TBSHS Speakers Debate at Imperial College
Junior & Senior Competitions
Junior Competition
Our first London competition of 2024 saw six Middle School students at Imperial College London for three demanding rounds of debating against high-class opponents. Alec Sneddon (Year 10) was the only seasoned TBSHS campaigner, as Semir Emara, Fin Macfie (also Year 10), Dan Carlin, Thomas Leung & Bede Pinches (all Year 9) could only boast half a dozen interschool appearances between them.
The day began with all three of our teams drawn in the tricky ‘bottom half’ of their debates on the very topical motion “This House Supports the UK Government’s decision to mandate Maths till 18” and two of them in the same room, alongside a pair of teams from South Hampstead High School, a real stronghold of debating. Speaking for the motion Semir stated that the study of Maths enhances a very wide range of useful skills for life, quoting numerous statistics to back up his case. In response Dan stressed freedom of choice and argued that GCSE Maths, plus some PSHE lessons in personal finance, should sufficient to impart such skills.
Fin & Semir
Summing up in favour of the motion Fin pointed out that continued practice improves confidence and praised the Government foe being prepared to take action to raise numeracy standards. Thomas attacked the latter argument, pointing out that, “Governments do mess up sometimes”, giving the Rwanda policy as an example. He rounded off the debate in impressive style with plenty of effective rebuttal in a well-constructed speech. His team was rather unlucky to finish no higher than third place, with Fin & Semir fourth, a fate shared by Alec & Bede, who also had to close the case for the motion in their room.
In the second round, teams should be drawn against others with similar first round results but a technical problem meant that Bede & Alec found themselves in a room that included a pair who remained undefeated to win the whole event, plus two teams from St Paul’s Girls School. This misfortune was compounded by the fact that they had to oppose the motion “This House Would delegate climate change policy to an unelected panel of experts as opposed to governments”. Much of their attack focussed on the unelected nature of the panels that, they argued, made them unaccountable and unrepresentative of ordinary voters.
Bede & Alec
However, once again, they had to be content with fourth place. Meanwhile, also opening for the Opposition, Thomas & Dan were again placed third and Semir & Fin, who were first to propose the motion, were awarded a very encouraging second place.
For the last of the main rounds, speakers had to consider whether they regretted the prominence of morally grey antiheroes. I watched Tom open the debate, arguing that there should be no nuance in morality – just right and wrong, and that portrayals of moral greyness “mess with the moral compass of young children”. Dan backed him up, by saying that more clarity is needed and the morally grey trope has become overused and therefore boring. The debate was won by a team from City of London Girls School, who regarded Peppa Pig as an antihero, with our boys maintaining their consistent record with another third place.
Tom & Dan
Fin & Semir gained a similar result, behind two pairs from St Paul’s Girls, but Alec & Bede felt they had been very unlucky to place fourth. In the final table, Dan & Thomas came 21st out of 32 teams, with Semir & Fin just behind in 23rd. Both these teams finished ahead of one of the Eton teams and two from Sevenoaks School, among others. The Year 9 pair qualified for the novices final (open only to speakers with less than 12 months’ interschool experience), and, on individual scores, Thomas came 6th equal out of 30-odd novices. Our other students generously volunteered to stay and watch them close the case against the motion in this extra debate- “This House Regrets the rise of social media”. Both teams speaking for the motion focussed on issues such as cyberbullying, isolation, hate speech causing poor mental health, especially among young people. In response, Dan pointed out that social media are not the only root of mental health problems or source of fake news and reminded us that the use of social media is always a choice, Thomas produced a well-structured offering that contained all the required elements of a good summary speech, rebutting arguments made by his opponents and comparing them unfavourably with Dan’s contribution. In this debate, both our speakers really demonstrated the progress that they have made since their first competition 10 months ago and certainly ran the eventual winners (City of London Girls) very close.
