The weekend of December 7-8 hosted the NZ Schools BP (British Parliamentary) Debating Tournament. 68 teams attended from all over the country, including many of the strongest speakers in schools’ debating, making this tournament the largest debating tournament ever held in New Zealand. 

British Parliamentary debating is a format that our school does not usually practise. Instead of our usual format, two teams of three speakers (one for and the other against), British Parliamentary debate has four teams of two speakers. The teams are divided into for and against as well as opening and closing. At the end of the debate, the teams are ranked 1st to 4^th, receiving between 3 and 0 points for the round. This format forces teams to show both why the motion or resolution is true or false, but also why they have the most effective arguments between the two teams on their side (bench).

Three teams from Havelock North High School participated in the tournament: a Year 9 team of Sylvie Ryan & Dario Te Kiri Rotondo; a Year 11 team of Stuart Agnew & Jack Hallgarth and a Year 12 team of Isabella McKeefry and Yuval Sela. We are really proud of the teams who signed up and participated, as putting yourself out there, having fun and debating is a great way of improving.

The first day had four rounds of debating, with motions ranging from economically isolating China to whether parents should encourage their children to be competitive. As our Year 12 team was on 8 out of a possible 12 points, we were not sure of the likelihood we would even pass to the quarter-finals, but we had received a lot of useful feedback throughout the day from the adjudicators which we worked on applying. 

Day 2 had the last round of debating before the break to the quarters. This was a silent round, meaning the result of the debate was not told to the participants right away. Our team was pitted against three very strong teams that all had nine points. After a very high-quality debate on the centrality of sports to national identity, we had no idea where we were placed. Then came the break. After six other teams, we were announced as 7th with 11 points out of 15, meaning we won the last debate and were moving on to the quarter-finals. 

In the knockout rounds, only the first two teams advance to the next round. For the quarter-finals, we drew the position of opening government, the first team to speak in the debate. The motion was about “breaking up” tech giants. We argued for three points: the benefit of increased competition to the consumers, the capacity for these companies to be regulated, and how they use their size and power to create social harm. As the opening government, we are able to set up what the discussion would look like, and the main points, but also suffered the drawback of not being able to engage with the other teams as much and compare why you are better. The way to address that flaw is to make sure to explain why your points are important and to use points of information to ensure your material stays relevant. After a very tense debate, we were announced as one of the two teams to advance to the semis.

In the semi-final draw, we were assigned the position of closing government in a motion about fiction that is escapist compared to fiction that reflects reality. As a closing team, teams need to provide new material that changes the scope and weighing of the debate; this can sometimes be hard when your opening side covers a lot of the strong material. Our choice was to provide new framing to change how we should think of that media, as well as provide new important material to further explain the main points. We talked about why people need escapism to cope with the incredible stress of the modern world, about how we get more people to engage with books and movies where they would normally not, and lastly on how escapist media allows for better modes of activism by providing hope and a goal in mind, all while rebutting the opposing teams points. After a very stressful wait, the four teams in the finals were announced, and we were one of them.

We were once again assigned to be the opening government, in a very tough motion: “This house supports abolishing all borders”. Our case relied on three points, the first being how we treat refugees better by both allowing for more people to escape humanitarian crises and by improving the treatment of refugees and illegal immigrants that exist under the status quo. The second point covered equality of opportunities, and how in the modern world, people in developing countries do not have the same access to infrastructure and resources to achieve success as exist in the western world, creating inequality. Our minor third point was how it is less likely for violent conflict to occur when sovereignty and resources are not factors. Additionally, we tried to pre-empt and respond to material we expected the other teams to bring up. After a tense and competitive debate with an incredibly strong case from all teams, we were left unsure of how the adjudicators would judge the debate.

At prizegiving, Isabella was announced as the joint fifth best speaker in the tournament, which should not be very surprising to people who witnessed her speeches or given Isabella’s continued success in debating, as the 7th best speaker at Nationals and a reserve on the New Zealand debating team and Hawke's Bay champion. Finally, after a wait that felt like an eternity, we were announced as the winners of the grand final and the tournament as a whole and awarded $150. This result stunned us, as after all, following the last round, we did not even expect to make the quarter-finals. We enjoyed the tournament with this new style of debating, having fun with every surprising advancement along the way.  

This result is an important part in the continued success of the school’s debating program and we are very proud to be the coaches for the next generation of debaters in Havelock North High School in 2025.

By Yuval Sela

Article added: Tuesday 17 December 2024