The View From the Cello Section
Copyright© 2026 by Marc Nobbs
Chapter 8: I Won!
I won!
Thursday 14th November 2013
That’s it. That’s the post.
Well. Almost.
My first debate at the Westmouth Union, and I beat Henry Cavendish—the society president, a third-year economics student, educated privately from approximately conception, considerably more experienced at debating than I am, extremely confident, and, until approximately two hours ago, someone I found mildly terrifying.
And it was not close. In badminton terms: two games to love, and I conceded fewer than 10 points across both games.
I am aware that debating does not actually work like badminton. Allow me this.
The motion was: THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT THE GENDER PAY GAP IS EVIDENCE OF STRUCTURAL DISCRIMINATION.
The House agreed.
Comfortably.
Several people have already told me that Henry looked increasingly annoyed during my rebuttal. I did not notice. I was having too much fun.
This may become a problem.
Thank you to everyone who spent Sunday evening attacking my argument. Seriously. Several things I changed because of the discussion on here ended up being important tonight.
Especially: “That establishes agency. It doesn’t establish absence of constraint.”
@motionsandmotions, you may claim your contribution to feminism. Cake to follow.
I will write a proper account tomorrow when I have calmed down enough to type accurately. At present I am approximately 40% adrenaline and 60% smugness. I make no apology for either.
I WON.
Goodnight.
#westmouth union #debating #gender pay gap #structural discrimination #first debate #I WON #two games to love #sorry Henry #not actually sorry #I actually won #maiden speech #I beat the president #politely #mostly #proper report tomorrow #when my hands have stopped shaking
Selected notes on “I won!”
cellosbeforefellows replied: SHE WON
feministwithafiddle replied: YOU WON!!!!
motionsandmotions replied: FIRST DEBATE. SOCIETY PRESIDENT. STRAIGHT-GAMES VICTORY.
keynes-is-my-copilot replied: EXPLANATION WAS NOT EXONERATION AND HENRY CAVENDISH HAS BEEN EXONERATED OF NOTHING
classwarandcupcakes replied: PRIVATE SCHOOL DEFEATED BY STATE-EDUCATED CELLO COMMUNISM
cellolana replied: I am not a communist.
classwarandcupcakes replied: TONIGHT YOU ARE WHATEVER I NEED YOU TO BE
ordinarygirl1989 replied: “politely #mostly” WHAT DID YOU DO
cellolana replied: I answered the questions I was asked.
ordinarygirl1989 replied: This answer has made me more suspicious.
mixed-doubles-mess replied: She has reached the point where all victories must be translated into badminton scores.
BadmintonDan replied: If she conceded fewer than ten points across two games, that isn’t a victory. That’s a dismantling.
cellolana replied: That is a fair description.
motionsandmotions reblogged cellolana:
FIRST PROPER DEBATE
VERSUS THE PRESIDENT
AND SHE’S CLAIMING STRAIGHT SETS???
I NEED AN INDEPENDENT WITNESS
cellolana replied: There were approximately eighty independent witnesses.
floorpoint replied: EIGHTY?????
Cellolana replied: Approximately.
briefcasebabe reblogged cellolana:
“I was having too much fun.”
OH NO
SHE’S DISCOVERED CROSS-EXAMINATION AS A RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY
cellolana replied: Debating. Not cross-examination.
briefcasebabe: FOR NOW
marketliberalgirl reblogged cellolana:
I OPPOSED YOU IN SPIRIT ALL WEEK AND YOU STILL WON
Betrayal!
cellolana replied: Your argument helped. So technically you contributed to your own defeat.
marketliberalgirl replied: THIS IS INTOLERABLE
henrycavendish reblogged cellolana:
For the sake of factual accuracy, my private education began at the age of four rather than at conception.
Lana’s account of the result is otherwise substantially correct.
She won because she did something many experienced debaters fail to do: she conceded the limitations of her evidence before the opposition could use those limitations against her. She conceded every point I expected her to waste time defending and then demonstrated that none of those concessions defeated the motion.
Very difficult to answer cleanly.
Her opening definition was precise. Her distinction between explanation and justification prevented me from using occupational choice as a complete rebuttal. When challenged on whether she had defined “structure” so broadly that her claim could not be disproved, she gave clear conditions under which she would reject her own argument.
Most importantly, she listened. Every answer addressed the question actually asked rather than the one she had prepared in advance.
I have seen first speakers with greater polish. I have rarely seen one take control of a room so quickly.
cellolana replied: Thank you, Henry. Both for being so gracious about the result and for correcting the historical record concerning your education.
henrycavendish replied: Congratulations, Lana. You deserved the result. And for someone who told me before the debate she was nervous, you concealed it extremely well. Please send me an email tomorrow when you have recovered. The Union’s New Year Lecture is becoming rather more important than originally anticipated, and there is something connected with it for which I would like your help.
cellolana replied: I will email you tomorrow, when my working vocabulary has expanded beyond “I won”. I am slightly alarmed by every other part of that final paragraph. Oh, and I wasn’t concealing it. I stopped being nervous about ninety seconds into my speech.
henrycavendish replied: Yes, I noticed exactly when you began to enjoy yourself. So did everyone else in the room.
motionsandmotions reblogged henrycavendish:
EXCUSE ME
“THE UNION’S NEW YEAR LECTURE”
“RATHER MORE IMPORTANT THAN ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED”
“I WOULD LIKE YOUR HELP”
WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS MEAN
feministwithafiddle replied: She defeated the society president so comprehensively that he immediately offered her a side quest.
keynes-is-my-copilot replied: The main plot has been unlocked.
cellolana replied: I do not know what it means either.
ordinarygirl1989 replied: email him now.
cellolana replied: No.
ordinarygirl1989 replied: Lana!!!!
cellolana replied: He said tomorrow. Also, I am tired, overexcited and have consumed two celebratory drinks. This is not the correct condition in which to discuss anything described as “important”.
briefcasebabe replied: Disturbingly sensible protagonist refuses to activate side quest while intoxicated.
BadmintonDan reblogged henrycavendish:
Official confirmation from the defeated opponent.
Two games to love. Fewer than ten points conceded.
Was Henry unusually poor, or did she genuinely dismantle him?
henrycavendish replied: The latter.
RacketGirl91 replied: THE OPPONENT HAS CONFIRMED THE SCORE.
To read the complete story you need to be logged in:
Log In or
Register for a Free account
(Why register?)
* Allows you 3 stories to read in 24 hours.