TBSHS Debaters Shine Again

Cambridge Schools Regional Round

On a bright March morning, no fewer than 72 teams (the most I have ever seen at a regional qualifier) gathered at the Cambridge Union for four rounds of extremely competitive debating, with the aim of securing one of ten places at Finals Day.

In the first debate “This House Regrets the stigmatisation of parasocial relationships”, Henry Aylett (Year 13) & Robert Gor (Year 13) were drawn to speak second for the motion against three independent schools. Robert produced some good responses to earlier speakers and went on to argue that stigmatising anybody is divisive and only likely to make them more entrenched in their views. Summarising, Henry stressed the importance of freedom of choice in relationships and criticised his opponents for labouring under the misapprehension that material gain is all that matters in life. The judge (rightly in my opinion) awarded the TBSHS pair first place. In their room, India Purton (Year 13) & Kashan Johar (Year 12) came third, a whisker behind the team placed second, while Adrian Atanassov & Bede Pinches (Year 10), given the difficult task of closing the whole debate, could manage no better than fourth against strong opponents.

The second motion, “If evidence of a method to gain eternal life were found, this house would destroy it” was open to more than one interpretation, as Bede, opening the case for the Opposition, demonstrated. He pointed out that destroying the evidence would deny people the choice of choosing eternal life or enjoying any other benefits that the method involved could provide.

Henry, Robert & Bede

He was well supported by Adrian, who argued that gaining eternal life would enable those with “Earth’s greatest minds” to extend their working lives, enabling them to find solutions to our most demanding problems. He also dismissed his opponents’ statement that dictators could also live forever by reminding them that tyrants form a very small minority of the population. These complementary arguments earned the TBSHS team a second place, while Robert & Henry, also speaking against the motion, were third in their room. However, Kashan & India, who opened their debate, gained a win, defeating teams from Oundle, the Perse and a Lincolnshire grammar school.

After lunch, speakers were faced with what must be most bizarre motion in any interschool competition. They were asked to put themselves in the place of a middle-aged person in a monogamous relationship whose long-term partner had turned into a worm and debate whether they would maintain the relationship under these circumstances. Kashan & India had to close the case for rejecting the relationship. India argued, persuasively I felt, that love is very much “a personal thing” and that personal feelings can change over time and due to unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, she stated, the middle-aged person should feel free to end the relationship. Kashan identified consent as a key issue in the debate and said that he was sure that he was not alone in finding worms less than attractive. Both our speakers had countered some of their opponents’ points effectively as well as introducing new arguments for their side. Unfortunately, this view was not shared by the judge, who awarded them a wholly undeserved fourth place, a fate shared by Adrian & Bede. However, Henry & Robert maintained their hopes of reaching the next stage with a win in their room.

India, Adrian & Kashan

The fourth round of debates in these competitions is often reserved for the ‘wacky’ motion of the day, so after what had gone before, it was a relief to consider the motion “This House, as the UK Government, would grant all employees the right to vote on significant company

decisions”. All our teams were drawn to close their side of the debate. Supporting the motion, India revelled in the opportunity to take on the Opposition arguments, dismissing the claim that the votes would be hard to organise by referring to digital voting, stressing the focus on the word ‘significant’ in the motion and arguing that UK workers would be less likely to join the brain drain if they feel that their views are taken into account. In summarising, Kashan reminded his opponents that the motion should be seen through the eyes of the Government, which has a responsibility for the economy and to all UK citizens and argued that his team should win the debate as they were the only speakers who had considered this aspect of the motion. This time the judges agreed with our team, who were placed first, a result matched by Bede & Adrian. Meanwhile, Robert & Henry just held off a strong team from Chelmsford to gain a second place. After an anxious wait, we heard that they had qualified for International Finals Day. Kashan & India claimed a very encouraging 22nd place out of 72, with Adrian & Bede achieving a highly creditable 48th.

