Highlights
News, achievements, and announcements from the International Debating Championships.
Round 3 Highlights | IDC 2025
Round 3 featured a number of closely contested and intellectually rich debates across divisions. In one standout match, PLC 12 on the Affirmative faced ISF Academy 4 on the Negative on the motion “That we should have a quota of former criminals in the police force.” While the Negative argued that former criminals could be counterproductive within the force, the Affirmative successfully showed that they could bring unique value to policing while also creating meaningful opportunities for rehabilitation, securing the win. Another memorable debate saw Knox Grammar 10C on the Affirmative take on 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.” Although the Affirmative defended increased police training, the Negative proved more persuasive by showing that social and health workers would be better placed to address the root causes of crime and build trust in communities, earning them the victory.
Round 2 Highlights | IDC 2025
Round 2 delivered another set of engaging and intellectually rich debates across IDC. In one impressive clash, James Ruse 6 met Nanyang 2 on the motion “That artificial intelligence will do more harm than good.” While the Affirmative focused on the risks of misinformation, dependency, and job loss, the Negative proved more persuasive by showing that these challenges could be addressed through regulation and social adaptation, while AI would still unlock major gains in innovation and economic growth. Another highlight came from the debate between Trinity 9 and Churchie 2 on the motion “That we would go to medical school instead of pursuing a career in politics.” The debate turned on whether the actor should prioritise certainty of social impact or personal fulfilment. In the end, Trinity 9 carried the round by convincingly framing medicine as the surer way to achieve meaningful good for society.
Round 1 Highlights | IDC 2025
An engaging Round 1 debate in the Primary division saw Kambala Year 6 Yellow on the Affirmative face Cranbrook Junior Red on the Negative on the motion “That schools should provide lunch and not let kids bring it from home.” The Affirmative argued that a school-provided lunch system would save families time and promote healthier eating among students. Cranbrook Junior Red responded by showing that such a policy would come at the cost of student choice and cultural expression, making it more harmful than beneficial overall. In a close but relatively clear decision, the Negative was awarded the win for more persuasively establishing the comparative importance of these harms. Another strong Round 1 debate featured Kambala Year 8 Blue on the Affirmative against Sunbury 1 on the Negative on the motion “That girls are better off at single-sex schools.” The Negative argued that co-educational environments are important because they help girls learn how to interact with boys in everyday life. The Affirmative, however, successfully showed that these interactions can still occur in other settings, while single-sex schools may offer a stronger environment for girls’ confidence, development, and social experience. On that basis, Kambala Year 8 Blue was awarded the win.
Round 2 Highlights | IDC 2024
An imaginative and engaging debate saw Bina Tunas Bangsa 1 on the Affirmative face Pymble 1 on the motion “That we prefer a world with ghosts.” The Affirmative argued that ghosts could help people remain connected to their ancestors, encourage reconciliation, and remind the living to value life more deeply. Pymble 1 responded by showing that ghosts may instead create false hope, disrupt the grieving process, and leave people constantly burdened by reminders of death. The debate later turned on the nature of ghosts themselves: while the Affirmative suggested that many ghosts, especially family members, could be kind, the Negative more persuasively argued that ghosts would often be malicious or driven by unresolved grievances, and that these harms would have the greater impact. On that basis, Pymble 1 was awarded the win. Another thought-provoking debate featured MLC 7 on the Affirmative against Bedok 2 on the Negative on the motion “That we prefer a world without the institution of marriage.” The Affirmative built its case around the idea that removing marriage would make it easier for individuals to leave harmful relationships, reducing trauma and improving personal safety. Bedok 2 responded by highlighting the emotional and financial stability that marriage can provide, including shared resources and long-term security, while also arguing that healthy relationships do not depend on coercion or harm. In reply, MLC 7 successfully maintained that many of the benefits associated with marriage could still exist in strong non-married partnerships, while the harms of being trapped in damaging relationships remained more serious and decisive. As a result, MLC 7 was awarded the win.
