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 That 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 on 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.

Noah, Joshua and ICD Final team photo (Click on photo to view)

In Round 2, both TBSHS teams had to support the motion “This House Would implement “broken windows policing” (a policy that focusses on petty crimes with the aim of maintaining order and preventing escalation of criminal activity) in high crime areas. As closing team for this motion Joshua & Noah, embracing the notion of “short term pain for long term gain” put forward the interesting idea that ‘broken windows’ policing’ would make high crime areas safer and therefore better places to live, which would increase trust in the police and attract investment from developers. I felt that they definitely deserved better than their fourth place in a very close contest. Apparently, there was also little to choose between three of the teams in Sam’ & Ben’s room, but they too had to be content with fourth place.

We were able to enjoy our lunch sitting outside the Oxford Union chamber in the sun before speakers had to tackle the complex and challenging motion “This House Opposes the glorification of old art at the expense of new art”. Both TBSHS teams had to speak against the motion. Closing his debate, Sam drew attention to the subjective nature of art appreciation and criticised his opponents for their mercenary approach to the motion. In addition, he rightly praised Ben for pointing out that old art provides a window to the past and is an important resource for historians. This was enough to earn third place.in another tight contest. In their room, Noah and Joshua were placed second. In the light of one judge’s comment that this was a very difficult motion to oppose, these results were highly pleasing.

Ben & Sam 

Our teams now had very similar records, so it was hardly surprising that they were drawn in the same room, forming the entire Opposition, to the belief that “Companies should have preserved widespread remote working arrangements after COVID-19, rather than returning employees to the office”. This was the liveliest debate that I observed, with all four teams still full of energy.. Ben & Sam argued that employees working at home feel less connected or valued and therefore less obliged to work. They also pointed out that collaboration and a sense of purpose are harder to sustain away from the office. Joshua widened the scope of the debate by showing that the motion mainly affects the tertiary sector and saying that important social skills were being eroded, while Noah offered a great deal of effective rebuttal and linked the motion to increased mental health problems in the workforce. Unfortunately, the judge was not convinced by these arguments, awarding third place to Sam & Ben, just ahead of Noah & Joshusa

In the final standings, Ben & Sam were placed 38^th with Joshua & Noah in 43^rd. As well as representing one of comparatively few schools with more than one team competing, our students were among the best-supported, with family members, as well as Mr O’Sullivan, giving up their time to watch them take on some of the world’s best debaters in their age group.

Retired teacher Tony Fraser commented, “In both competitions, these were excellent performances from our students against so many schools from all over the world. They showed great spirit and good humour throughout long and demanding days. I’m very pleased that, in this school year, over 30 students have represented the school at debating and/or public speaking events”

Dale Reeve, Headteacher, added: “We’ve had a strong tradition of debating at TBSHS for a long time and continue to provide opportunities for lots of our students to perform on the biggest of stages. Congratulations to all the students who have represented the school this year. They gain so much confidence from presenting and debating in front of large audiences, against teams from around the world, making it an invaluable experience. I am extremely grateful to Mr Fraser and the other willing