Senior Competition
Three weeks later it was the turn of our students from Years 11 to 13 to make the early-morning journey to South Kensington. The first round saw the newly-formed partnership of Owen Cody (Year 11) & Ravi Jethwa (Year 12) opposing the policy of imprisonment for violent offenders only. Ravi gave an assured, well-organised performance in which he argued that, as non-violent crimes such as burglary, stalking and hateful graffiti can devastate the lives of victims, their perpetrators deserve imprisonment. He was well backed up by Owen, who pointed out the deterrent effect of the prospect of even a short prison sentence as well as offering some effective rebuttal to their opponents. Their efforts earned them first place, a great start to their first in-person interschool competition.
Ravi & Owen
This result was matched by Henry Davis (Year 13) & J J Sathan (Year 11), who had opened their debate, while the established Year 12 pair of Lewis Ng & Henry Aylett were placed third.
The second debate of the day featured another familiar motion, “This House Believes that the environmental movement should concentrate its campaigning efforts on changing the behaviours of individuals rather than those of companies”. Winning in the first round means that a team faces three other successful pairs in the next round and our two victorious pairs, both closing the case for this motion, had to be content with fourth places. Meanwhile Henry Aylett, speaking first in opposition, argued convincingly that it is much easier to monitor the actions of companies, which makes better targets for environmentalists to pressurise. He also pointed out that schools are already teaching students about being green. Lewis identified the fact that there is only
one Green Party MP as evidence that convincing individuals is more time-consuming and less effective than attempting to influence businesses. Both students engaged well with their opponents, countering their arguments and offering challenging Points of Information. Consequently, they were awarded second place.
Henry A. & Lewis
The morning’s proceedings put all our pairs level on team points, so it was no surprise that two of them met in the third round, on opposing sides of the motion “This House Would teach children to be sceptical of the mainstream media.” Speaking first, Ravi defined sceptical as “unwilling to take for granted” and, more controversially, included the likes of Facebook in the mainstream media. He argued that the motion should be implemented through weekly lessons in schools. Owen made a good job of rebutting the first Opposition speaker’s argument that awareness rather than scepticism should be encouraged and suggested that greater public scepticism would cause the media to be more rigorous in checking the accuracy of their output. J J asked whom children were supposed to trust if they were always being encouraged to treat respected sources such as the BBC sceptically and argued that the terms of the motion stifled their imagination.
Henry D. & JJ
Closing the whole debate, Henry Davis recognised the key issues in the debate but, in the view of the judge, needed to analyse them more thoroughly. He and J J were placed fourth, with Owen & Ravi third. In their room, Lewis and Henry Aylett moved themselves up the rankings with a win, defeating a team from St Paul’s School among others.
The teams’ final debate of the day proved very intriguing. Speakers were asked to imagine themselves in the position of a female football manager who, having coached a women’s national side to excellent results, had been offered the same role in charge of their male counterparts. In a room with three all-female teams, Lewis said that he would take the role because it offered more money and higher status, as well as helping to reduce opposition to female coaches. While the first opposing team argued that accepting the job offer would look like a betrayal of women’s football, Henry Aylett argued that turning it down would reinforce the misguided notion that female coaches were inferior to male ones, adding that a return to women’s football could still be achieved if desired. In a high-quality debate, they earned third place. Our other two pairs once again found themselves in the same room, both opposing the motion. Closing the debate, Owen & Ravi were awarded second place, just ahead of Henry Davis & J J in third. The latter team finished 21st out of 25 teams, Ravi & Owen were 17th and Henry Aylett & Lewis secured a very encouraging 10th place.
These were two very demanding competitions but, to their great credit, all our students maintained good spirits throughout long days, even when the ‘luck of the draw’ went against them. Between debates, they interacted freely with speakers from other schools and were excellent ambassadors for the school. In less than a month, no fewer than 24 different students represented us, which is testimony to their commitment and the depth of debating talent we have at TBSHS.