Severn Hill crowned winners of Senior House Debating

The final of the Senior House Debating competition came to a dramatic conclusion on the last Thursday of the Lent Term in a face-off between bottom common rivals Severn Hill and Radbrook.

The new format had seen a fiercely contested group stage and the knockouts created a challenging but equally entertaining end to the competition. The stages opened with motions ranging from the harmful effects of AI and the holding of a vote of no confidence in the government, to the more morally challenging dilemma of the existence of Father Christmas.

The inaugural B team competition ran adjacent to the A team, allowing more chances for B team members to debate for new silverware. The Grove B team, after reaching the quarter finals in the main competition last year emerged victorious after strong wins against Oldham’s and MSH. The B team competition has allowed for more people to try debating and with many first-time debaters taking part in Shrewsbury’s rich debating tradition.

The A team final saw a rematch of a group stage fixture, in which Severn Hill had managed to best Radbrook in the comedy motion, employing a variety of languages to demonstrate the universal impact of Father Christmas and prove his existence beyond a shadow of a doubt. The final itself ran on the motion “This house would abolish trial by jury in the UK”, with Severn Hill as proposition and Radbrook in opposition. A large audience had gathered, increasing the pressure, and allowing for a fitting end to the competition.

All the debaters offered strong performances, not least the speaker of the day, Harry M (Rb, UVI). Harry commanded the room as the opposition whip, expertly tying the strands of Radbrook’s argument together to reach a powerful and lasting climax to the debate. The one difference in the final to the group stages was the introduction of questions, which allowed the teams to be quizzed not only on the debate but the subject as a whole, which was a great opportunity for quick-thinking and floor-debates (though was not factored into the judges’ decision). Ultimately, Severn Hill emerged victorious, crowning their unbeaten run with characteristic rhetoric and focused rebuttal, with special mention to Felix R’s sharp rebuttal in noticing that the debate was being judged as a bench trial, which was Severn Hill’s proposed alternative to trial by Jury.

The event proved a fitting finale to a new and exciting competition. Special thanks go to Mr Bandy for his organisation and provision of the motions and to all the judges across the rounds for their expert feedback and giving up their time to allow for this tradition to continue. The debating competition draws in the confidence, knowledge and adaptability that Salopians are known for and so will undoubtedly flourish in the coming years.

Sam U (S, UVI)