Episode 9 Debatable

APPLAUSE

Hello and welcome to Debatable,

the quiz show that proves when it comes to celebrity chat,

you can never get too much of a good thing.

Today, our panel of celebrities will try and help one contestant debate

their way to a jackpot of ?2,000,

but will they help or will they hinder?

That's debatable. So let's meet them.

On today's show, we have comedian Susan Calman,

entrepreneur Peter Jones and hip-hop artist and writer Akala.

APPLAUSE

That's our panel. Let's see who is playing today.

It is Thom Cosgrove from Northampton.

APPLAUSE

Welcome to the show, Thom.

Thanks very much. How are you doing, fella? Yeah, really good.

Good, good. Tell us a little bit about yourself. I'm Thom Cosgrove, I'm 27.

I'm from Northampton. And I work as part of the patient safety team at

Northamptonshire NHS. What do you do in your spare time?

I am a very keen gardener,

which, for somebody my age, is not really a manly thing,

but I just woke up one morning and loved gardening.

Whenever you go into your garden, do your plants grow as well as your facial hair?

Because this is probably one of the most magnificent beards we have ever

had on the show, Thom. That is very good work. APPLAUSE

It really is. I only shaved yesterday, so it's just like Desperate Dan.

This is actually more hair than I could ever grow in my entire lifetime.

What subjects are you hoping that are going to come up today? Music's a real strong point.

Sport. Maybe geography as well.

Like flags and capitals, things like that, I'm quite good at.

Hip-hop, not so great. Well, to be honest with you,

Peter Jones is a massive hip-hop fan, so he'll be able to sort all that out himself.

What's hip-hop? LAUGHTER

It's a fusion form of music. It's a bit like, "I did a hip-hop, the hippie, the hippie...

"..you don't stop rocking till the bang bang boogie, say, up to the boogie,

"to the boogie, the beat." Is it a bit like that? That was very impressive. Sugarhill Gang.

That was very impressive. About 40 years ago, it was that, yeah.

Who knew Peter Jones was so down?

That's quality. I mean, he's proper down.

I had no idea he had that up his sleeve.

Thom, there's really nowhere left to go after that,

apart from say, let's play Debatable, and here's round one.

This round, Thom, is multiple choice.

Four possible answers, only one of them is correct.

Helping you find the answer is our panel.

Will you go with what they say or will you go your own way?

It is entirely up to you.

Two questions in this round.

Each correct answer is worth ?200, so let's get cracking.

Here we go.

Hm. I would probably be leaning towards Theodore Roosevelt,

Teddy Roosevelt, as he was probably a little bit later than the others.

So maybe I'd say Lincoln, Washington and Hoover are probably a

little bit earlier, maybe more chance of them.

OK, so you're leaning towards Roosevelt.

Let's see what our panel make of this.

For the first time today, your debate starts now.

Has anyone been? Have you been?

Well, I'm embarrassed, I'm about to say yes, I have been.

Do you remember anything that happened?

I know that there's four.

Right. That's a start.

And I definitely remember, even though Thom said Roosevelt,

I do remember Roosevelt and Washington.

Yeah. But that is it. I genuinely don't know.

So, I've only ever seen Mount Rushmore in The Simpsons,

which I don't think counts as documentary evidence.

Mount Rushmore, as I understand it,

it's kind of commemorating great presidents.

Hoover, whilst he was a president,

is not spoken in the same way as the other three.

If I were leaning towards excluding any, I would go for Hoover,

just for the same reasons.

Given that they've got the Lincoln Memorial, given that Lincoln is,

you know, credited as one of their greatest presidents,

that he would not be on Mount Rushmore, whereas, you know,

they've got the Hoover Dam, but that just stops water going places.

I just don't think, in any of my mind palace which I have,

is Herbert Hoover on Mount Rushmore.

I think that's good for me. Yeah. Let's do it. Well, as a panel,

we have decided the President that does not have

his face carved into the

side of Mount Rushmore is Herbert Hoover.

You see, Thom, what you really needed

was a member of the panel who had

actually visited Mount Rushmore. LAUGHTER

And then remembered what was there.

I'm so embarrassed. How did that day in your holiday go?

It's a very embarrassing moment.

It's not an embarrassing moment, Susan Calman has a mind palace,

that she keeps spick and span.

Well, it's just a way of trying to keep all the information, isn't it?

I have a mind shed! Hasn't been tidied in years.

I've got a cupboard. A cupboard.

I like that. Now, has any of that helped?

Yes. I think the logical process that was done there,

despite the fact that you've been...

