Ladies and gentlemen, religion is an important right, and we certainly cannot deny that. But when children are placed in an enclosed environment, where we restrict their views of the rest of the world, through these religious schools, there are a variety of harmful effects. As which will be discussed later on.

We do not place religion at fault. But when children are sheltered within these schools, they are heavily disadvantaged, especially when they are exposed to the real world. As they may not have the tolerance or ability to engage with people of varying backgrounds.

We need to understand that we should disconnect religion from education, which is a government policy as It doesn't cater to everyone's wishes. Therefore, religious education should be provided, but it should not be the fundamental base of a school. This is why, in our model where religious schools are banned, schools will have scripture or ethics classes. As in the status quo, where now, most public schools do do this, scripture classes are already provided for a certain periods in a week. Therefore, we do allow for the right of religion, but as well as encouraging the interaction of students with others outside their own religious belief groups.

As first speaker, I will be talking about how religious schools are harmful to society and how it leads to the vilification of minorities. Our second speaker will then talk about how religious schools are harmful to the child and the financial disadvantages.

We need to understand the fact that having religious schools only encourages a lack of tolerance and exposure to the various components in our multicultural society today. By keeping these children in sheltered schools, doctrined by one religion, we deny them the ability to interact with students of different backgrounds. And through this, their understanding of the basic fact that people do act differently due to their varying backgrounds.

As we are all aware, many cultures and religions have varying forms of communicating and interacting, and by placing these children in religious schools, we cut them off from this interaction and understanding. This can be especially harmful when they enter the work place, where these children are immediately pushed into the world full of varying religious and viewpoints. Religious schools only further highlight and encourage non-tolerance to others, due to their own religious viewpoints taught to everyone, without other views being provided by secular schools.

For example, Catholic schools would only teach their students the Catholic way and how they would conduct themselves in society and life. When these children enter the real world, then they become oblivious to any other ways of life, therefore allowing for racial tension and non-tolerance to be brought up. This is very bad, as it only further encourages a multicultural society to divide and not be able to interact and communicate with each other in a positive way. For example, as we see today, schools that teach religious values do not allow for the exposure to other religions, which combined with students entering the real world, will be create and heighten issues such as racial tension and workplace issues.

We need to understand that we are all aware that children won't be able to interact with people of different religious backgrounds and elsewhere outside of the school environment. But schools are where children spend most of their time in their lives. And most definitely, at the start of their own education are very impressionable of the education and teachings of these religious schools.

Another point is that the fact that the government has a moral obligation to allow religion to become a public and open concept, which will then lead to the decreasing of the vilification of religious minorities. The introduction of these religious schools only perpetuates bad society norms, where people are divided and created with labels due to this. As we see in Australia, an example of the status quo where Islamophobia is a very big issue. This can be drawn to the fact that people are simply unaware of other religious concepts and beliefs and the way that they conduct life.

For example, the Ban the Burqa Campaign, where people commented and shamed the very important aspect of the Islamic community, which was wearing the burqa, as they weren't fully aware of its significance. And by having these religious schools, we only further encourage this type of behavior. As people are simply unaware of the fact that different religions have different beliefs and different societal behaviors.

Therefore, we most definitely see this as a societal issue that can be overcome with a banning of these religious schools, which will then decrease the vilification of these minorities. By utilizing our model and the idea that we will have secular schools but with religious programs, we only create a better image of religion in the public. As we all come together, there is then a greater evident understanding of each other.

The issue with religious schools is that they can lead to the persecution of minorities. As when we have religious schools, no matter what they teach. And even if they do not have overly-- views that are just narrow minded, we create a divide. We create a distinct gap full of lack of knowledge, trust, and thus, understandings of the people all over in our society. As people and students are not aware of other religions and cultures, we only then create a huge misunderstanding, which then may of course, lead to minority races being vilified.

By introducing our model through the secular schools with scripture programs and ethnic classes in place, [RING] we allow for the community and society to assimilate in the sense that it leads to changing attitudes. This concept is essential and necessary in Australia as we already live in a multicultural society.

