IDC 2025 Weekly Highlights

Round 3

Junior

That we should have a quota of former criminals in the police force

Side Affirmative: PLC 12
Side Negative: ISF Academy 4
Winner: Affirmative

In Round 3 of IDC, PLC 12 on the Affirmative debated ISF Academy 4 on the Negative on the motion “That we should have a quota of former criminals in the police force”. The Negative team argued that former criminals may be counterproductive within the police force. However, the Affirmative team were able to flip this by proving that they would be uniquely valuable, and demonstrated a sizeable benefit to former criminals, and were thus awarded the win.

Senior

That we prefer policies aimed at improving policing (e.g. more body cameras, more training, increased punishments for wrongdoing, etc.) to policies that reduce the role and scope of policing (e.g. replacing police with social workers, health workers, community watch, etc.).

Side Affirmative: Knox 10C
Side Negative: James Ruse 13
Winner: Negative

In Round 3 of IDC, Knox Grammar 10C on the Affirmative debated James Ruse 13 on the Negative on the motion “That we prefer policies aimed at improving policing to policies that reduce the role and scope of policing”. The Affirmative team explained why increased training would improve the conduct of police compared to the status quo, but were not directly comparative to social or health workers. The Negative were able to prove that social and health workers would be more effective at solving the causes of crime and would increase trust in policing, and were thus awarded the win.

Round 2

Junior

That artificial intelligence will do more harm than good

Side Affirmative: James Ruse 6
Side Negative: Nanyang 2
Winner: Negative

In Round 2 of IDC, James Ruse 6 on the Affirmative debated Nanyang 2 on the Negative on the motion “That artificial intelligence will do more harm than good”. The Affirmative team argued that AI will spread misinformation, promote overreliance and replace human jobs. However, the Negative team were able to prove that many of these issues will be overcome by regulation and structural changes to society, and that AI will bring benefits in innovation and economic development, and were thus awarded the win.

Senior

That we would go to medical school instead of pursuing a career in politics

Side Affirmative: Trinity 9
Side Negative: Churchie 2
Winner: Affirmative

In Round 2 of IDC, Trinity 9 on the Affirmative debated Churchie 2 on the Negative on the motion “That we would go to medical school instead of pursuing a career in politics”. The Affirmative team were able to prove that there is a greater certainty of doing good for society in medicine, while the Negative team were able to prove that the actor would find more enjoyment in politics. Because the Affirmative team were able to weigh societal impact as the most important interest of the actor, they were awarded the win.

Round 1

Primary

That schools should provide lunch and not let kids bring it from home

Side Affirmative: Kambala Year 6 Yellow
Side Negative: Cranbrook Junior Red
Winner: Negative

In Round 1 of IDC, Kambala Year 6 Yellow on the Affirmative debated Cranbrook Junior Red on the Negative on the motion “That schools should provide lunch and not let kids bring it from home”. The Affirmative team argued that this would save families time and promote student health, while the Negative team argued that this would restrict student choice and culture. Because the Negative team was able to explain why their harm was more comparative and more important than the Affirmative team’s benefits, Cranbrook won the debate in a close but relatively clear decision.

Junior

That girls are better off at single-sex schools

Side Affirmative: Kambala Year 8 Blue
Side Negative: Sunbury 1
Winner: Affirmative

In Round 1 of IDC, Kambala Year 8 Blue on the Affirmative debated Sunbury 1 on the Negative on the motion “That girls are better off at single-sex schools”. The Negative team argued that co-ed schools are necessary to learn how to interact with boys. However, the Affirmative team proved that such interactions could happen in other ways, and that single sex schools are better for the development and social life of girls, and were thus awarded the win.