I think that Herbert Hoover, I'd like to lock that in as well.

OK, so you're locking that in. Thom, you're going with our panel.

To get us up and running, ?200, the correct answer is...

It is Herbert Hoover!

APPLAUSE

Well done! Good work, guys.

Thank you. Good work, the mind palace. Well done. Yes.

Jefferson was the other US President whose face was carved into the side

of Mount Rushmore. The eyes of each president are 11ft wide.

And their mouths are approximately 18ft wide.

Still not big enough for Peter Jones to remember...

LAUGHTER

..who they were. And well done, Thom.

?200 in the prize pot.

APPLAUSE

OK, well played, everyone. Here comes your next question.

Wow! I can honestly say that I've not heard of any of those melons.

I would have to lean towards maybe a clove melon.

I think that sounds like a thing. Just sounds reasonable. Yeah.

Clove melon. OK. Clove is the first thought.

Panel, the debate starts now.

Well, team, we're going to have to dig deep here, I have no idea.

The only thing, when Thom said that,

do you think it's the shape of the melon?

You know, nutmeg and clove...

are an actual...

are rounder. Maybe it's the shape of the melon,

rather than the colour or the taste of the melon.

Maybe it's how it looks.

If it was that, it wouldn't be ginger, because ginger's

not round. Not melon-shaped.

Not melon-shaped. Cinnamon is a stick.

So it would be clove or nutmeg because those two are kind of,

if not circular, then they are spherical.

Nutmeg melon doesn't have any ring to it.

It just doesn't sound right. Clove melon... Clove melon does.

Ginger melon, sound-wise, sounds like it could work.

Unsuccessful... But I think nutmeg and cinnamon, cinnamon melon.

You're right. Cinnamon melon is not going to work, is it?

And nutmeg melon doesn't either.

Ginger melon sounds like it could be a thing.

Clove melon sounds like it could be a thing.

But we've got to decide, it's really a guess.

Shall we go with clove? Yeah, I think it's unfortunately a punt.

Well, the panel have decided, not particularly convincingly,

but we're going to suggest...

..that the answer is clove.

So, the panel have brought great knowledge to this one.

Based on the fact that it could sound right.

Any help? I think my incoherent ramblings have been backed

up, I think. I think I'm very happy with clove.

So, your incoherent ramblings have been backed up by more incoherent

ramblings. Essentially. And we're all agreed.

Yeah. All right, it's a punt in the dark.

Clove. Is clove, for ?200, the correct answer?

Oh! It was nutmeg! It was nutmeg.

Wow! You did say nutmeg, didn't you? OK, unfortunately,

you didn't manage to bank anything for that question and that means that

the total sum banked at the end of round one, Thom, is ?200.

Well done. Well done.

APPLAUSE

Let's see how they cope with pictures.

It's time for round two.

OK, Thom, round two is our picture round.

All you have to do is place three pictures in the correct order.

It sounds simple, but it isn't.

There are two questions in this round.

Each correct answer is worth ?300.

So, here we go.

Not too dissatisfied with that question.

Football would definitely be one of my strong suits.

So I'd go France, Uruguay, Italy.

That's your first thought.

If only we had someone that almost played professional football on the

panel. Panel, your debate starts now. OK.

Well, Thom is absolutely correct.

A lot of people tend to forget that Uruguay did win the World Cup

twice in the '30s, when it started, in the pre-war years,

so they got two early wins in and have never won it since.

France, you would think might have won it more times,

only won it the once, in '98.

And Italy have won it the most times, other than Brazil,

so they're the second-most frequent winners of the World Cup.

That is impressive. I only remember France in '98 because that was the

time... I lost my business in '96, lost everything, actually.

And I was sleeping rough in a warehouse

and I started again in 1998 and

tried to get myself back on my feet. I remember, that year, France

winning the World Cup.

But that's the end of my knowledge, in terms of football.

Well, Scottish World Cup knowledge is... Yup.

So we haven't been really fantastic and...

your knowledge, straightaway...

I'm going to go with whatever you say.

Tom's definitely right. I'm 100% confident on this one.

So, starting with the fewest wins.

That would be France.

Then Uruguay. Then Uruguay.

Then Italy.

It's so refreshing to have that vindicated by somebody else.

You could just think, "Hold on, am I talking complete rubbish?"

But no. Yeah, very happy with that.

OK, here we go.

You said France...

then Uruguay, then Italy.

For ?300, is that the correct order?

It is the correct order. Well done. APPLAUSE

Good knowledge, Thom. Good knowledge, panel.

