TBSHS Debaters Shine in London

London School of Economics and Political Science

The first interschool competition of the season saw four TBSHS teams travel to LSE for four rounds of debates, involving a mammoth field of 92 teams. In the first round I watched Year 13 students Kashan & Mirko (the latter making his debut in this format) close the case for the motion “This House Opposes the privatisation of the NHS”. Against three teams from independent schools. I felt that they were unlucky to be placed fourth.

Kashan, Mirko & J J 

However J J (Year 13) & Sam (Year 11) won their debate, defeating, among others, a team from Latymer Upper School. Felix & Thomas (Year 11) were placed second in their room, ahead of a team from Westminster School and Fin & Semir (Year 12) gained a third place.

The second motion, “This House Believes that the feminist movement should adopt a centralised, rather than decentralised, approach” was not an easy one for our all-male contingent and once again the team that I observed (Thomas & Felix) had to be content with fourth place, a fate shared by Sam & J J.

 Sam, Thomas & Felix

To balance this, Mirko & Kashan were victorious in their debate and Semir & Fin came second in theirs. Both teams proposed the motion and defeated teams from City of London Girls.

These results meant that, at the halfway stage, our teams were closely grouped in respectable mid-table positions. Inevitably, then, two of them found themselves in the same room for the third round, both arguing that a transformative justice approach in high-crime neighbourhoods is preferable to a harsh crack-down on minor offences. Fin & Semir came second in this clash, just ahead of Kashan & Mirko in third. Unfortunately, J J & Sam were awarded another fourth place, but Felix & Thomas gained a victory over teams from three fee-paying schools, including Westminster. The fourth motion of the day was mercifully brief and yielded our best results of the day. Opening against “This House Regrets the glorification of risk-taking”, Mirko & Kashan won an admittedly scrappy debate in their room and Sam & J J regained their form with a creditable second place in theirs. Elsewhere, our other two pairs found themselves together, making up the whole bench proposing the motion, with teams from Eton & St Paul’s Girls. Undaunted by such noteworthy opponents, Semir and Fin were the winners, with Thomas and Felix in third place.

 Semir & Fin

These results meant that every TBSHS team won at least one debate and, in the final standings, three of them finished in the top half of the table. Fin & Semir were 23rd, a whisker behind the highest-placed state school team (a girls’ grammar school from Grantham), Kashan & Mirko finished 37th and Felix & Thomas placed 42nd. J J & Sam, who were unlucky with some judges’ decisions, finished 65th. Special mention should go to Evie (Year 13), who came to support her fellow students and then volunteered to take part in the last two debates, speaking solo in place of a team that had to drop out.

University College London

Eight weeks later, the UCL Winter Cup unfortunately coincided with a Bar Mock Trial contest and several other events, so we were only able to field two teams out of the 60 present. In the first debate “This House Regrets the rise of travel-focussed gap years among young people”,  Emaelia (Year 13) & Matthew (Year 12), both in their first in-person debate in the format used, had to open the case against the motion. They each spoke well and won the debate, narrowly defeating a team that later finished 12th overall, plus two others. At the same time, experienced Year 13 debater Elliot & Padraig (Year 12), who was making his interschool debut, had to make do with fourth place in a debate won by Westminster School.

Elliot & Padraig 

However, this team’s fortunes picked up in the next round, where they opened the case against the prioritisation of negative liberties, a concept that seemed to be somewhat unclear to all involved. Elliot concentrated on an economic line of reasoning, saying that positive liberties were equally important for economic growth, while Padraig took a moral view, arguing that governments have a duty to promote wellbeing. They were awarded a second place. Meanwhile Matthew & Emaelia, up against three other teams who had won their first debate, gained a creditable third place.

After a lunch break shortened because the event had started late, speakers had to contend with a motion that advocated a change to the ‘one country, one vote’ system at the UN General Assembly, whereby voting power would be weighted according to the extent of a country’s contribution, expressed. as a percentage of its GDP. Faced with the difficult role of closing for the motion, Matthew managed to bring in a new argument to supplement his side’s case and Emaelia summarised neatly, clearly identifying two points of clash and providing effective rebuttal of the opposing bench. I felt that they were unlucky to be placed fourth. Padraig & Elliot, who had spoken first in their room, continued their climb up the ‘league table’ with another pleasing second place.

Emaelia & Matthew

These results left our two teams equal on team points gained but fortunately they did not have to face each other in their last debate. However, both of them were drawn to argue last against the belief that it is in the interests of Coca Cola to devote significant resources to fighting poverty. Padraig took an economic standpoint, remarking that the primary interest of a private company such as Coca Cola is to make a profit and argued that the costs of the proposal would outweigh the benefits. Closing the debate, Elliott pointed out that Coca Cola has such a large market share that the increased sales mentioned by his opponents would be minimal and also cast doubt on the amount of favourable publicity that they claimed would be generated.

I felt that our team deserved second place, but the judge placed them third. Emaelia & Matthew also felt somewhat hard done by with third place in their room. They finished 36th overall, with Padraig & Elliot only five places behind them. Their individual scores, especially Emaelia’s (37th equal out of 120) suggest that they did not enjoy much ‘luck of the draw’.

All the TBSHS speakers in both these competitions demonstrated great commitment, resilience and good humour throughout long, demanding days. I am sure they will have learned a lot by competing at such a high level. If you include Bar Mock Trial, no fewer than 35 different students have spoken for the school on at least one occasion since September. They have all worked very hard to prepare themselves for the various competitions, where they have demonstrated impressive passion, good humour and quick thinking under pressure”

Headteacher, Dale Reeve commented, “We’ve had a strong tradition of public speaking at TBSHS for a long time, though the sheer number of students representing the school in one term is perhaps our greatest success. It’s an excellent vehicle for developing both oracy skills and confidence in public performance, and I’m delighted to see the students doing so well. A big thank you to all of the staff involved and particularly to Mr Fraser, who gives so freely of his time to prepare the teams and continues to do it so effectively.”