Video transcript
Art Bites – Stop rebutting yourself! – primary debating – 08. Matilda Stewart

[music playing]

TONY DAVEY: Cool. Hey there, how you going?

MATILDA STEWART: Pretty good. Hello.

TONY DAVEY: Excellent, excellent. So tell us a little bit about yourself, first of all. Tell us who you are and what we're about to watch.

MATILDA STEWART: So I'm Matilda Stewart. I was in the years 5 and 6 Debating Challenge winning team in 2018, and so I'm going to review my speech from that, and try and rebut myself.

TONY DAVEY: Yes. Yes, indeed. Now that you're all grown up and you're at least two years older, you're going to take all of your accumulated wisdom and go back and try to crush and destroy your old self, which is very exciting. How much how much do you remember of this speech and of the whole camp?

MATILDA STEWART: I remember the camp being lots of fun, and the speech is blurred together in my mind, but I remember it being lots of fun.

TONY DAVEY: Excellent. Yeah, look, I always enjoy those things as well. I super remember this debate, because you and your Hastings public school team, I remember were really like, you super listened to everybody who ever gave you feedback, and anything an adjudicator ever said would like immediately show up near word for word in the next speech, which is-- it's this brilliant genius thing that we were all amazed by, and then the other guys that you end up beating, they were also brilliant geniuses, but they were just like open your mouth and stuff came out of geniuses, as opposed to like thinking genius.

It was quite something to watch the two of you in the final. So in my mind, it's like the primary school final I remember. I'm very excited that you're here. So are you ready to watch this, and give us a little bit of feedback and then rebut yourself?

MATILDA STEWART: Yeah, that'll be good.

TONY DAVEY: Fantastic. I'm super excited. Here we go.

[applause]

MATILDA STEWART: One of the negative team's main ideas was that there will be an increase in the rate of bullying after this change. We cannot accept this for three reasons. Firstly, there will not be an increase in bullying because of the intelligent people that are supposedly going to start bullying the average kids who are smart enough to understand that bullying is the wrong thing to do.

Secondly, the less smart kids that are supposedly going to call the smarter kids nerds respect those smarter kids for being smarter and look up to them, always striving to achieve what those smart kids can do. They are not going to call those smart kids nerds if they are looking up to them as they currently are. Thirdly, these smart kids are being bullied currently when they are in joint classes because the average kids see these smart kids putting their hands up for every single question and are calling them nerds.

This will not happen after the change, because they will be in separate classes and the average kids will not be able to see just how smart those smart kids are. That is why the negative teams ideas was most certainly wrong. One of the negative teams other ideas was that the kids will face pressure and stress upon themselves to get into the smart class.

We cannot accept this for two reasons. These kids want to be pushed. They want to get smarter and get in the smart class so that they can be better. It is a good pressure that they are putting on themselves and it is making them strive for success. Secondly, these kids want to achieve this. They will strive for success, and if they or their parents are putting a little bit of pressure on them, it will just make them more likely to do the best job they possibly can, and that is surely just-- that is surely extremely important doing the best you can, not necessarily be in the smart class. Just doing the best you can.

That is why the negative teams idea was most certainly wrong. One of the negative team's other ideas was that parents will pressure the kids to get into the smart class. We, unfortunately but obviously, cannot accept this for two reasons. Firstly, parents love their kids. They know when they are pushing their kids too fast, so they will stay within the reasonable limits and only push their kids far enough to make them succeed. They aren't going to pile tonnes and tonnes of stress onto their children when they know that stress can be bad for children if they put too much of it.

Secondly, if parents sense that their child isn't ready to go into the smart class, they are not going to push their child to get into it because they know that if their child gets into it through cheating, perhaps, that they are not actually going to be learning anything. They will just be falling further and further behind. That is why the negative team's ideas was most certainly wrong.

One of the negative teens other ideas was that the standards in our education will drop. We cannot accept this for two reasons. Firstly, everybody will be improving after the change because they will not be learning things that are too hard or too easy for them. They will be learning exactly what they need to be doing at the time and not focusing on the other people's needs.

Secondly, after the change, the education standards will actually slowly rise because all kids will be getting smarter and more confident in their learning because they are not too worried that they are not the smartest kid in their class because they will be in a class of kids that are their own learning bracket. That is why the negative teens idea was most certainly wrong. The negative team also said that smart kids should teach the less smart kids in the classes.