And you were absolutely right, Thom.

France has won it once, Uruguay has won it twice,

Italy has won it four times.

The Fifa World Cup has been won by eight different national teams.

Brazil has won it the most, five times,

they are the only team to have played in every tournament.

So, 300 quid has been added to the prize pot, giving you a total, Thom,

of ?500. Very well done.

APPLAUSE

Let's have a little look at your second picture question.

Here it comes.

Strictly fan, Thom?

No. My mother-in-law is, so she's going to be yelling at the telly.

My gut is saying Kaplinsky, Ramprakash, Smith.

But, yeah, that's a real gut decision.

All right, that is his first thought.

He's got no Strictly knowledge.

I have never watched an episode of Strictly in my life, I must confess,

so this is definitely over to you two.

I'm completely useless. Have you ever watched Strictly?

Love it. Want to be on it. It's my dream. Peter? I love it.

I watch it and I'm a big fan.

OK. So, panel, your debate starts now.

Thom's right about Louis Smith. Absolutely correct.

Most recent. Most recent.

It's between Ramprakash and Kaplinsky.

Now, Kaplinsky,

I think was the earliest because she was the first one to win it,

big hoo-ha, changed channels.

Went from the BBC... To Channel Five.

They then started getting sportsmen involved in it.

After that, when they had cricketers and rugby players and things.

So, just my gut is Kaplinsky first,

then Ramprakash, then Louis Smith.

What do you think? I told you, I've never watched a single episode.

Totally agree? Yeah, all I can give you is cool, whatever you say goes.

Are you a good dancer? Absolutely not. Neither am I.

Doesn't stop me wanting to go on Strictly.

Actually, I did Strictly Sport Relief.

Did you? Surprised everybody.

And I was against Duncan Bannatyne as well in the final.

Did you do the ballroom or the Latin?

I did the ballroom. I want to see you doing the Latin.

I practise the Latin in my kitchen.

You've got to go on Strictly.

I'm sure this isn't what they do.

But that's what I do in my kitchen.

Anyway. I think you're right because Natasha was BBC at the time.

Yeah. It was pretty early on in those years.

And I think she's definitely the first.

OK, so Kaplinsky here.

So the panel have decided, starting with the first,

is Natasha Kaplinsky,

Mark Ramprakash and Louis Smith.

So, Akala's sitting this dance out.

However, Peter and Susan have come up with the order.

I don't know what I'd rather see,

snake hips Jones or Susan dancing in her kitchen.

We could combine them. We could do both. We could do both.

I think this could work. I mean, if you'd like to stand up...

This could work as a dance partnership right here.

It's almost too sexy for TV.

LAUGHTER

It is pre-watershed. Yeah.

But I'm really happy that they've backed up my decision.

And what Susan said about the sportsmen coming in a bit later.

To start with, they were a bit of a novelty.

They'd have some gangly cricketer or some rugby player that couldn't

dance. But, yeah, I'm very happy with that.

OK, you're agreeing with the panel.

You're going Kaplinsky first, then Ramprakash,

and latest winner, Louis Smith.

That's it. Here we go.

Locked in for ?300, is that the correct answer?

It is the correct answer.

Well done. Very well played.

Let's have a look at the years.

Here we go. Natasha Kaplinsky 2004,

then Mark Ramprakash, 2006.

Louis Smith after the Olympics, 2012.

And the BBC will love Peter and Susan for pointing out that

Natasha Kaplinsky was a huge star at the BBC when she won and then moved

to an inferior channel and the rest is history.

Well done, there. Extra points, and a possible commission from the BBC

for that. Well played.

Well worked out, guys.

At the end of that round, your prize pot is up to ?800.

Very nice work.

So, is the panel proving useful?

Very useful. Lots of people dipping in and out.

And I like saying, "Look, I don't know this," and when you do know it,

bang, straight in with the facts. You can only choose one of them

to play your final debate. Yeah.

Who do you think that would be, based on current performance?

Based on current performance,

I think it would have to be Susan with her mind palace.

OK, the mind palace.

There's still another ?1,000 up for grabs as we play round three.

All right, Thom. In this round,

you will face questions that contain three statements about a person,

a place, or a thing.

Only one of those statements is true.

And you must decide which one it is.

It is our final round, so we're going to up the cash

to ?500 a correct answer. So, best of luck.

Here we go.

Which statement is true

about William Shakespeare?

Dabbled in a little bit of Shakespeare myself at primary

school. I was in Twelfth Night and Midsummer Night's Dream,

so I should know a little bit more about him than I do.

