FOR ONE BRIEF moment during this year's final of the Irish Times Debate, I felt a pang of pity for Bertie Ahern. The Fianna Fail leader had opted to chair the debate in the face of a motion. That this house would support the public funding of political parties" - containing more than a little potential for embarrassment on behalf of his party - an alleged £1.1 million worth of embarrassment, to be precise.

Frankly, this appeared to be on a par with a turkey chairing a debate on Christmas eating habits, with Bertie as the main course if things - turned nasty. As speaker after speaker stood up and accused politicians of corruption, greed and plain not niceness, the Leader of the Opposition gritted his teeth and did his best to look like he was enjoying himself.

On occasion, the tension showed through and his brow furrowed with barely contained stress, like a man forced to listen to a judo team insulting his mother. At such moments, it was almost possible to hear the soothing mantra in his head: "Think of the votes, Bertie, think of the votes.

This was the 38th Irish Times Debate, held in a packed Edmund Burke Theatre in TCD and hosted by the TCD Historical Society, which was celebrating the 250th anniversary of its foundation by appropriately enough - Edmund Burke. As the 12 competitors arrayed themselves on the stage it was reassuring to see that, while the faces of the finalists might have changed, one man at least was keeping up the tradition of taste free waistcoats which have graced the debate in recent years. Seamus Doran, one half of the UL Debating Union team and, coincidentally, president of UL students' union, wore a piece of cloth that seemed to be based on an internal photo of an accident victim.

It was left to Gillian Sinnott of the UCD L&H, proposing, to start the debate, a task she performed admirably. Arguing that there were two reasons for the problems with money in politics - spiralling costs and the "suspect supply" of funds from private donors - she proposed public funding proportional to the number of first preference votes received by a party and a cap on private donations. "Anything that can relieve the public's distrust in politicians needs to be examined," she said.

Her teammate, Bairbre O'Neill, observed that private individuals who fund political parties did not do so out of a magnanimous interest in democracy". She argued that the taxpayer has a vested interest in thee preservation of democracy and the removal of inequities two things which could best be served by some measure of public funding.

Ian Walsh of the UCD Law Society, opposing, saw no value in the research or policy making of political parties and said a mandatory tax to support such tasks was unjustifiable. He argued that democracy could be better supported by spending the money on political education at school level, a neutral information campaign - or even roads.

Given that the TCD Hist team, proposing, estimated the total public funding required at £1.5 million, this prompted Adrian Langan of the Hist to ask Walsh what kind of road one could build with this sum: "What is it, a UCD department of engineering road?"

Walsh's teammate, Rossa Fanning, said that there was an overwhelming public move away from public funding of political parties. "Political parties are aimed at perpetuating their own existence... and maximising their own power," he argued.

Fergal Crehan proposing of the UCG Lit & Deb, remarked that "a fool and his money are soon elected" and that a system had emerged where "we have the best political parties money can buy and Dunnes Stores better value does beat them all". He argued that the public funding of political parties could tip the balance in favour of democracy and would stop parties spending money on silly hats and PR courses designed to help them learn how to say "I'm glad you asked me that, Brian" on TV.

ALSO SPEAKING as an individual, Matthew McCabe of the Solicitors' Apprentices' Debating Society of Ireland and an apprentice with Arthur Cox & Co, argued against public funding and pointed to Italy, where public funding was well established but where there were "one or two problems with corruption". He said individuals were quite entitled to make private donations and, even under public funding, such donations would continue and remain largely untraceable.

Proposing, Andrew Beck of TCD Law Society said public funding was a guarantee of fairness which would alter the situation whereby one wealthy businessman could have the power of thousands of voters. "Money doesn't need to talk when it can nod and wink and play footsie under the table," he said.

The final individual speaker was Mary Cosgrove of the UCG Lit & Deb, opposing, who argued that bribes were paid to individuals, not parties. She rejected public funding on the grounds that people might then have to support parties to which they were ideologically or morally opposed.

This point was developed further by the UL Debating Union team, who opposed the motion. Seamus Doran, facing imminent arrest by the fashion police, said the heart of democracy was free choice and that to force people to fund parties with which they did not agree "flies against the very essence of democracy". In fact Doran and his teammate Padraic O'Halloran made one of the most telling points of the evening when they said public funding was no guarantee of honour and the essential flaw lay in the politicians themselves.

Finally, Jackie O'Hara of the TCD Hist, proposing, said politicians spend the majority of time "grubbing for funds at constituency level" arid that public funding would alleviate this pressure, while ensuring there would be no more £300 million beef tribunals resulting from £170,000 meat company donations.

"If someone gave me £170,000 - unless it was Mike Murphy - I'd be a pretty worried man about what he wanted in return," said her team mate, Adrian Langan. He argued that public funding was like sex in the Victorian era: "You're not doing it for yourself, you're doing it for your country."

In the end, the best speech of the evening came not from any of the 12 speakers but from Eugene McCague, a former winner of The Irish Times Debate and now a partner in Arthur Cox & Co, solicitors, as well as chairman of the DIT. He paid a moving, witty tribute to the late Christina Murphy, one of the longtime movers behind the Irish Times Debate and a former duty editor of The Irish Times, who died last year.

In her memory, the Chnstina Murphy Trophy will now be given to the best individual speaker each year. Its first recipient was Matthew McCabe of SADSI, with Rossa Fanning of the UCD Law Society nominated as runner up.

BUT IT WAS TO BE UL's night. The team of Doran and O'Halloran, who have been debating together lord three years, took the Demosthenes Trophy for best team for the first time in the university's history, marking the UL Debating Union's elevation to the top ranks of the country's third level debating societies.

Debate convenor Kerida Naidoo described O'Halloran as "one of the top speakers in the country for more than three years", while Doran appealed to the crowd in the best possible way. "You win by making complicated points sound simple and that is the point of origin, the point of advocacy. That's what they did," Naidoo concluded.

"We've been around the block a fair bit and we've got used to each other's style," Doran said. "There's never been a question of one abandoning the other."

The three winners will jet off to the US next month for a tour of US colleges, organised by the National Parliamentary Debate and sponsored by long time debate supporters Aer Lingus and The Irish Times.