On Tuesday 10 February, the Lecture Theatre hosted the highly anticipated Year 12 Inter‑House Debate Competition. Organised by Head of History, Mr Player, the event brought together two representatives from each House for an afternoon of sharp reasoning, confident delivery, and spirited intellectual exchange.
Following the familiar Shiplake debating format, pupils opened with 60‑second speeches arguing either for or against the motion, before the floor opened for wider discussion. What followed was an engaging and often impassioned back‑and‑forth, with Houses challenging, questioning, and interrogating one another’s ideas with thoughtfulness and flair.
The Year 12 motions were:
• Young people are being failed by our current political system
• It is acceptable for the UK to make deals with oppressive countries providing it brings trade, jobs and wealth back to our country
Debate One: Are young people being failed by our political system?
The opening motion sparked an energetic clash of perspectives. Those arguing for the motion highlighted declining youth engagement, low voter turnout, and frustrations around issues such as housing affordability and environmental policy. They emphasised that young people often feel overlooked, with political decisions failing to reflect their priorities.
Opponents countered that younger generations are becoming increasingly enfranchised — pointing to the growing number of young political candidates, campaigns to lower the voting age, and rising youth activism. They argued that change is happening and that young people have more political influence than ever before.
The open‑floor debate brought even greater passion. Contributors discussed rising house prices, wage stagnation, and whether politicians truly represent the interests of younger generations. Although fewer statistics were used than in some debates, the emotional conviction made for a gripping exchange.
Debate Two: Is it acceptable for the UK to trade with oppressive countries?
The second motion generated animated discussion on morality, economics, and global responsibility. The against side argued that human rights must come first. They warned that striking deals with oppressive governments could jeopardise the UK’s international credibility and raise uncomfortable ethical questions.
Those for the motion acknowledged the moral complexities but argued that engagement can foster diplomatic influence and deliver economic benefits. They drew comparisons to everyday consumer behaviour, noting that people routinely buy products from companies with questionable ethics. If the UK already trades with nations such as China and Israel, they argued, where is the moral line drawn?
During the open debate, pupils grappled with the vagueness of the term “oppressive country”, questioned global interdependence, and challenged whether economic gain ever justifies political compromise. At times described as “making a deal with the devil”, the debate reached some of the afternoon’s most thought‑provoking moments.
Across both debates, each House delivered impressive arguments with humour, confidence, and clarity. Skipwith proved particularly vocal in the open discussions, while Welsh’s Dylan Litchfield brought a highly memorable “Boris Johnson‑esque” blend of determination and bluster that drew laughter and applause from the audience. Judges especially praised the stand‑out performances of Aaliyah Hall and James Middlehurst, who demonstrated exceptional clarity and command of their arguments. However, after much deliberation, the judges awarded the trophy to E Butler and Will Nicholas of Orchard, whose sustained contributions, convincing points, and polished delivery set them apart in an extremely close contest.
Final Standings:
Winners: Orchard — E Butler & Will Nicholas
Runners‑Up: Burr — James Middlehurst & Izzy Bradley
Everett: Aaliyah Hall & Alex Hooker
Skipwith: M Jobson & Mercy Milton
Welsh: Dylan Litchfield & Sam Lingaard
Mr Player congratulated all participants for their preparation, courage, and enthusiasm: “It was a strong, spirited debate and we were really impressed. Well done to everyone who took part.”
The afternoon showcased not only the debating talent of the Year 12 cohort, but also their ability to engage maturely with complex issues, challenge opposing views, and think critically about the world around them. Congratulations to all competitors — and a special well done to Orchard for lifting the trophy.