If I had to go with my gut,

I'd say that he was a shareholder in the Globe Theatre.

All right. You are thinking A.

Let's see if our panel can shed any light on this.

Your debate starts now.

Well, I think we have a resident historian luckily sitting right next to us.

Luckily, we have someone who knows quite a lot about Shakespeare.

Yeah, I've got a music theatre and education company called

The Hip-Hop Shakespeare Company, so if I didn't know this,

I'd probably get in a lot of trouble.

Though it is kind of tricky, cos I do remember something about

planets and being named after characters,

but he 100% was a shareholder in the Globe.

There are 18 comedies of 36, 37 plays.

Because there's histories as well,

there's no way even just mathematically that he could have

written more tragedies than comedies. So it definitely isn't B.

It definitely is A.

So we can write off C as well.

And I was going to say all of those things as well, but I mean,

you just got in just before me.

Yes, I mean, you know your stuff.

It's definitely... 100%, he was a shareholder in the Globe.

You can't get better than that, 100%.

We could argue this for a long time.

It makes sense that he's slightly entrepreneurial because his father,

I'm pretty sure, was a glove maker.

OK. He had his own business.

Yeah, There you are. Anyway, so the answer

is definitely 100% that he was a shareholder in the Globe Theatre.

So, Thom, we have some expert knowledge from our panel.

Can't beat 100%. Doesn't get a lot better than that.

It doesn't. Yeah, I'm going to lock in A.

Very happy. OK, you're very happy to agree with the panel.

We're saying that Shakespeare was a shareholder in the Globe Theatre.

If this is wrong... I'll be in big trouble, won't I?

Here we go, for ?500, the correct answer is:

It is the correct answer.

Well played, Akala. Well played, Thom.

He was a shareholder in the Globe Theatre.

He actually came on Dragons' Den and tried to sell a shareholding of the

Globe Theatre, but Peter Jones bid him down to 10%.

LAUGHTER

He actually owned... Do we know how much he owned?

12%-ish?

12.5% of the Globe.

So, well played, Thom.

You've added ?500 to the prize pot and you're now up to ?1,300.

Well done.

Still 500 up for grabs.

This is our final question before the final debate.

Which statement is true about Andre Agassi?

I think he never wore a wig.

But I know he used to have quite long hair.

I think Superbrat is McEnroe, so I would say B.

So by a process of elimination, you think B.

Yeah. If only we had someone who used to be a tennis player

on the panel.

Hi. Peter Jones. No, no, sorry.

LAUGHTER

Over to you guys.

Panel, the debate starts now.

Well, yes, so I started my first business as a tennis academy at 16.

I do know the answer to this question.

It was out in his autobiography. Yeah.

His autobiography was called Open.

It was heart-wrenching.

In fact, I cried in certain sections of reading it.

It's an amazing story, but the truth of it is that actually,

he did wear a wig. Yeah. And I think it was the first time in 1990,

from memory, in a Grand Slam final.

Well, for a start, we know that Superbrat is McEnroe.

Yes. He did win the French Open, which is on... Is it clay?

On clay. Yeah.

And he was quite a good clay player.

He was a brilliant clay court and hard court player.

So he won the French Open. And he was a troubled guy.

Yeah, he used to wake up in the morning and he used to find that his

hair would literally be lying on the pillow, and he got so torn apart by

it that he just decided, that's it, I'm going to go and wear a wig.

Yeah. So, are we...? Yeah. I'm happy with the wig.

Are we all agreed? With the autobiography knowledge there. Yeah.

Happy with that.

So the panel have decided that 100% Andre Agassi

used to wear a wig whilst playing tennis.

OK, Thom. You thought by a process of elimination that wearing a wig

and Superbrat were not options.

After hearing our panel, has that made you change your mind?

Yes, again, you can't really argue with 100%.

I feel like a bit of a fraud here, just feeding off the panel,

but, yeah, I'm very happy to go with that. I always thought that he just

went the transition of having quite long hair

to then sort of being a bald man.

So if there was a wig in between, that skipped me by.

But really not my generation.

But very happy with the panel's decision there.

So you're changing your mind? Yes, please.

From never won the French Open, you are going with the panel.

We're saying that Andre Agassi used to wear a wig while playing matches.

For ?500.

There it is. It's locked in.

The correct answer is...

Yes, he did used to wear a wig.

Whilst playing matches.

Correctly read, Peter, in his autobiography.

He said that he wore it during his first Grand Slam final,

which was the French Open, on clay in 1990.

He clamped the wig on with 20 clips and he lost the match.

