Tuckwell Triumph in Inter-House Debating Final
Debating is an academic activity that many pupils at King’s participate in with enthusiasm. It makes for lively discussion and creates a forum for pupils to debate a variety of topics that go far beyond recent issues; topics cover ground that pupils may never discuss in their day-to-day lives.
The process of debate offers profound and lasting benefits for individuals, for societies and for the global community as a whole. With its emphasis on critical thinking, effective communication, independent research and teamwork, debating teaches skills that serve pupils well in school, in the workplace and in fulfilling their responsibilities as citizens of democratic societies. A skill and experience in debating allows our pupils to evaluate more critically the important issues of the day.
Last week, the eagerly anticipated Inter-House Debating competition took place at King’s. Tuckwell and Carpenter houses made it through the earlier rounds, and were ready to fight it out for the title in such a manner that reiterated Buller-Lytton's message, ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’!
Having successfully overcome the motions ‘Stricter punishment is the answer to juvenile crime’ and ‘Compensation should be paid for the injustices of past generations’ in rounds one and two, both houses were raring to address whether or not the polluter should always pay. Proposing the final motion was Carpenter House, ably lead by Lucy MacGillivray and Eleanor Clarke, while Tuckwell's Henry Adcock and Will Chesterman represented the opposition.
It was a highly competitive occasion where both teams had diligently researched their respective stance, presenting compelling and thought-provoking arguments for and against this motion. The floor debate was equally impressive; pupils of all ages had listened attentively and found many ways in which they could develop the existing theories presented or make insightful observations about the issue more broadly. Particularly promising were the contributions from the junior boys in Tuckwell House.
The judging panel, comprising the Headmaster, Mr Ridley and Miss Parker, faced an immensely difficult decision. To choose between the economically driven, practical objection made by Tuckwell and the theoretically founded, moral proposition from Carpenter would be very difficult indeed. However, after much deliberation, Tuckwell were awarded the victory.
English teacher, Miss Parker, stated: "I am always impressed by the pupils here at King's, they really do put their heart and soul into every endeavour. The standard has been improving incrementally year-on-year, long may this continue."