”
RESULT: MOTION DEFEATED (54% against, 45% for)
Win for our side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: Oxford University [UK], 21st May 2015
ORGANISER: Oxford Union
MOTION: This House would end the state’s preferential treatment of religion
My Position: OPPOSING MOTION “No”
RESULT: MOTION PASSED (Simple majority of hands [not counted])
Lose for our side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: Cambridge University [UK], 23rd April 2015
ORGANISER: Cambridge Union
MOTION: This House Believes the West is the Blame for Islamic Extremism (Terrorism)
My Position: SUPPORTING MOTION “Yes”
RESULT: MOTION PASSES (54% for, 46% against)
Win for our side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: National University of Ireland [Galway, Republic of Ireland], 9th Oct 2014
ORGANISER: Literary & Debate Society
MOTION: Is Islam a Religion of Peace?
My Position: “Yes”
RESULT: WIN FOR “Yes” (Simple majority of hands [not counted])
Win for our side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: Nottingham University [UK], 26th Feb 2014
ORGANISER: Nottingham Debate Union
MOTION: Shariah vs Secular Democracy: Which is more tolerant?
My Position: Shariah is more tolerant
RESULT: WIN FOR Shariah is more tolerant (75% Shariah more, 25% Secular Democracy more)
Win for our side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: University College Dublin [Republic of Ireland], 18th Feb 2014
ORGANISER: University College Dublin Law Society
MOTION: This House Believes that Islam Treats Women, Right
My Position: SUPPORTING MOTION “Yes”
RESULT: MOTION PASSES (Simple majority of hands [not counted])
Win for our side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: University of Warwick, [UK] 25th Nov 2013
ORGANISER: Warwick Debating Union
MOTION: This House Believes that Morality requires a God
My Position: OPPOSING MOTION “No”
RESULT: MOTION DEFEATED (56% against, 44% for)
Lose for our side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: Oxford University [UK], 14th Nov 2013
ORGANISER: Oxford Union
MOTION: This House is Proud to be Patriotic
My Position: OPPOSING MOTION “No”
RESULT: MOTION DEFEATED (59% against, 41% for [approx])
Win for our side of panel [VIDEO]
VENUE: Cambridge University [UK], 4th Nov 2010
ORGANISER: Cambridge Union
MOTION: This House Believes Islam is a Threat to the West
My Position: OPPOSING MOTION “No”
RESULT: MOTION DEFEATED (76% against, 24% for)
Win for our side of panel [VIDEO]
Abdullah al Andalusi 
Leave a comment