News and Social Media

On Wednesday, the ESU Mace Debate Team, Toni (UC5), Shereen (UC4), Vivi (UC5), Renee (UC4) and Nicola (LC3) participated in the first round of this academic year’s competition.

Following a fantastic time on the circuit last year, when the team made it to the Finals Day in London, I am pleased to report that this week the team has successfully made it through to round two!

Read on for an overview of the events from two of our pupils.

On Wednesday 19th November, we were extremely fortunate to have the opportunity to participate in the English Speaking Union Schools’ Mace, the oldest and largest debating competition for schools in the UK, at Holmleigh Park School. Several notable figures, including Malala Yousafzai, have taken part in previous years. We were up against five other schools, with the opposition of our round being Dean Close. It was a wonderful experience, where we were able to hear a range of speeches from reality TV to overtourism, as well as consider the perspectives of others.

The first round kicked off with the intriguing motion: “This house would ban dating-based reality TV”. This was a particularly intriguing topic as dating-based reality TV is quite prominent today, especially amongst younger audiences, but often its harmful effects are dismissed.

The proposition proposed the ban as a solution to the harm caused to both the viewers and contestants, with one of their main points being how these TV shows manipulate people’s emotions and result in severe mental health damage. They strengthened their arguments by emphasising the negative effects that the TV show ‘Love Island’ has brought to both the audience and the participants, such as the detrimental harm caused to the mental health of participants and young people feeling pressured by the beauty standards and gender roles set by those on the show. The opposition highlighted that the idea of dating-based reality TV leading to a mental health crisis is simply an overgeneralisation by introducing the show ‘Undateables’, which is a dating show for people with disabilities and shows that love is available for all people regardless. They argued that shows like these boost the confidence of disabled people in society, as well as spreading awareness. This debate approached the concept of dating-based reality TV shows from a range of different perspectives, allowing the audience to acknowledge both the positive and negative effects these shows have on viewers.

The next round was equally engaging, even more so, as the CLC girls, dressed in their green jumpers and skirts, took to the stage. As the proposition, they argued for the motion: “This house would impose a tourism tax on major cities facing overtourism.” Since everyone has been a tourist somewhere, it was interesting to hear why they believed such a tax is needed and how it could help cities under strain. They introduced the idea of “loving our cities to death”, explaining how millions of visitors can cause a loss of culture in the area, damage the environment and disrupt the lives of locals. 

The opposition challenged this, arguing that a tourism tax would deter visitors and harm the economies of countries that rely heavily on tourism, ultimately affecting the very people the tax is supposed to protect. It was shocking to learn that in Venice, cruise ships have caused such severe erosion of the city's foundations that the city sinks by around two millimetres each year and may not survive past 2060. The proposition proposed that a tourism tax would help reduce tourist numbers and fund repairs, while the opposition noted that despite the existing tax in Venice of five euros daily, the city still receives over 20 million tourists annually. 

However, the proposition remained firm and confident, determined to protect cities and cultural heritage. One point that stood out was that overtourism eventually ruins tourism itself, as once-beautiful destinations become overcrowded and are left unappealing. The opposition suggested alternative solutions instead of a tax, such as cruise limits, timed entry and controlled access to heritage sites, rather than relying on taxation. 

The final round brought forward a controversial but thought-provoking debate, challenging elitism and socioeconomic inequality against environmental protection, with the motion: “This house would ban short-haul flights, if alternatives exist”. Short-haul flights are classified by the US government as flights under 300 miles, and like all flights, they emit large amounts of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, as well as other toxic pollutants. These short journeys also create significant noise pollution, disturbing the lives of residents near airports. 

The opposition proposed alternatives such as high-speed rail or driving, but the proposition countered that these options are not always reliable, as train cancellations and heavy traffic are common occurrences. It was surprising to learn that short-haul flights can sometimes be more sustainable than cars due to their higher occupancy, fitting more people into a single journey.  

A particularly interesting question from the floor raised the concern that banning short-haul flights might increase the demand for other modes of transport, increasing prices to an amount that some people may not be able to afford. Increased delays on alternative routes could also act as a major inconvenience for those travelling to work, reducing working hours, productivity and economic output. Despite these concerns, aeroplanes emit the most carbon out of any other mode of transportation, leaving the key issue of whether to prioritise accessibility and convenience, or the environment. 

Overall, this was a fascinating debate in which each speaker showed confidence and competence. From observations throughout the evening, as well as feedback from the judge, we learned the key foundations of a strong debate: clarity, rhetorical devices and emotive, convincing arguments. It was interesting to hear so many different viewpoints shared and explored throughout the evening, and it definitely left us thinking about the issues long after the debate ended. In the end, CLC made it through to the next round with their admirable eloquence and a firm, well-defended case. We learned so much from the experience and can’t wait for the next round!

Toni (UC5), Shereen (UC4), and Miss Davies, Head of Debating and Public Speaking