This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, it is the teacher's job to teach the kids, not the students. The students will be too busy trying to figure out how to get into the class that they want to be in to teach the less smart kids. Secondly, kids will feel-- that is why the negative team's idea was most certainly wrong.

[applause]

TONY DAVEY: Excellent stuff. Still one of the best speeches that we've ever seen in primary school. Stand out, stand out debating. Still I'm sure there's stuff that you look back at and you thought maybe you could do it a little bit better. If you could talk to your old self, is there any feedback you'd give now that you've got this extra two years of experience?

MATILDA STEWART: Yeah, so I'd definitely tell my old self that she needs to stop swaying and fiddling with her cards, because she was moving around the whole time in that speech. It was a bit distracting, and there was a couple of spots in there that I could have fitted in some real life examples. Like I was being very general. So instead of saying students across Australia, I could have said this particular student studying this subject will improve after the change because.

TONY DAVEY: Agreed. Yeah, yea, yeah. Drilling down and giving that extra level of explanation, I guess we call it characterisation, that's the kind of thing your team was great at. You can do even more of that, and it never goes astray. Fantastic tips. All right, so now for the actual fun bit.

Are you ready to hop over to the negative and join the dark side and try to rebut yourself and get them a win this time?

MATILDA STEWART: Yes. That'll be--

TONY DAVEY: Fantastic. All right, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the third speaker of the negative, Matilda, again, to conclude the debate. Yay, woo, yay!

MATILDA STEWART: One of the affirmative team's ideas was that bullying will actually decrease after the change. We cannot accept this for two reasons. Firstly, there will be an increase in bullying because the students will be jealous or mocking of the kids in other classes. For example, a student in a lower class is jealous of all the students in the smart class and wants to take out the anger that they have in reserve for not getting into the smart class on them by calling them nerds.

Secondly, students make assumptions about people in other class. If they can't see them putting up their hand for almost every question, then they'll assume that they're doing that, and knowing nerdy things like the first 100 digits of pi, even if they have no idea. And then they will assume that those students are total nerds and bully them for it. That is why the affirmative team idea was very wrong.

One of the affirmative team's other ideas was that students and parents will put pressure on them to get into the smart class, and that that can be good pressure. We can't accept this for two reasons. Firstly, they'll put pressure on themselves and they'll put too much pressure on themselves because they don't want to fail. They'll think that if they fail the test to get into the smart class, then their parents and everybody else will hate them for it and they'll pressure themselves until they get it.

Secondly, some parents think that their kids are way better than they are academically, and they will push them too hard. They will push them and push them, not knowing that their child can't actually complete the work in that class, and that will lead to massive amounts of stress for that child. They also have the idea that education will have an increase after the change.

We obviously cannot accept this for two reasons. Firstly, educational standards will plummet, because the students are not being challenged by work that is too difficult for them. Right now, students in classes that are mixed will be challenged. They will be working out on work that is too difficult for them, which will mean that they'll go home and learn about how to do that work in their own time, making them overall far better at it.

Secondly, the students will be so stressed about getting into the smart class after the change that their grades will fall. For example, a student want so badly to get into the smart class because they've been trying for years that they try and focus so hard on class and they spend all their time studying, and suddenly, they're so stressed and they're so worried that they start failing tests and falling further and further behind. This is why the affirmative team had it very clearly wrong.

The affirmative team's final idea was that smart kids should not have to tutor the less smart kids. This is obviously wrong for two reasons. Firstly, smart kids will want to help the less smart kids. They will enjoy, it in a sense, because, for example, if you are a smart person and your friend asked you for help, you wouldn't refuse to help them. You wouldn't say, oh, that's the teacher's job to teach you, I'm not going to help you.

You'd want to help them. It would make you feel good to be able to help your friend. Secondly, the smarter kid's have a responsibility. They have a talent, and they can't just keep it to themselves. They have a responsibility to help their struggling classmates. That is why the affirmative team was most certainly wrong.

TONY DAVEY: Yeah, that is a pretty spectacular and epic take down of old view. Well done. So that's it. I'm glad you debated yourself, and congratulations, again, on being a state champion and also on that speech as well, and yeah, good luck with what's left of school this year. I take it you're back at school and learning things and?

MATILDA STEWART: Yes, yes.

TONY DAVEY: And debating will be back in term 3, so hopefully we'll see you out there trying to make you Hastings 7 and 8 just as terrifying as your 5 and 6 team was. Cool. All right, a final thank you for that. That was genius, and we'll see you around. See you later, Matilda.

MATILDA STEWART: Bye!