A brand new House competition got underway this afternoon,
with the first heat of inter-house debating. Philosophy teacher Mr Tristan Elby
has introduced the new event, after the new debating co-curricular activity
club enjoyed a popular and successful first term.
Mr Elby is no stranger to a debate himself, having enjoyed
the pastime at Oxford University. The House competition comprises four heats,
with each winning team progressing to the final. It is not just winning that
counts, though, as the total score will also be taken into account. Only the
very best two Houses will qualify for the grand final, while the other two will
compete for third place.
The opening heat saw Orchard Lapping take on Skipwith
Wells-Furby. The chosen topic was ‘This house believes that being offensive is
not a right’. Lapping were asked to form the proposition, and Ollie Riley
delivered an excellent opening speech, with impressive use of vocabulary and
alliteration to engage the judges’ interest. Ollie’s theatrical delivery and passion
for his argument also helped his cause.
It quickly became clear that all participants had dedicated
a great deal of time to prepare for the event, as they delivered confident,
detailed and compelling arguments. Skipwith’s Anton Renouf began his response
with a dictionary definition of what it is to be offensive. His ensuing
argument focused on the importance of freedom of speech, and how nations and
people have campaigned for it throughout history. Anton came across as measured
and knowledgeable, but slightly surprised the judges by not using all of his
allotted time. A crossfire round of quick-fire questions then followed, mainly
surrounding the difference between ‘harm’ and ‘offence’. Both competitors
acquitted themselves well, and it was all to play for after round one.
Henry Waller was next up for Orchard, outlining the many
possible alternatives to being offensive, without being immoral. This gave the
judges and audience more food for thought, but Josh Cuffe responded well,
citing several useful analogies. Josh related his opposition to economies,
explaining how the USA benefited from freedom of speech compared to USSR,
which resulted in a higher GDP per capita.
After the concluding statements were made, it was time for
the judges to deliberate and reveal their scores. Today’s judging panel
comprised the Headmaster, Business teacher Mr Bloor and Drama teacher Miss
Unwin. After each speech or crossfire round, each judge awarded a score out of
20, giving a grand total out of 100. All three judges offered feedback
explaining how impressed they were with both teams in the opening heat. The
Headmaster credited all four contributors individually, whilst offering small
tips of how they could improve further.
The high quality debate could only have one winner, and
Orchard Lapping emerged victorious with an average score of 74 beating Skipwith
Wells-Furby’s 67. Ollie and Henry will now await the results of the remaining
three heats to learn whether they have reached the grand final. Good luck to
all teams!
Upcoming debates:
Heat 2: Thursday 26th February, OVR, 1.05pm-1.30pm, Burr vs
Bevan, "This house believes that people with mansions should be taxed
more."
Proposition: Burr
Opposition: Bevan
Heat 3: Monday 2nd March, Lecture Theatre, 1.05pm-1.30pm,
Eggar vs Welsh, "This house believes that government surveillance is
nothing to worry about."
Proposition: Eggar
Opposition: Welsh
Heat 4: Tuesday 3rd March, OVR, 1.05pm-1.30pm, Everett vs
Gilson, "This house believes that all employers should have to pay a
living wage."
Proposition: Gilson
Opposition: Everett
Grand Final: Thursday 12 March, Lecture Theatre,
7.00pm-8.00pm.