Debate Highlights | Pymble 11 vs Knox 9C
A high-level Senior division debate saw Pymble 11 on the Affirmative face Knox 9C on the motion “That schools should be allowed to expel students who are violent or consistent bullies, even if there is not a school immediately willing to take them.” The Affirmative argued that when violent students or persistent bullies remain in school, they seriously undermine the safety, wellbeing, and learning conditions of others, and that expulsion should therefore be available as a last resort. Knox 9C responded by showing that this policy could have severe consequences for the expelled students themselves, including social isolation, increased anti-social behaviour, and greater vulnerability when left without an immediate school placement. Crucially, the Negative carried the debate by arguing that expulsion often does not solve the underlying issue, but instead shifts the harm onto a different group of students elsewhere. On that basis, Knox 9C was awarded the win.
Debate Highlights | QLD Independent vs Wenona 1
In the Junior division, QLD Independent on the Affirmative debated Wenona 1 on the motion “That we should ban parental monitoring apps.” The Affirmative opened by outlining the serious harms these apps can enable when used by parents acting in bad faith, arguing that they may restrict a child’s freedom, hinder personal growth, and even make it harder to seek help in difficult situations. The Negative responded by challenging how common these harms would be in practice, instead arguing that such apps are more likely to be used to keep children safe and prevent risky behaviour. In reply, the Affirmative questioned how uniquely effective these apps really are at protecting children, noting that young people can still contact their parents directly in dangerous situations. Although both teams advanced strong arguments, the Affirmative was ultimately able to show that the potential scale of harm was significant enough to outweigh the less certain benefits advanced by the Negative, and was therefore awarded the win
Debate Highlights | Cranbrook Junior White vs Lively Land 1
A strong Primary division debate saw Cranbrook Junior White on the Affirmative face Lively Land 1 on the motion “That schools should prioritise in-class examinations over take-home assignments.” While the Negative persuasively argued that take-home assignments reduce stress and allow students to engage more thoughtfully and creatively with their work, the Affirmative ultimately carried the debate by showing that these benefits are undermined when such tasks create too many opportunities for cheating. By framing in-class examinations as the more reliable learning and assessment tool, Cranbrook Junior White secured the win.
Debate Highlights | IDC 2022
One notable debate in the Primary division saw Leaders Primary 1 on the Affirmative face Dialogy Angela Davis on the motion “That schools should substantially reduce reliance on paper.” Leaders advanced a nuanced case about the convenience of modern technology and the likelihood that digital tools will increasingly outpace paper in the future. In response, Dialogy argued that the financial burden of investing in emerging technology could be too great for schools, particularly those already facing hardship. The turning point came late in the debate, when Leaders successfully demonstrated that the Negative had focused more on reducing the benefits of the policy than on defeating them entirely. This allowed the Affirmative to secure a narrow win by showing that, even if the transition were imperfect, it would still generate meaningful benefits for students. Another standout debate featured PLC 7 on the Affirmative against PLC 6 on the Negative on the motion “That we should ban imports from countries with a poor record on environmental protection.” PLC 7 delivered a forceful case for urgent and radical action on climate change, combining strong rhetoric with clear analytical framing. PLC 6 responded by arguing that this policy would unfairly burden developing countries, many of which may lack the resources to transition quickly while still maintaining economic stability. Crucially, the Negative also provided an alternative strategy for addressing climate change and successfully defended it as a more balanced approach that could better reconcile environmental goals with economic outcomes. On that basis, PLC 6 was awarded the win. In another engaging clash, Knox 10B on the Affirmative debated Lin, Xue and Hue on the Negative on the motion “That developing countries should prioritise mitigating the progress of climate change rather than adapting to its effects.” Knox 10B argued that the most cost-effective response to climate change is to prevent its worst consequences before they occur. The Negative, however, contended that many of climate change’s most severe effects are already being felt, and that developing countries should prioritise responding to these immediate harms rather than investing scarce resources in a much broader global struggle they cannot solve alone. Their decisive contribution was the argument that developing nations often lack the capacity to meaningfully reverse climate change by themselves, making adaptation the more practical and urgent priority. As a result, Lin, Xue and Hue was awarded the win.