During lunchtime on Tuesday 27 January, the Lecture Theatre once again became a stage for lively intellectual exchange as Year 10 pupils took part in the annual Inter‑House Debate Competition. Organised by Head of History, Mr Player, the event challenged participants to think critically, communicate persuasively, and respond confidently under pressure.
Following the established debating format, each pair of speakers had 60 seconds to present their case for or against the motion before the floor opened to the audience for further questioning, rebuttal, and discussion. The atmosphere was energetic, with pupils offering thoughtful, humorous, and sometimes impressively strategic arguments.
The judging panel—comprised of Sixth Formers—assessed each House on clarity, structure, delivery, and the strength of their supporting evidence.
This year’s motions mirrored themes dominating national conversations:
- Should students be allowed their mobile phones?
- Should Britain give more money to overseas countries?
- Is England the best place to go on holiday?
Debate One: Should students be allowed their mobile phones?
The opening debate set the tone for the afternoon, with strong arguments presented on both sides.
Those against mobile phones in school emphasised the dangers of distraction—particularly during lessons—arguing that phones reduce face‑to‑face social interaction and worsen issues such as cyberbullying and social isolation. Stricter bans, they suggested, help create a healthier and more focused learning environment. The pro‑phone candidates countered that phones can improve efficiency, support learning, and enhance safety. With quick access to information and the ability to contacts in case of emergencies, phones are a powerful modern tool that schools should embrace rather than avoid. They argued that banning phones entirely does not eliminate distraction, comparing “doom‑scrolling” to traditional daydreaming. During the open‑floor session, pupils raised further points: while educational apps may be available on school computers, many students are more fluent and efficient using their own devices.
Debate Two: Should Britain give more money overseas?
The second motion sparked passionate discussion on ethics, economics, and global responsibility. Those in favour of increasing overseas aid highlighted Britain’s moral duty to help prevent famine, war, and humanitarian crises. Aid, they argued, is more than charity—it is a strategic investment in global stability and long‑term development. By supporting vulnerable nations now, Britain contributes to a safer and more cooperative international community. Meanwhile, the opposing arguments urged the need to prioritise domestic issues such as rising child poverty and ongoing pressure on public services. With considerable challenges at home, they argued that funds should be directed first toward supporting UK families and communities. In a lively open‑floor session, pupils debated whether overseas investment could ultimately benefit Britain, with some arguing that stronger international relationships and more stable societies abroad could create future economic and diplomatic advantages. Others questioned how to strike a balance between global responsibility and national need.
Debate Three: Is England the best place to go on holiday?
The final debate introduced a blend of humour, national pride, and sharp critique. The pro‑England side celebrated the country’s wide range of destinations—from the dramatic coastline of Cornwall to the cultural landmarks of London and the scenic beauty of the Peak District. England’s variety, accessibility, and comparatively mild weather were highlighted as key strengths. One speaker quipped: “If England isn’t good enough for a holiday, why do we all choose to live here?” Those arguing against pointed to high costs, unpredictable weather, and modern architecture that can overshadow historical beauty in major cities. They also cited statistics such as the 250 phones stolen per day in London, suggesting that crime rates may deter tourists. Many pupils argued that other countries offer greater cultural diversity, better weather, or more exciting experiences. The open‑floor debate explored whether domestic holidays are underrated—and whether the cost of visiting various parts of England makes it less appealing than travelling abroad.
After three well‑contested rounds, the judges announced the final standings:
Runners‑Up: Orchard
Winners: Skipwith
Mr Player praised the participants for their preparation, confidence, and willingness to engage with complex topics "The discussion raged back and forth on important issues at home and abroad. Liam Ellison of Orchard stood out speaking with confidence and flair, and Benji Dean also stood out particularly in the open debate for getting involved and raising interesting points. Ultimately, the judges awarded the trophy to Skipwith House represented by Charlie Newman and Danny Petrov. Both had a lot to say, both made strong and insightful points, and both did a fantastic job in front of the whole year group."
Well done to all the participants:
- Burr - L McKenna-Mayes, W Wackerle
- Everett - Benji Dean, Eddie Hills
- Orchard - Liam Ellison, George Silver
- Skipwith - Danny Petrov, Charlie Newman
- Welsh - Atticus Curtis Green, Fred McIsaac
The Year 10 debates demonstrated once again that Shiplake pupils are developing the confidence to think deeply, challenge assumptions, and engage respectfully with opposing viewpoints. Congratulations to all involved for a memorable and thought‑provoking afternoon.
