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.