TBSHS Speakers Debate in London

Imperial Schools

Three weeks later, it was the turn of three pairs of older students to make an even earlier start in order to attend a competition at the same university. This time there were a few other state schools competing, including two teams from Broxburn in Scotland. The event was very well-organised and just about ran to schedule. Prior commitments, another competition a week later and the need to give plenty of speakers chances to represent the school meant that some untried TBSHS combinations were selected.

In the first debate of the day, two of our teams were drawn in the same room, on opposite sides of the motion “This House Believes that politicians should be held criminally responsible for accidents to public infrastructure”. Opening the case against this proposal, Alec Sneddon (Year 11) produced a well-structured speech in which he argued that it is impractical to tie infrastructure failures to specific politicians and the public money wasted in trying to do so could be better spent on schools and hospitals. J J Sathan (Year 12) continued in a similar vein, adding that the possibility of such prosecutions would deter able people from seeking public office, to the detriment of the nation.

Speaking for the motion, Ravi Jethwa (Year 13) countered this by arguing that the inability to hold politicians to account contributed to voter apathy and, drawing on his A Level Politics lessons, stressed the importance of the social contract. Summarising, Sam Jurd (Year 10) reminded the Opposition that politicians are elected to take care of the people, a point that the judge later identified as a key factor in his verdict. He awarded the victory to a Broxburn team that proved to be one of the strongest of the whole field, with Sam & Ravi just pipping another team for second place and J J & Alec fourth. In a demanding room, Elliot Lavergne & James Frans (both Year 12) gained a creditable third place.

Alec, J J & Ravi

In the second round of debates, the motion was “This House Prefers a world where morality is seen as objective rather than subjective”. In the room where James & Elliot had to close the case against the motion, the arguments were far from clear and, crucially, the words “seen as” were largely ignored. James found it difficult to add much to the points made by the opening Opposition, but he made good use of his knowledge of “Animal Farm” to support his contention that the agreed moral code put forward by his opponents would stifle individual creativity and that people live in very different ways. Elliot’s Whip speech consisted mostly of some very effective rebuttal of earlier arguments and his reference to historical changes in attitudes to the slave trade was a masterly counter to the assertion that morality should not be dynamic. Like the debate itself, the judge’s explanation of his verdict was not easy to follow and Elliot & James had to settle for fourth place. Ravi & Sam took a third place, ahead of a Westminster School team and Alec & J J, our only team supporting the motion, gained a very pleasing second.

After a welcome break for lunch, the teams faced another confusingly worded motion about the promotion of electrification of transport and investment in alternative fuel sources in emerging economies. Ravi had to open the debate and started by defining all the key words in the motion, drawing a clear distinction between promoting electrification of transport and the lengthier and more uncertain alternative of investing in alternative energy sources. He ended by stating that to stem climate change, immediate action, which the motion provides, needed. He was well backed up Sam, who developed the theme of “promotion rather than investment” and argued that the former is a more democratic approach, as it involves the populace more directly. The debate was won by the strong Broxburn team that I had watched earlier, with TBSHS just losing out in the battle for second place and coming third. Unfortunately, J J & Alec, also opening their debate, picked up another fourth place. However, James & Elliot, opposing the motion, were praised for engaging well with opposing arguments and showing why their case outweighed them. This earned them our first win of the day, defeating teams from St Paul’s Girls, Wellington & Latymer Upper Schools.

 Sam, James & Elliot 

The final motion of the day was “This House Regrets the datafication of music”, referring to the use of statistical data and AI to influence consumers’ choice of music. Opening the debate in his room, James argued that the quality of popular music has declined in recent years, because the use of data to recommend consumer choice narrows the range of music and encourages musicians to produce tracks that are very similar to what is already popular.

He was well supported by Elliot, who made a good job of comparing the strength of arguments from each side, as well as linking the predictability of modern music and the need to ‘follow the market’ to lower levels of creativity and higher levels of stress in the music industry. I felt that our team was unlucky to be awarded only a third place. Alec & J J were similarly unlucky, picking up another fourth place, but better news came from Sam & Ravi, who closed their debate and gained first place. This victory propelled them into the top half of the overall results table – 19th out of 52 teams. Elliot & James finished 38th, with J J & Alec rather further down the table.

Debating coach, retired teacher Tony Fraser commented, “Well done to all our teams who took part in two very demanding competitions against some of the strongest school debaters around. They spoke with conviction and clarity, engaged with their opponents’ arguments and showed great resilience and good humour throughout long, gruelling days”.