The debate could be broadly summarised with two questions, which, like so many debates, are definitional. What is fashion? And what is elitism?

The latter question was more explicitly referred to, as it was brought up at the start of the first speech and carried through the debate. Whilst the opposition often used examples of rags to riches stories of those at the top of fashion, the proposition largely avoided this issue by painting elitism as not just a matter of class or wealth (although these arguments occasionally arose) but of any factor that excludes.

One of the most recurrent themes on the proposition was the idea of physical elitism, whereby fashion only seeks to include the young, skinny and white. The final speaker for the opposition, Grace Woodward, broadened this further, talking about fashion sub-cultures. By defining themselves with fashion, sub-cultures exclude others and create an elite represented by how fully they embody the signature style. If you were looking for an argument on economic or class elitism the opposition would win the debate comfortably – whilst some elements of fashion remain prohibitively expensive for most, the rise of cheap fashion has made it accessible, and many of the high flyers in fashion have working class roots. However, if a broader term of elitism is accepted, the proposition is left with far more room for manoeuvre.

A definition of fashion was largely lacking until the final speaker for the proposition, who provided multiple definitions dependent on which theory of fashion you bought into. Throughout the debate there was constant fluctuation between referring to fashion as trend-led clothing, individual style, or the infrastructure of magazines and catwalk shows. In terms of individual style the proposition were fighting a losing battle. The availability of cheap fashion, and the trend for dressed-down high fashion, has made style increasingly available for all, constrained only by personal taste. However, the idea of a fashion “world” fell more on propositions side. Despite Grace Woodward referring to her modelling even as a size 10, as an evidently attractive and still below average size individual I think it is hard to say she represents fashion’s accessibility for all.

The opposition gained some ground by painting those at the top of fashion as the most talented, but there was little defence that any were remotely on the large side. Opposition’s strongest point here was the move towards televising fashion shows. Through this the viewing of high fashion, if not its consumption, has become widely available for many. I think it is fair to say that the industry remains physically elitist, but it is up to you whether you think this affects consumption of style, either by limiting the products available to larger sizes, creating items only designed to flatter the slim, or excluding those less than “perfect” via advertising.

A final question that may be worth considering is whether elitism within fashion is a problem. The first speaker for the proposition argued that fashion was aspirational, that it needed to be elitist to achieve this, but that the aspiration was one of the joys of fashion. With little engagement with this point, I leave it to you to decide where you stand.

Whilst it seems crude to have summarised such nuanced arguments, and presented so little of a conclusion, it is a tribute to the balance of the debate. The speakers themselves were unusually likeable, and there was a refreshing lack of agenda that so often ruins a good debate at the Union. Possibly for these reasons, it was one of the more enjoyable debates I have attended.