On Tuesday, November 11, the 1,000-seater lecture theatre was buzzing with energy as students gathered for the Freshers’ Interfaculty Debate. The interfaculty debate is part of the lineup of events for the 2025 Freshers’ Week, organised by the Great Ife Students’ Union.
The contestants were given different topics for debate. The central theme for the debate was ‘Productivity Improvement in Our Various Industries.’ The hall was half-filled, but the excitement of the participants made the event vibrant.
The panel of judges for the debate comprised Bello Ruquyyah, Captain of the University of Ibadan British Parliamentary Debating Society; Grillo Adedolapo, erstwhile Vice-President of OAULDS; and Oluwademilade Adebanjo, a multiple award-winning debater. The judges briefed the audience about the structure of the debate. The first speaker had 5 minutes, while the second speaker (the assistant) was given 3 minutes. Points were awarded for logic and content (20 points) and stage management (5 points). Wale served as the timekeeper.
READ MORE: Still No Trace: The Unanswered Questions Surrounding Dorcas Oseghale’s Disappearance
Highlights
The first round saw faculty representatives debating with one another in pairs. The first was between the Faculty of Technology and the Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences. The topic was ‘Can medical practitioners refuse to treat patients based on personal beliefs?’ Representatives from the Faculty of Engineering, Adeagbo Khalid and his assistant Ojo Michael, supported the motion, while Basic Medical Sciences representatives Fanu Boluwatifenisola and her assistant Emmanuel Oluwaponmile opposed it. Khalid began confidently, explaining key terms such as ‘personal beliefs’ and ‘treatments,’ but at some point seemed to contradict his position. Boluwatifenisola, however, impressed the audience with her clarity, diction, and well-structured points.
The Faculty of Education debated against the Faculty of Clinical Science on the topic: ‘Governments in developing countries should impose additional tax on companies replacing humans with AI or automation.’ Both sides presented passionate arguments, with Education’s chief speaker, Olaoye Jumoke and assistant Olabisi Olamide supporting the motion, while Clinical Science’s Olamide Abigail and her assistant, Timilehin Akinlosotu, opposed it.
The next set of contesting faculties included the Faculty of Agriculture, represented by Eyitayo Oluwaseun and her assistant Taiwo Kabirat, supporting a motion on the topic ‘Government should heavily subsidise industries of strategic importance such as agriculture and power,’ while the Faculty of Computer Science, represented by Adeniyi Oluwadamifunayo and his assistant Clinton N. Kennedy, opposed the topic.
While there was enthusiasm, many participants struggled with structure and time management, giving the impression of an impromptu debate rather than a fully prepared one.
The Faculty of Social Science, Adegbute Favour and Badmis Oluwafisayo, supported a motion that’ Only Individuals with relevant academic and industry expertise within the key sectors, Power, Education and Technology should commend them on Social Media’. The opposing team was The Faculty of Pharmacy, Abbey Blessing, A.Joke and Oluwabukunmi Durosomo. Furthermore, the Faculty of Arts went against the Faculty of Law. They presented their topics, which were evaluated by the judges on content, presentation, and engagement.
After the first debate ended, the judges announced the winners of the first round. The Faculty of Basic Medical Science won against the Faculty of Technology; as such, the Faculty of Technology was disqualified. The Faculty of Science defeated the Faculty of Education, leading to Education’s disqualification. The Faculty of Computer Science won against Agriculture, and Agriculture was disqualified. The Faculty of Pharmacy won against Social Sciences, leading to the disqualification of Social Sciences. Also, the Faculty of Arts won against Law, and Law was disqualified.
After the first debate round was concluded, the judges announced a second round that lasted about two to three minutes. The best contestants were then selected based on their performance. In some faculties, the chief speaker performed better, while in others, the assistant speaker stood out. Each faculty had one representative chosen to move on to the next stage.
At the end of the second round, general comments from the judges highlighted areas for improvement. They noted that most participants introduced themselves unnecessarily, relied on props or reading, and lacked a structured approach. Stage presence, confidence, and proper research were also identified as aspects that need attention for future competitions.
The debate concluded around 3:00 p.m. Six faculties made it to the final stage, which is set to take place at the Symposium on Wednesday, November 12. Two faculties, Social Science and Agriculture, were disqualified. The six faculties that qualified, with each representative, include the Faculty of Pharmacy, Education, Arts, Computer Science, Basic Medical Science and Dentistry. Impromptu debate topics were then given to the contestants. The final results will be announced tomorrow.
Performances will improve when there is proper training – Judge
In an interview with ACJOAU correspondents, one of the judges of the debate competition, Demilade Adabanjo, answered a few questions regarding her opinion about the debate.
She rated the overall performance as 6 out of 10, stating that although many of the debaters showed good potential, there is still much work to be done. She explained that most of them need to learn how to express their arguments clearly and ensure that each sentence adds meaning to their speech.
Adabanjo added that while a few participants stood out, she could not specifically mention anyone because they all demonstrated potential in different ways. Reflecting on some of the weaknesses she observed, she noted that several contestants lacked confidence, which could be attributed to the large audience. She also pointed out that some speeches lacked proper structure.
However, she commended speakers from the Faculty of Arts, Pharmacy, and Basic Medical Sciences, as well as individuals like Enobong, who performed well alongside their teammates.
Sharing her overall view of the debate, she stated it was good but could be improved if faculties and departments took responsibility for training their freshers ahead of such events. ‘Once faculties take the time to train their students properly, the performances will definitely improve,’ she said.
She also encouraged the speakers to continue working on their skills, noting that they all can speak well but need to refine it. “There are many debates and public speaking resources available online, especially on YouTube. That’s a good place to start,” she added.