TBSHS Debaters Compete at Imperial College

Imperial College Schools Competition

School trips, half term, other competitions and maybe Valentine’s Day all combined to reduce the number of debaters available to represent TBSHS, but five intrepid souls, set off early in the morning for Imperial College London. We were unable to find a team mate from another school to partner Fletcher Allen (Year 12), who nobly agreed to give two speeches in each debate. In the first round he had to open the case that compassionate containment, rather than rehabilitation, should be the guiding principle for prisons. He argued that stability, and improved mental health were most important for prisoners and would do more to reduce reoffending rates than learning practical job-oriented skills and was given third place, behind teams from Highgate and Latymer Upper School. Alec Sneddon (Year 12) & Dan Carlin (Year 11), also speaking first for the motion, matched this result. Year 12 novices Matthew Jacobson & Oliver Hunter, opposing the motion, overcame teams from St Paul’s Girls and a Southend grammar school to achieve a second place.

This very creditable result meant that they were likely to face formidable opponents in the next round and they were unlucky to be drawn in the same room as two teams that had won in the first round and went on to finish in the top four overall. They opened the debate in support of the motion that it is in the interests of social movements to advocate for the ban on social media for teenagers.

Matthew, Oliver & Fletcher

Oliver’s well-constructed speech stressed the importance to social movements of supporting the mental health of teenagers. Matthew advanced the clever argument that a ban on social media would motivate teenagers to support social movements in person instead, with much more effective results. However, they could achieve no more than fourth place, albeit by a small margin, a fate shared by Fletcher. Meanwhile Dan & Alec achieved a win in their room, overcoming two teams from Westminster School.

After lunch, teams had to argue that an art education which focusses primarily on analysis and criticism is preferable to one that prioritises the development of practical and technical skills. The team speaking first in Opposition contained an A Level Art student, which left Fletcher little new to add, but he contributed some effective rebuttal and a coherent summary of his side’s case, which earned him third place. From a similar position in their debate, Alec & Dan were also placed third, but unfortunately Matthew & Oliver were fourth again. The final debate of the main competition involved medical patents. Speakers had to put themselves in the place of the government of a developing nation faced a high-burden disease and debate whether or not they should manufacture drugs domestically without the approval of permit holders.

Alec & Dan 

Dan & Alec were speaking in favour of the motion, but faced the challenge of being in the ’bottom half’ of the debate. Dan argued that the benefits of the motion outweighed the risks to the population and was able to introduce a new slant on the further development of patents. Closing the case for the motion Alec highlighted Dan’s contribution and gave some good reasons why his side had won the debate. This earned the pair a pleasing second place and a very creditable overall placing of 15th out of 40 teams. Our other two teams were both awarded third places in their last debate Although they were in the lower reaches of the results table, Fletcher and Matthew & Oliver, all in their first year of interschool debating, finished ahead of teams representing Westminster, St Paul’s Girls & Shrewsbury

Imperial College Juniors Competition

A fortnight later we returned to Imperial for their Juniors event. Unusually for such competitions, Year 11 students were eligible, so Sam Jurd and Felix Kenyon- Muir accompanied George Sellwood, Leo Parry and Ben Nosworthy (all Year 9 ), plus Joshua Tsang (Year 10) to take on 53 other teams, almost all from fee-paying schools. The first motion they all faced was “This house prefers a world where they were born into a rural family as opposed to an urban family”. Opening the case against the motion, Sam argued that the urban environment offers a wider choice of schools and cultural activities, as well as a much bigger social circle. In his first interschool appearance, George focussed on health, pointing out that, in an emergency, help takes longer to reach remote rural areas, where there are also fewer sports clubs than in the city. Praising our speakers’ engagement with opposing arguments, the judge awarded them third place, a result matched by Felix & Leo in their room. However, Ben & Joshua, closing in favour of the motion, achieved a first place, defeating teams from City of London Girls, King’s Canterbury and South Hampstead High School.

 Sam, George & Leo 

In the next debate, “This house believes that the narrative that the patriarchy is harmful to men is against the interests of the feminist movement”, Joshua & Ben, in a very challenging room, did well to secure second place, beaten only by the team who went on to win the whole competition. Leo & Felix found themselves opposing the motion proposed by two very young teams who struggled to understand the terms of the motion. Felix argued that said narrative helps men to support feminism and dispels toxic masculinity. Leo countered arguments about female political leaders, pointing out that they are still in a minority and made a good job of summarising the case against the motion. Their speeches earned them a first place, just ahead of their opening team. Sam & George also won their debate, speaking second for the motion.

Our teams managed to avoid each other In the last debate of the main competition, where speakers had to consider the merits of adopting a system in which traffic fines would be proportional to the income of the offender. Speaking first, Joshua argued that implementing the motion would make wealthy offenders feel more responsible for their actions, whereas a standard fine would. have minimal effect. He also drew a parallel with progressive taxes. Ben backed him up well, pointing out that poorer drivers would receive smaller fines than at present, as well as providing a very effective response to questions posed by the previous speaker. In a closely fought contest, he and Joshua were placed third, behind two teams who had won both their earlier debates.

Ben, Joshua & Felix

George & Sam racked up another win, but unfortunately Leo & Felix had to be content with fourth place in a room where the scores suggest that there was very little to choose between them and the other three teams involved.

When the final standings were announced, we found that Sam & George had come 8th overall, just ahead of Ben & Joshua in 10th place, and Felix & Leo were 27th. So all our teams finished in the upper half of the table and TBSHS was one of only two schools with more than one team in the top ten. Those teams each competed in an extra debate but neither was able to win. Nevertheless, this had been a very successful day and all our speakers in both Imperial competitions deserve congratulations for their commitment, resilience and eloquence. Many thanks to them and to Mrs Ellen, who accompanied the Junior teams, for sustaining the school’s excellent reputation in competition debating.