Ten in a Row for TBSHS Debaters
TBSHS Debaters reach tenth successive Regional Final.
Ten in a Row for TBSHS Debaters
The minibus carrying our senior debating team and their supporters battled through a host of roadworks to get out of Stortford and travel to the Perse School in Cambridge for the second round of this year’s ESU Mace competition. Their goal was to extend the school’s unbroken record of qualification for the Eastern Region Final to ten years.
The first debate of the night saw St Alban’s Girls School, very impressive in the first round, propose that all prisoners should be allowed to vote. They argued that universal suffrage is a right, not a privilege, and withholding it from prisoners does nothing to protect the public, deter criminals or aid the rehabilitation of prisoners into society. They also put forward the idea that giving prisoners the vote would stimulate further reform of the prison service. Their opponents, St Mary’s School, Cambridge pointed out the link between rights and responsibilities and argued that passing the motion would reduce civic trust among law-abiding voters. They warned that allowing law-breakers to elect law-makers could cause extremist parties to gain votes by pandering to the wishes of prisoners. The general consensus was that St Albans had much the better of this debate and were strong contenders to progress.
Next into the fray were St Bede’s Inter-Church School from Cambridge and St Benedict’s Catholic School from Bury St Edmunds, debating another ‘old standard’ motion – abolition of the House of Lords. Speaking for the motion, St Bede’s delivered three well-constructed speeches, describing the House of Lords as undemocratic, outdated and dysfunctional. They drew attention to statistics showing that its members are predominantly male, privately educated and old, as well as claiming that the fact that peers are appointed makes the second chamber of Parliament a breeding ground for cronyism. They suggested it should be replaced by elected representatives, free from party political allegiances. The Opposition stressed the reservoir of expertise possessed by the House of Lords and praised its work in scrutinising and revising legislation put forward in the Commons and saying that its stability allows it to take a longer-term policy view. They accepted that some reform was needed, in particular suggesting that peers should be paid for activity rather than mere attendance. In the floor debate TBSHS supporters put their Politics lessons to good use to pose some very pertinent questions to speakers on both sides. The standard of the Opposition speakers was more variable than that of other teams, but their summary speaker, a member of the Youth Parliament, gave one of the strongest performances of the night. My feeling was that this gave St Benedict’s the edge over a young team from St Bede’s, who nevertheless deserve great credit for doing so well in their first year in the Mace.
Finally, it was time for TBSHS to take on our hosts to consider whether “This House Believes that schools should focus on maximising students’ value to the modern workplace over a broad and balanced education”. Opening the debate, Aidan Quinn delivered a very well-structured speech, in which he started by explaining the team’s interpretation of the motion, describing it as a change of priorities in schools rather than a revolution. He argued that, thanks to modern technology, the need to teach knowledge is greatly reduced and much greater emphasis should be placed on equipping students with transferable, non-subject-specific skills such as creativity, analysis and team work. He went on to outline how industry and society would benefit from this, in terms of increased productivity, worker flexibility and employee retention.
The first Opposition speaker did not really respond to Aidan’s arguments, stating instead that a broad and balanced education was a necessary requirement to ensure good mental health and a sense of well-being among students. She also quoted Dolly Parton’s dictum about making a life being more important than making a living.
Luca Ollandini concentrated on the beneficial effects of the motion on students, both in their time at school and after leaving. By drawing attention to the amount of redundant information that a broad curriculum requires students to learn and quoting a study that they forget 95% of it within three days, he was able to undermine the assertion that such an education is good for well-being and mental health. He argued that students who appreciate that they are learning useful skills will be better motivated and happier, as well as much being more attractive to employers when they leave school. This in turn, he said, would make higher education a more positive choice, rather than a default option just because it offers more chance of employment. Luca also expressed support for much closer co-operation between schools and the world of work. His opposite number from the Perse (unjustly) accused our team of wanting to do away with PSHE lessons and argued that our proposals would be unworkable because “different careers require different critical thinking skills”.
Almost all the questions from the floor debate were directed at our team, which gave Alex Banhidai plenty to cover in his summary speech. However, in a masterly performance, he managed to answer several of them, as well as countering the third speaker from the Perse School, who had claimed that our proposals were restrictive and would give schools less time to address students’ mental health. He correctly identified the purpose of education and the conflict between for depth and breadth as key issues and produced convincing reasons why the arguments presented for the motion outweighed those against. After further refreshments while the judges conferred, the decision was announced, with TBSHS and St Benedict’s going through to the next round. The judges praised all three of our speakers, commenting particularly on the very positive way in which they supported each other throughout the debate.