But we always hear or see the evident divide that is prevalent, which is very due to people's narrow-minded opinions and views, as they are simply unaware of varying perspectives evident throughout society. A huge cause of this is the fact that religion sometimes does not allow for these viewpoints to be expressed and to be known about, leading to bad societal norms that dictate a divided society.

Therefore, by introducing these schools, as per our model, we create a better cultural and religious understanding all over Australia, which can most definitely aid in reducing racial discrimination or tolerance. Religious schools only create more secrecy, and lead to a heightened lack of trust throughout the community.

You may ask why. Well, to simply put it, because we have no clue about other religions through these religious schools and their people. This attitude in society leads to more detrimental effects, which have been discussed before. And therefore, in order to combat this issue, we need to have the absolute need for secular schools with religious programs, as they will only encourage interactions in society, and prevent the vilification of minority.

We need to understand that religion is already separated from our government policy. And as we all know, education falls under that. Therefore, we ask why should we then associate religion with our child's education? We need to highlight the fact that religious schools do harm society as they do not allow for tolerance within the public-- they do not allow for the interactions with people of varying backgrounds. And therefore, they do not [RING, RING] allow for a joint community and better community understanding. This can then lead to the detrimental impacts of [INAUDIBLE] our minorities and [INAUDIBLE] all a bad multicultural society. Therefore we should ban religious schools. Thank you.

[CLAPPING]

We as the negative today, believe that the removal of religious schools in society is a restriction against choice that has no basis in furthering society's tolerance or respecting a family's belief system. In rebuttal today, we've seen this major issue of, do religious schools disadvantage people who go to them, and does it marginalize them in society? So before we go into the smaller issues of, does it make them intolerant to society, do they only learn their religious customs, and does it disadvantage them in the workplace later on, let's have a look at how this model is actually going to pan out.

The opposition wanted to tell you that it was going to be fine to ban all religious schools. Because what would happen instead is that we would have a class of religion, of ethics, in the state schools and in the private schools that would help boost knowledge about other religions. They wanted to tell you that just by banning religious schools and replacing it with one class for all students about every religion, that was going to ensure that religion still had the same importance in society.

We think that the effect of this model is actually going to be quite different. The opposition today wanted to tell you that by ensuring that people from a certain minority religion or a majority religion could not go to a school that suited their lifestyle and their belief system directly, it was going to improve diversity for all of society. But what we think will actually happen is this. You put in that ban, people can no longer go to religious schools that are suited specifically to their belief system.

What happens is that then you have these marginalization of minority religions. They are then ignored in state schools because there is a minority. Perhaps you only have five or six people from a minority religion in that school. That religion then just gets completely ignored. Their lifestyle is squashed. And they no longer have that belief system, because it's been crushed by the school that ignored it.

Because a bigger religion like Catholicism, like any religion under the Church of England, which is a majority in Australia, is going to take over the majority of that school. That is going to be the major religion in that school. We don't think it is going to improve diversity in school, because what we think will actually happen, is that a school will just become a majority of one religion.

And then they'll be like, oh yeah, we do have a couple of Muslim students, but I don't really know where they are. That's the kind of effect that it's going to have today. We think that it is not going to be helpful to ban religious schools, because we think you are going to marginalize a minority, and we think that that is directly persecuting minority religious groups.

Three issues in this idea of, do religious schools disadvantage people in society? The first was that people who went to religious schools were intolerant to the rest of Australian society, because they did not understand the way that Australian culture worked because they were so sheltered. We think that it is intolerant to ignore or demean that person's religious beliefs and religious freedom by banning religious schools.

We think that that is going to actually make the rest of society more intolerant to them if you ban that. We think that's going to promote an idea that you can have whatever religion you want, so long as you do it behind closed doors, so long as it doesn't affect our way of life. That's not the kind of attitude that we want to promote to Australians.

If we want a tolerant society, we need to be able to have religious schools. We need to be able to have special schools that cater to an individual. They wanted to tell you that they would only learn their religious customs, and that would leave them disadvantaged later on in life.