ESU Mace Regional Final

TBSHS Mace Team 

Three days later, Kashan, Robert & Henry were back in interschool action against three Essex grammar schools and two independent schools from Cambridge in the Eastern Region Final of the Mace, the eleventh successive year that TBSHS has reached this stage of the oldest schools’ event. Opposing a motion calling for a ban on the use of animal testing for scientific research, we faced St Mary’s School from Cambridge. Their impassioned first speaker focussed mainly on the ethical aspects of the motion, with several examples of alleged cruelty to animals, and made much of alternative testing methods involving AI. In response Kashan very clearly laid out our team’s stance that, while animal testing should not be carried out unnecessarily, a total ban would be a mistake. He justified this statement by arguing that humans are uniquely equipped to carry out research, which benefits animals as well as themselves. He then pointed out that a total ban on animal testing would mean that veterinary medicines would be administered to family pets without prior testing on any living organism, an argument to which his opponents could produce no answer.

Their second speaker argued that animal testing is unreliable and misleading and regulations for it are frequently broken. Addressing the practical aspects of the motion Robert offered some excellent rebuttal, as well as explaining that that you cannot program AI testing for diseases that are new or incompletely understood, such as Alzheimer’s. He also reminded the House that the debate was set in the present, rather than at some future date when alternative methods might eradicate the need for animal testing. He gave the example of a drug, initially tested on mice, that had more than doubled the life expectancy of cystic fibrosis patients. In a well-constructed summary speech, Henry answered several audience questions before showing why we had won the debate, firstly by taking the long-term view that animal testing satisfies the utilitarian principle of the greatest good of the greatest number, both human and animal. Secondly, he used his knowledge of computers to explain why the Proposition’s faith in AI was misplaced and then recapped Kashan’s ethical reasons for opposing the motion.

Kashan, Robert & Henry

In the second debate of the night, teams considered whether sports clubs should be fined for acts of violence carried out by their fans. Inevitably, most of the debate centred on football, with Gresham’s School arguing that the motion represented an effective method of making attendances at matches safer because fans are dedicated to their clubs and would not want them to suffer large fines that could affect their ability to buy better players. They also stated that clubs exploit their fans. and make a lot of money out of them, so the motion represented a fair

punishment. The Opposition, from Colchester Royal Grammar School, stated that it is the responsibility of the police to control violent individuals and referred to the success of community programmes run by German clubs. They also pointed out that fining clubs in the past had not improved fan behaviour and argued that the motion would make matters worse, as it would enrage well-behaved supporters without deterring the violent offenders.

Finally, our hosts from KEGS proposed that “This House Regrets the rise of influencer culture as a form of advertising”, criticising influencers for exploiting consumers, especially vulnerable young people. They highlighted the dangers of consumers being tempted by people whom they admire into making impulsive and unwise purchases, with consequences for their mental health. They also put forward the opinion that other, and more ethically justifiable, forms of advertising exist. A very persuasive team from Southend High School for Boys took a completely different line of argument, namely that the rise of influencer culture has opened up new opportunities for individuals and small businesses to challenge the advertising monopoly of large corporations. This in turn, they said, has improved consumer choice, thus “returning power to the people”. I felt that, in the earlier part of this debate, both sides did not do a great deal to address the case made by their opponents. However, the Southend summary speaker remedied this extremely effectively, comparing the arguments from each side and explaining why he thought his side had prevailed, as well as pointing out that KEGS had not explained what advertising without influencers would look like.

TBSHS has reached this stage of the competition every year since 2015 and, the overall standard of debating this year was as high as I could remember, with no team markedly inferior to the rest. Talking to students and teachers from other schools, general opinion seemed to be that the teams from Colchester and Southend, along with TBSHS, were the strongest. The judges awarded the win to Southend, but gave us some very positive feedback, noting the structure and clarity of our case, the effectiveness of our engagement with opposing arguments and the quality of our teamwork in particular.

The levels of performance from our speakers in both these competitions reflect the time and effort that they put into preparation as well as their ability to ‘think on their feet’ during the actual debates. These qualities sustain the reputation of TBSHS as a force to be reckoned with in the world of schools’ debating.

A.D.Fraser