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.