Interhouse Debate Explodes! – “I’m here for an argument.”

14 April 2015Toby CH, Privett ‘15

Instinctually – and extremely unfortunately – for their collective population, when it comes time for the Petrochelidon Pyrrhonota, alternatively known as the cliff swallow, to spread their baby wings for their first flight, most of their wings are not yet fully developed. Because of this biological deficiency, a disturbing number of these inaugural flights will end with a fruitless flurry of ferocious flapping and ultimately smack against unforgiving waves and cease to be. Marine biologists have found, sadly, great phalanxes of bird bones peppering sea beds close to these aforementioned birds’ nests. That first flight of a cliff swallow downwards is said to be the most intense thing that Mother Nature has ever offered to us – but it is a mere walk in a sunny park compared to the intensity that interhouse debate brings every year. The date was April 10th. Mrs. MacInnis wore black, Mr. Bryant, blue. These bruisingly effective and talent-nurturing teachers had bestowed the skills of debate in their students, and it was now time for the houses to strut their stuff, like peacocks. Round one would consist of eight different matchups. Competitors would flourish their rhetorical devices and put forth convincing arguments, all in the hopes of persuading their respective judge to make a favourable decision for their side. The topic: this House believes that single sex schools are better for education. Controversial and enticing, it was the exact kind of topic debates thrive to address. Junior debaters from Ellis and Mackenzie houses, Cameron W ’17 and Sarah F ’17, would put up strong fights similar to that of juniors from Rogers and Allard houses, Galen R ’17 and Grace G ’17, but because of the heated competition, both of these debating pairs would fall silenced after this round. At the senior level, the ungracious heavens would not allow the senior team from Privett and Hope, Fischer W ’15 and Cevina G ’17, to qualify for finals, and neither would Ibrahim S ’15 and Emma F ’16 from Whittall and Alexandra. Moving on to the grand finales that night, hosted in the McNeill Center, would be two junior and two senior teams. One team from each group would survive victorious. The juniors were given the whimsically chosen “this House believes that Hogwarts should abolish the current house system” – reference the beloved books of author J.K. Rowling. Despite the suave looks of Afyz M, Privett ’17 and cunning guile of Sarah R, Hope ’17, their arguments would fall, in the judges’ opinion, just short of those presented by the Whittall Alex junior combo of Kavi G ’17 & Toria ’17 – both of whom had previously debated at the national level. The senior round’s resolution would carry more social heft, reading “this House regrets the impact of social media.” Debaters Nick M, Ellis ’15 and Tyler P ’15, who will be national debate partners early next month, were set to debate against each other. Teamed with the impressively persuasive Emily L, Mack ’16, the bout would eventually fall into the hands of Allard-Rogers after precise diction and ideas from Kasane E ’15 proved too much to handle. Overall, Alex-Whittall would win the competition by a narrow margin. It was hard fought by all, and all should feel proud of their efforts. A special thank you is earned by Mr. McLean, Brentwood Emeritus Faculty, for returning to his campus and judging our competition. We appreciate his effort and the efforts of every debater who attended. Toby CH, Privett ‘15

Where Students Choose To Be