Mixed Fortunes For Debaters in Regional Qualifiers

Above: Stan & Finlay, Sam & Felix , Josh & Noah, Tom & Dan

This year’s regional round attracted only 24 teams, probably because it was held during half-term. Despite a ski trip and various other attractions, a full roster of four TBSHS teams, well supported by family members, arrived at the Cambridge Union full of hope and enthusiasm. The first, rather oddly-worded motion required all our teams to oppose the notion that a teacher’s knowledge of their subject should be valued more than their experience of teaching it. Year 8 students Stan Wadsworth & Finlay Stewart, both in their first interschool debate in an unfamiliar format, had the difficult task of closing the case against the motion and unfortunately, they both rather misunderstood it. Nevertheless, Finlay rightly argued that “It’s about the students’ learning” and stressed the importance of conveying knowledge in an easily understandable form, while Stan offered some very effective rebuttal to earlier speakers and made the point that schools need to nurture talent as well as imparting knowledge. However, they had to be content with a fourth place.

Our most experienced speakers, Dan Carlin & Thomas Leung (Year 10) were awarded third place in a very close decision in their room, but the other two teams, Noah Brown & Joshua Tsang (Year 9) and Felix Kenyon-Muir & Sam Jurd (Year 10) started the day with well-deserved wins. These two pairs formed the whole Government bench in the second round, arguing in favour of a ban on political figures appearing on reality TV shows. Sam opened strongly, laying out his case clearly. He argued that a ban would prevent more charismatic candidates gaining an unfair advantage at the ballot box and pointed out that the considerable time spent ‘in the jungle’ or training for Strictly detracts from politicians’ effectiveness in their publicly-funded roles. He was well backed up by Felix, another speaker making his interschool debut, who cited the infamous example of Ed Milliband and the bacon sandwich to bolster his observation that political figures should be judged by appearances.

This point was well picked up by Joshua, who argued that reality TV appearances distracted viewers’ attention away from policies, which is what they should focus on when voting and dismissed the Opposition’s claim that the proposed ban was a form of censorship. Noah gave a fine summary speech, starting by stating that a career in politics is a choice that carries certain responsibilities which should be accepted. He also stressed the importance of ‘policies over personality’ and the need for politicians to devote all their energies to their vital role in society. The judge congratulated all four teams on a closely-fought, high-quality debate, awarding Felix and Sam another first place. I agreed with her decision, but I felt that Josh & Noah deserved second place rather than the third they were given. Meanwhile Thomas & Dan, also supporting the motion, bounced back from their first-round disappointment with a win, a feat matched by Finlay & Stan, who opposed the motion in their room.

So, we entered the last round of debates with one of our teams at the top of the standings and the others all with a victory under their belts. The motion was a more familiar one, “This House Would ban countries with bad human rights records from hosting major sporting events”. Once again two of our teams found themselves on the same side in the same room. Opening for the Opposition, Thomas spoke strongly, arguing that the publicity associated with hosting a major event helps to draw attention to human rights abuses in a country, giving Qatar in 2022 as an example. He also drew attention to the slave trade to illustrate that, historically, no countries’ human rights records are spotless. Dan identified the oppressed residents of potential host countries as the main stakeholders in the debate and argued that awarding a major event gave the UN and other world agencies an opportunity to ‘lean on’ nations that abuse human rights in order to effect change. Joshua refuted several of his opponents’ arguments very effectively and extended Dan’s arguments. In addition, he made the most telling point of the whole debate when he asked, “Where is the sense or morality of punishing the ordinary people in the host country for what their government has done to them?”. Summarising, Noah tackled the moral aspects of the debate by focussing on the subjective nature of morals, before telling his opponents that scrutiny rather than banishment is more likely to bring change and reminding them of the strength of Josh’s argument.

This excellent team performance gained Josh & Noah another win, propelling them to second place in the final standings. Yet again, Dan & Thomas missed second place by a whisker and finished 10^th out of 24 teams overall. Stan & Finlay gained a second place and finished just below halfway in 13^th place. In a very tough room, Sam & Felix suffered the misfortune of being placed fourth by the narrowest of margins, which dropped them to 4th in the final table. The top three teams qualify automatically for International Finals’ Day, so Noah & Josh will return to the Cambridge Union in May to take on teams from all over the world. Felix & Sam earned a place on the reserve list, ready to step in if anyone drops out.

Retired teacher Tony Fraser commented, “TBSHS had the best overall results of any school at this regional round, so congratulations to all our speakers. Many thanks to all those who came and supported them, especially Miss Chilcott & Raphael Tsang (Year 13), who were both present throughout the day to observe and advise. This is the third year in succession that we have had at least one team at ICYD Finals Day and I look forward to seeing how Noah & Joshua fare against an international field”