Speakers in International Finals at Oxbridge

Four pairs of students have represented the school at International Finals Days of debating competitions at the Cambridge and Oxford University Union.

Cambridge Schools Competition

In March Sixth Formers Mirko Kacsor & J J Sathan and Felix Kenyon-Muir & Thomas Leung of Year 11 took on 66 other teams, including representatives from Australia, Canada, Singapore and Romania, over four rounds of hard-fought debating. Both teams got off to an encouraging start, considering whether humanity should focus on adapting to the consequences of climate change rather than trying to restore the Earth by actions such as carbon sequestration. Arguing in favour of the latter, J J argued that humanity has a moral obligation to avoid prolonging climate change. Mirko focussed on our limited understanding of the environment to illustrate the unreliable aspects of adaptation. They were awarded second place behind St Paul’s School. Thomas & Felix, who opened the debate in their room were also placed second beating a team from India into third.

Round 2 saw our younger team speaking second in favour of” This House Prefers works of historical fiction that overemphasise the role and agency of disadvantaged groups in a period of history”, Felix provided some robust rebuttal of the arguments put forward by a very strong team from Highgate opposing them and pointed out that the more memorable a work oof fiction is, the greater its influence. Thomas gave a clear, well-structured overview of the case for the motion that helped his team achieve third place, a result matched by Mieko and J J, who pushed a team from Winnipeg into fourth place in their room.

Felix & Tom (Click on photo to view) 

Having achieved identical records in the morning session, it weas almost inevitable that both our teams would debate in the same room after lunch and they duly found themselves making up the whole ‘top half’ of a debate about the merits of banning ‘buy now, pay later’ financial services. Opening the debate, J J argued that such companies offered less stability to their customers than banks, thereby making them more vulnerable to falling into a cycle of debt. In response, Felix pointed out that the lack of interest charges benefits less wealthy customers and the economic activity of the country as a whole is increased. Mirko supported J J’s arguments and reminded Felix that people can still afford to make purchases by saving up money. Thomas argued that while ‘buy now, pay later’ services, unlike banks, cannot offer mortgages, they provide customers with funds for some purchases, thus stimulating competition. Unfortunately, all these arguments failed to impress the adjudicator, who placed Felix & Thomas third and Mirko & J J fourth.

Our teams, both in the bottom half in their rooms enjoyed very different fortunes in the last debate of the main competition. This required teams to consider, from the viewpoint of a young person seeking to effect social change to consider the relative merits of a front-line job (such as teaching) and a systemic one (e.g. as a lawyer). Speaking in favour of the latter, Thomas & Felix were unlucky to come fourth by a small margin. In his room, on the other side of the motion. Mirko provided a clear, insightful comparison between the two sorts of job, pointing out that, for instance, it takes a great deal longer for a politician to make a difference than it does for a teacher.

J J  &  Mirko 

J J summarised the case for his side very well, stressing the greater breadth and probability of the impact of their arguments. There was not much to choose between the four teams in their room but the TBSHS team scored a narrow victory.

This result propelled our Sixth Form pair into a very pleasing 39^th place overall. Thomas & Felix, although younger than many of their opponents, finished 52^nd.

International Competition for Young Debaters

In May, it was the turn of Joshua Tsang & Noah Brown (Year 10) and Sam Greenwood & Ben Nosworthy (Year 9) to travel to Oxford to face teams from, Canada, India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka & Hong Kong, among others. By an unusual coincidence, our two teams found themselves on the same side of each motion, albeit only once in the same room.

The first motion of the day concerned the idea of governments in developing countries sponsoring students to study abroad, so long as they returned to work for a given period of time Closing the case that that this should be done at the expense of funding domestic university education, Ben & Sam opened their account with a very pleasing result, defeating teams from Thailand and Hong Kong only losing out to an Irish pair who eventually came 11^th overall. Our students were praised for the way that that they took on their opponents’ arguments and explained why they felt their own points were stronger. Meanwhile Noah & Joshua opened their debate and, given that the other three teams in the room were all in the top 20 by the end of the day, did well to secure a third place.