FRIDAY FLYER-Issue 182

Watching and participating in debate competitions is immensely beneficial for students, offering a unique blend of education and entertainment. Observing these debates provides students with the opportunity to witness critical thinking, effective communication, and persuasive argumentation in action. Last week, students had this very opportunity in our Theatre as the House Debate Competition took centre stage. Whilst our debaters’ experience ranged from novice to seasoned, all engaged in impressive intellectual sparring, learning valuable skills that go beyond the confines of the classroom.

Each debater was judged on five criteria, shared with the houses alongside the motions, two weeks prior to the competition: knowledge and understanding of the topic; making arguments well illustrated and supported with examples; presentation, style and clarity of voice; clash with opponent’s arguments; logic and structure. Whilst judged individually, it was a team effort, with all scores being added up to determine the overall winner of each debate.

The Heats

Six fast-paced debates took place last Monday evening, judged by Mrs Prestidge, Ms Macloed and Mr Miller. The motions for each year group were themed: the Junior teams engaged with humanity’s relationship with the environment, debating the benefits of a plant-based diet and whether plastic pollution is the most urgent environmental crisis to tackle; the Inter teams’ debates focused around media consumption, considering whether TikTok is the most problematic social media app and whether the prevalence of crime in television and film is worsening society; finally, the Senior teams considered matters relevant to society, debating whether poverty is the greatest threat to social peace and security and considering whether the arts or the military deserves more funding.

Faced with a packed auditorium, bright lights and microphones, all speakers ably met the challenge of these debate motions and the formality of the situation. Without doubt, participation in debate competitions boosted these students' confidence, public speaking abilities, and teamwork skills. By collaborating, formulating arguments, and responding to challenges, the participating students from across the age ranges enhanced their own capacity for effective communication and collaboration.

The Finals

Just two days later, the winning teams from the Heats returned to the Theatre to compete for debating victory. Again, the venue was packed with supporters, attentively listening to the complex issues debated and marvelling at the impressive display of intellect from all speakers. Both Mrs Prestidge and Ms Macleod remained as judges and were joined by Mr Thompson.

The Junior Final’s was a close-run contest between Crawfurd, who proposed the motion, and Rosebury, who opposed the motion: This house believes that parental support is the most important factor for children’s future success. There were some outstanding individual speakers, with all speakers delivering their points with well-researched examples and showing an excellent understanding of the topic. Among others, the students discussed the extent to which parents cultivate habits in their children and the extent to which success is driven from within. Rosebury’s Vamitra Kathiravan particularly impressed, through making incisive points of information and delivering her own closing speech empathically to the audience. With the rest of her team, Rosebury were (by a fractional margin) named the winners. Nonetheless, all six students rose to the occasion impressively and showed their academic might, which bodes well for future years.

The Inter Final saw Propert, as the proposition, debate with Crawfurd, as the opposition. Their motion was This house believes that countries’ success should be measured through happiness rather than Gross Domestic Product. Tackling such a motion required thorough research and an assured level of understanding. Both teams had clearly undertaken this research and, somewhat interestingly, both used Finland as an example for their own side of the debate. Whilst Propert engaged with utilitarianism to argue that fostering happiness should be a paramount concern of any government, Crawfurd argued that happiness, by its abstract nature, is unquantifiable and therefore convincingly challenging the very premise of the debate. Ultimately, it was another close-run debate, with Crawfurd deemed the winners.

The evening culminated with the Senior Final. Like the Junior Final, this was once again between Rosebury and Crawfurd, however, this time Rosebury proposed and Crawfurd opposed. Their motion was This house believes that art and music produced by artificial intelligence is a genuine threat to real artists. The role of artificial intelligence in all areas of society is a widespread and global area of interest; both teams engaged with the benefits and pitfalls of using it for creative purposes with enthusiasm, showcasing an impressive breadth of knowledge and argumentative style. Crawfurd’s Hayley Woon particularly impressed with her engagement with the opposition. She allowed Rosebury to make multiple points of information and, not once, did these appear to ruffle her as she fluently retorted with astute rebuttals, integrating these into her cogent line of argument. That said, Rosebury were crowned winners. Whilst both teams’ knowledge of the topic and use of examples were comparable, the Rosebury team was more impassioned and emphatic during their time to speak. Ultimately, a debate’s motion is ambiguous and speakers must convince the audience and judges that their position on the motion is more compelling. Rosebery did just that.

Overall, it was a fantastic school event that fostered a culture of intellectual engagement, critical thinking, and respectful discourse. Mrs Prestidge looks forward to building on this momentum, by leading a KS4 and KS5 Debating CCA in Term 3.

Mrs Georgie Prestidge, Head of Epsom English Department.