So on that issue, we wanted to tell you that often these people who go to a religious school are going to be better educated on religion than somebody who just goes to a public school. Because it is specifically a religious school, they are better going to understand the role of a belief system, or the role of a religious culture in society. And they are going to have a better understanding of that than someone who goes to an ethics class once a week.

Furthermore, we think their religion and ethics class section of the model wasn't actually going to work. Because already we offer religious and ethics classes. People don't want to take them. And if people do take them, [INAUDIBLE] they don't know anything.

We think that if you go to a religious school, you're actually going to understand that religion, as well as the kind of role that other religions have. Even if you don't know the Apostles Creed off by heart, because you go to a Muslim school, you're still going to understand that a person's Christian belief is important. If you go to a Christian school, you're going to understand that respecting other religions is also important.

We think it wasn't actually going to cut them off from the rest of religious society if they went to a religious school. We didn't think that harm was there. As well as that they wanted to tell you about racial tension and workplace issues later on because they were so sheltered.

We want to tell you that these schools are still in Australian society. They still are governed by the Australian government. They still do go to Westfield and Hurstville. They still do see people who don't go to religious schools. They still have those connections in society. We don't think it was that kind of exclusive culture they wanted to tell you about. Therefore, we think those people were still open to the rest of society, still understood how the rest of society functioned, which wasn't that different from them, other than they went to a school that functioned differently on different values that were suited to their lifestyle choice.

We think that in this debate, because parents have a closer connection and better understanding of their own beliefs, as well as their own child, parents are in the best place to decide how their child is educated. If the opposition today believed there was some direct harm to children or society by going to a school that fits their family culture and belief system and values, then they would have to ban all specialized schools.

We think that schools that are performing arts schools, or schools that are selective schools, or even a school that is Montessori, suits some students really well. Suits their lifestyle choices really well. And we think that if you wanted to ban religious schools, you would also have to ban all of those schools. Today, because we believe religion to be a lifestyle that parents have the right to uphold in their family, we should not be banning religious schools because it restricts that freedom.

Two points [INAUDIBLE] today. The first is on the choice of parents, and the second is on restriction of religious freedom. My second speaker today will be talking about government intolerance and how this is a step towards a monoculture in Australian society.

On this first issue of parents' choice, we wanted to tell you early on that if you were to ban religious schools, you would be drawing an arbitrary line as to what kind of monoculture those specialist schools promote. So we want to talk about today things like sporting schools. Say you live in a really, really sporty family, [RING] and you're really talented at that. Your parents may choose to send you to a sporting school where you will really excel, because that's the kind of lifestyle that your family leads.

Now we understand that religion is a little bit different to loving sport, so let's talk about Montessori schools. There are certain students who, because of their lifestyle choices need a more flexible timetable. For that, we have Montessori schools, which are going to suit that person's lifestyle choices and that person's individual needs.

We think that if you are going to ban religious schools, you would have to ban all schools like that. And then you would lump all students into the schools that were run the same way, that had the same kind of timetable, the same kind of uniform code. We think that that was going to lead to a monocultural society.

In a majority of cases, parents decide on the family's religious beliefs and as well as that, the family's rules and structure. Now we think that the best way for society to run is for the government to only step in in the place of parents if parents were, in some way, directly harming the children. Because the opposition today cannot prove that there is some direct harm to a child being educated in a certain religion. We think that the opposite-- that there is no reason for the government to undermine the parents belief structure and rules in their household. We think that so long as a child is under the age of 18 The parent is in full control and has the full responsibility to be able to say, we are a Muslim household, you can go to this Muslim school.

We think that if in a case that child is being forced to be Muslim, or forced to follow Islam, that was going to be a problem. And in that case, the government could step in. But because largely, it was a lifestyle choice that the children would continue on, or then question later on in life. We thought it was OK for that. We think that it is unhelpful to the choice of parents and to the role of parents for the government to take that choice away.

So what does banning religious schools do to religious freedom? Whilst the majority of religious schools are Christian or Church of England in Australia, there are a number of minority religious schools and we can see that in Emanuel or Moriah in Sydney. And then banning those schools is a restriction of religious freedom. What this does is it sends a message of, you can do what you want behind closed doors, so long as the rest of society doesn't see it. [RING, RING] We think that that promotes a society of intolerance.

