Highlights in Quarter / Semi Finals
Leaders Primary 1 vs Dialogy Angela Davis
Topic: That schools should substantially reduce reliance on paper
Winner: Leaders Primary 1 (Affirmative)
As the affirmative team, Leaders advanced a nuanced case regarding the convenience associated with modern technology and the likelihood that it will continue to outpace paper in the future. On the other hand, Dialogy, as the negative, explained that investing in emergent technology may be an unacceptable financial cost to impose on schools, especially those experiencing hardship. The turning point came late in the debate with Leaders successfully pointing out that the negative team had concentrated its efforts on mitigating benefits rather than defeating them. As a result, the affirmative was able to secure a narrow victory on the grounds that investing in technology would provide some upside for students, even if the scheme would be imperfect or not entirely equitable.
PLC 7 vs PLC 6
Topic: That we should ban imports from countries with a poor record on environmental protection
Winner: PLC 6 (Negative)
PLC 7, affirming the motion, argued the importance of radical action on climate change with outstanding rhetorical and analytical skill. PLC 6, on the negative, responded by arguing that this specific policy would place an unfair burden on developing nations who may lack the resources to take swift action on climate change. Crucially, PLC 6 provided a separate strategy for addressing climate change and they successfully argued its merits in balancing climate action with economic outcomes, winning the debate.
Knox 10B vs Speaker’s Corner (SG Team 1)
Topic: That developing countries should prioritise mitigating the progress of climate change rather than adapting to its effects
Winner: Speaker’s Corner (SG Team 1) (Negative)
The affirmative team, Knox 10B, posited that the most cost-efficient way of dealing with the effects of climate change may be to prevent it from happening in the first place. By contrast, the negative team attempted to establish that many of the worst effects of climate change are already here, and that it would be more efficient to deal with them rather than fight the uphill battle of reversing it. The decisive claim, which earned the negative team the win, was that the limited resources of developing nations may be insufficient to reverse climate change alone. As a result, they argued that it would be in the interests of these countries to prioritse handling immediate climate-related issues rather than relying on the world to follow their example in the long term.