School House wins "fiercely contested" Junior House Debating Competition

The fiercely contested junior debating season this year came to a nerve-racking end on a Monday afternoon after lessons.

School House and Port Hill went head-to-head on the very topical motion “This house believes public exams in the UK do more harm than good”, coinciding with the first day of GCSE exams for the fifth form.

This year’s junior debating was very high on both quality and competition that both academically and intellectually challenged all involved, from motions about whether vigilante justice was justified to the issue of monogamy as the socially expected structure of romantic relations, to the imagination-stretching problem on the existence of aliens on earth.

The final saw School House proposing the motion that “public exams in the UK do more harm than good” with Port Hill as opposition in front of a large audience in the Barnes Theatre as well as considerable support from both houses present in the spectators.

Both houses delivered strong points, with special mention going to the speaker of the day, Dominic T (SH, III), who as Prime Minister, clearly defined the terms of the motion and introduced the proposition’s points, starting off the debate strong and setting the bar high for the next speakers.

Nevertheless, all speakers from both teams impressed, with points of clash emerging on everything from mental health to income equality to holistic education. A special mention must go to Isaac S (SH, IV) who noted that our current exam system sets up a certain proportion of pupils for failure by definition and Richard P (PH, III) who linked up Henry Kissinger, Diamonds and exam pressure into a remarkable speech on how exams develop.

Unlike the group stages, the finals saw the addition of questioning from the floor, which gave further opportunity for points both for and against the motion to be disputed, debated, and rebutted, giving both teams the opportunity to develop their quick-thinking skills and enhancing the quality and engagingness of the overall debate. Though this was not factored into the judges’ decision-making, it saw a serious but energetic scene of challenging questions from both teachers and students on the floor which were answered brilliantly by both teams with no hesitation, reflecting the general excellence of the competition as a whole.

In the end, School House defeated Port Hill to emerge as the winners of this year’s Junior House Debating season with compelling consistency, distinctively sharp rebuttal, and characteristically eloquent delivery.

The debate completely reflected both the energy and quality of the Junior Debating competition and Salopians in general, showcasing the impressive intellectual and academic talent in both the third and fourth form. Our sincere gratitude goes to Mr Bandy and all the senior pupils and staff who made the competition possible through their meticulous organisation, judging and feedback.

Matthew W (SH, IV)