But you have not lost the question.

Very well played, Thom. That's ?500 in the prize pot.

It means you're going to be playing for ?1,800 in our final debate!

Well done.

So, if you win the money, Thom, what would you like to do with that?

I am just coming up to my first wedding anniversary.

So it would be really nice to take my wife, Charlotte,

away somewhere special for that, maybe if I don't win the money,

it'd be more likely to be Skegness.

But we'll try our best.

You old romantic, you. I know!

Well, look, there's just one question that stands between you and

the money and that is today's final debate.

Now, in the final debate, there's only one question

with six possible answers.

I need three correct answers in order to win the money.

As before, you're not going to be playing alone,

this is the final debate. So you can access the knowledge

of one of these fine human beings to help you.

You and your panellist will have 45 seconds to debate the question.

So, who would you like to join you in today's final debate?

I think they've all done amazingly well.

They've all, in their own rights, bailed me out at points that

I really, really needed them. But I think it's going to be Susan.

The mind palace!

The mind palace. OK.

So, Susan, would you please join us for today's final debate. Yes.

OK, Susan, Thom has chosen you for this final debate.

Ready to rock? Absolutely.

All I can do is try my best.

It's quite a lot of pressure but obviously it's lovely,

first anniversary, wants to take his wife away.

And I could ruin everything.

I feel like I should invite them up to Glasgow if we don't win the money

and I'll put them up in my house.

OK, Thom, here we go.

Two categories to choose from in our final debate.

Here they are.

Royalty. And the theatre.

That couldn't have gone any worse.

Do you know a lot about royalty?

Do you know a lot about the theatre?

No.

Oh, man.

I probably know more about the theatre.

I think I am going to have to go for theatre.

Begrudgingly.

OK, let's hope Susan can chip in on this one for you.

You know very little, you say,

about either of these but you're going for theatre.

OK.

?1,800 up for grabs.

Best of luck, Thom.

Here is today's 45-second final debate question. OK.

OK.

Thom and Susan, for the final time today,

your 45-second debate starts now.

OK. Matilda, yes, I think.

OK. It's not Viva Forever!...

That's the Spice Girls one, isn't it?

..or The Bodyguard, yeah,

The Bodyguard, I don't think it was either.

It could be Jerry Springer the Opera because that was really,

really lauded. That did really well, yeah.

And... Whistle Down The Wind was a critically acclaimed,

rather than Jersey Boys, which is very popular.

I definitely think Matilda won it.

Yeah. What about you? I'm just talking at you.

What do you think, Thom?

Honestly, I'm useless here.

Matilda, yes, I think that definitely did. Yeah.

As you say, Jerry Springer, when it came out,

was very critically acclaimed. Yeah.

Jersey Boys, although being popular, like you said, may not be so.

Whereas Whistle Down The Wind is possibly more...

All I can say is, I think it might be... I have to stop you, guys.

And we need three answers, Thom.

Matilda.

Jerry Springer the Opera.

And Whistle Down The Wind, please.

Let's see what we can do here.

You were up against it.

You said Matilda to start us off.

Has Matilda won an Olivier award?

It has. Well done.

My heart is pounding in my chest.

2012.

You then both agreed that Jerry Springer the Opera was

critically acclaimed, but did it win an Olivier award for

Best New Musical?

To keep us on track for ?1,800.

Oh, yes.

Oh, my God. Oh, my.

It won in 2004.

So, by luck, by knowledge, and by chance, we've got to this point.

You were thinking Jersey Boys.

And then you plumped for Whistle Down The Wind.

If Whistle Down The Wind is correct, it's ?1,800. If it's wrong,

I'm afraid you do leave with nothing, Thom.

Best of luck on this one.

Here we go.

Has Whistle Down The Wind Won an Olivier award for Best New Musical?

For ?1,800.

Oh, no!

It hasn't, Thom, I'm SO sorry. I'm so sorry. No, thank you so much.

I'm so sorry, mate.

The right answer was actually Jersey Boys.

Oh, no, Thom!

2009, Jersey Boys won an Olivier award for Best New Musical.

You were up against it, it wasn't your category,

but you did play it so well.

Let's give it up one more time for Thom!

That is it for Debatable,

there's just enough time for me to thank a fantastic panel.

To Susan Calman, to Peter Jones, and Akala!

I hope you've enjoyed watching.

We will see you next time for more heated debates.

For now, it's goodbye from me.

STICK

UNSTICK

LAUGHTER

Discover the hidden world of our favourite animals...

This has got to be one of the most peculiar things I have ever seen.