Now on my second issue of substantive, what are the benefits of religious education? Three subpoints the first is on tolerance, the second is on specific education needs and the third is on cultural diversity and support. This first issue of tolerance. We think that it was going to promote a society of tolerance if you allowed people to be educated in a way that suited their lifestyle choices.

On this second idea, specific education, we thought a majority of religions had really, really important things. So things like prayer times, special dietary requirements, the times that they needed to go to church or the days that they needed to attend mosque. Those things were things that if you took away religious schools, religion would suffer from. That would be taken away from religion. We think that normal schools would not be able to tailor to the specific needs of religious students.

As well as now in this last idea of the cultural diversity and support we think that religious students were really going to suffer if you put them in a school where they would be marginalized because they come from a minority religion or a school where there faith would be really, really tested and crushed essentially because the majority of society [RING, RING, RING] would disagree with it. For those reasons we are proud to [INAUDIBLE].

[CLAPPING]

There have been four main issues we believe raised in this debate so far. The issue of parental choice, the issue of disadvantage, the issue of marginalization, and the issue of lifestyle choices and how this is reflected by education. On this first issue of parental choice, we believe that parents still have the choice to teach their children in their own religious beliefs in every other aspect of life. Parents can still take their children to a place of worship, they can still pray with them at home, they can still instill these religious traditions and stories within that household.

And but we believe that this need to be separated from the educational environment which is monitored by the state. The educational environment, which needs to be secular so that children have that opportunity to not just have this one view that their parents have given them. And we believe that children themselves have so many opportunities to practice their religion already and that these will not be inhibited.

Children can still form groups amongst themselves, in which at lunch time they might talk about their religion or pray. And there is always out of school education, which already happens. And we already have so many parents, even religious parents and religious families, whose children don't go to religious schools. How these children are educated in their religious beliefs of their families.

And we believe that children going to these secular schools as already happens already with plenty of children with religious beliefs, and plenty of families with religious beliefs who don't go to religious schools, that these children learn by osmosis they learn and respect each other's culture. Because they learn about these people as people first and then learn about their religious beliefs and want matters to them.

On the topic of the disadvantage of people that go to religious schools, we believe that if you have grown up in a school where your religion is considered to be the only valid religion, for example in a Catholic school, you might be taught that the only way that you can achieve what is considered to be desired in life is through following that framework. Then how can we expect these children who are taught in that way so that they will value their religion to then respect other people if that is the only method that they get?

The opposition have raised the topic of exclusion and marginalization. And so have we. And we believe that even though there are people of other religions out in the world, that people who religious schools do sometimes interact with, we believe that there's less obvious than if you go to a secular school. Because if you go to a secular school, you're seeing these people every day, and you are learning about who they are as people, which is so important. And befriending them.

Because they're in your classrooms, they're in the playground and having this interaction helps to learn about their religious beliefs. And we would like to clarify that we believe that students from all religions within a particular school, and students from no religion, will be able to express the way that they feel and communicate with their peers. And that this would be very important.

We believe that religion is different from other lifestyle choices, such as a sporting interest or academic pursuits or performing arts with a need for practical time tables, because religion is so deeply ingrained in people. And there is this issue of religious condemnation. If you grow up in a rugby mad family, and then you decide that you hate playing rugby, there's not that eternal, existential connection to that, which will make that you will suffer later in your life. This is different because there is a distinct difference between firmly held beliefs and hobbies that people have or ways that suit children better.

We believe that there won't be a monocultural environment, because all religions will be able to express themselves and communicate with their child. The opposition have challenges to prove the harm caused to children in religious schools. If you're a young teenager in a Catholic school who is questioning your sexuality, a teenage girl in a religious school who thinks she might be pregnant, if you're questioning your religious beliefs or questioning your parents.

If the teachers in your school, those adults, your other guardian adults, have the same religious beliefs than your parents, then you will have the same fears of judgment. We know that teenagers already fear so much judgement from their families. Especially because of the disconnect that children feel between their own experiences and what they see reflected in the values of their parents.

We believe that in our first argument today that severe emotional harm is caused to children whose emotional development is inhibited because they feel that there's no one they can turn to. They feel that all of the people in their life who they can confide in have these same views, and if they differentiate from these views in any way, then they can't confide that in anyone. Because they know that they will face that same religious condemnation from their teachers, as well as their parents, as well as their friends.

Whereas children in secular schools, they have more avenues open to them. They have school counselors and teachers who are obliged and obligated to be open and understanding, and respectful of all different children, and all the different ways that children feel. Furthermore, in these schools, there might be gay and lesbian teachers, there may be teachers who are unmarried and have children, there may be teachers who come from all different religious backgrounds. And so these children could connect with people who have the same circumstances that they might be concerned about. And they could have role models that don't just fit one criteria. And they can see, through these teachers, that there are many different ways of having a particular world view and living you life.

And these children may still feel, look, the way that my parents have raised me, this is how I want to live my life. But there are so many children that we see going to religious schools who divert from this, and that have no one to turn to. And that's where we see these heartbreaking cases of teen suicide, because these children have no one to turn to. And even if they do turn to someone, they have an increased lack of turning to someone who will condemn them who will say that you are not worthy. And this is the most dangerous thing that we can tell an impressionable young person. That you are not worthy.

Especially in a religious environment where we're saying, not just that you are not worthy in the eyes of the teachers and the people you look up to, but also that you are not worthy in the eyes of a spiritual being, which is so deeply ingrained in the lives of these people. And that that is so dangerous for young people that they don't have these avenues, because their social circle is constricted into a lot of people who mainly have their same view.

And we believe that there is significant emotional harm that is caused to these people when they do not have the attitude and the ability to express themselves emotionally, and to explore themselves, because they're only exposed in this educational environment and to [INAUDIBLE] these role models that have this one view. And that children need this diversity in order to become more assured of themselves. And they need this diversity to understand why they are worthy and valued. And that this is so important in a young person's emotional well-being in developing this sense of self.

And we also believe that in our second argument today that the way that young people approach one another is really, especially when they're going into adulthood, is really deeply affected by these religious views. Not only if somebody feels that somebody may feel that they are personally worthy in the eyes of their spiritual being and their teachers, but they may have this view ingrained in them that people who diverge from that, or people who are being different from that, do not fit into this category. And therefore, there is this real judgment which we are perpetuating in these children. The judgment that many of these children themselves fear is being continued through these children.

And this is very dangerous for our society. Because we are perpetuating these values of intolerance, and we're not allowing people to understand, on a personal level, one another. And we believe that the understanding of different religious beliefs-- there's currently such a clash in our society with religious views. And that by allowing people to connect on a personal level, by allowing these impressionable young people to all be educated together, we are bringing people together and creating a more tolerant society. Ultimately this is what we are looking for. And we're also looking to protect children.

[RING, RING, RING]

[CLAPPING]

Every single time you make schools more generic, thousands of children get a worse education. There is a reason in our society that we have schools of many different persuasions. We have selective schools, single sex schools, public schools, private schools, and religious schools. It is because that it is so important in a child's early stages of life that their education is in a safe and happy environment. Where they feel comfortable in the teachers and the students and what they are learning. And what the opposition has shown today is careless disregard for that right to be safe at school, to be happy at school, for your parents to pick a school which best suits you. And ultimately, that is why our side of the house has the strongest material today.

OK, I have three issues of rebuttal. First of all, is religious education worse? Second of all, what does this do for racial acceptance? And third, should it be a parents' right? And I'm going to lead with that third issue.

So we told you, at first speaker, that it is an inherent right for parents to be able to choose what school their child goes to. But then the opposition told us that parents still have a choice about kid's religion and they can pray at home and do stuff in the other aspects of life.

Three responses. First of all, education is an enormous pillar of a child's life. Literally people's lives revolve around school. And so when people's lives also revolve around religion, it's important that those things intertwine. Two, we think that parents don't want their child to have their important values filtered out. Because, as we know, values and ideologies are so important to these sorts of people. But three, we think that ultimately, faith based learning is a legitimate and good method, and an environment where kids are comfortable in the classrooms of learning about topics that otherwise they would not be comfortable with.

They told us that we should have a secular education because it's not one view of the world. But we think that, literally they were expecting primary school kids to go on into some diverse school and have a actual rational thought in their mind about religious and moral decisions. It's not realistic to expect these sorts of kids to think for themselves in the majority of schools.

We think that religion is so important to these people. And parents totally know what's best about their child. And because education variation is just so important, we think that ultimately the responses they gave to our paramount issue about freedom of parental choice, which is not sufficient in this debate.

OK. My next issue of rebuttal is, is religious education worse? And on this issue, we think that the burden of the opposition is to say that it is. Even though we gave you lots of benefits on our side of the house. OK they told us that-- their main material was that these kids are under a rock and that they're sheltered and they're disadvantaged in the real world, because they don't have interaction with students of other persuasions.

Three responses. First of all, we think that not every person of the same religion is exactly the same. Within a religious school, you are going to get a diversity in that you have conservatives, or you have progressives, or you have other sorts of diversity within that school.

Two, we think that school isn't supposed to reflect society. That was never what we were setting out to do in this debate. Otherwise, every school would be perfectly multicultural and stuff. We think that school's purpose is to provide a platform to get to society to be prepared for it for each individual student and what suits them. What about selective schools, what about single sex schools? Not every person in society is a boy, so why do we have single sex schools? That analysis doesn't stand.

Number three, we think that there is exposure to people of other religions in these kids' lives. Because they are just being alive. Everybody in Australia is different and interesting and ultimately they see people through their neighbors, through Saturday sport, or through debating competitions, where they get to meet people of different backgrounds. And so ultimately we think that their characterization of religious schools as rocks where these kids don't see anything else is utterly ridiculous.

And we think that they do have opportunities to learn about other religions. In fact, they're encouraged to have opportunities to learn other religions. You'll find that a lot of religious schools actually make the HSC subject, studies of religion, a compulsory subject, which I would remind you includes religions like Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Literally all of the religions.

The next thing they told us was that performing arts school is a hobby, and those sorts of things are hobbies. Therefore those are OK, as opposed to religious schools. One, we think this is demeaning to religions. But two, we think as if a religion cannot be more important to a person than performing arts, it's kind of like what you think the meaning of life is literally.

The next thing they told us is that the effect of religious school is that. But we think that the way religious schools work is they allow you to have discourse about religion, and think about education from your family's lifestyle choice.

The next thing that they tried to tell us was that somehow these kids will have mental health issues because they won't feel accepted. But we think that within religious schools, there are plenty of people who do not conform to that religion and that's perfectly OK. And school are cults and you don't get persecuted and that sort of thing.

My last issue of rebuttal is what does this do for racial acceptance? And they told us that racial tensions, like xenophobia, are going to be enhanced by the model. Well we think that first of all, people in religious schools are taught acceptance. That is kind of one of the first ethics that you get taught as part of religion. You were learned to love everyone and except everyone. And so there is not being taught hatred at all. The model does not solve it. It actually messages harms of anti-religion.

Then, the next thing they told us was we can just go into normal schools and have Muslim prayers and stuff at lunchtime and that sort of thing. But then what we see is the New South Wales government coming in and wanting to accuse these prayer groups of terrorism, and then having a teacher sit-in. So ultimately, what we can see is that at the end of this rebuttal, there is environments where kids are most comfortable at school, and there are environments where we need to be accepting And so ultimately, the racial acceptance and the education is perfect at religious schools for these types of children, and we should respect the parents rights to choose those sort of schools.

My first point of substantive today is that the opposition's model sends messages of governmental and societal intolerance. As we've established, religion forms the bedrock for a lot of people's morals and beliefs, and this is really important. And you know who your child is and how they should be raised.

But suddenly, what will happen is that freedom of yours is ripped away. You lose your ability to control a major part of your child's life. And do you think that a lot of these devout people would think that it's fair? Of course not. You'd think it's an attack on your personal liberties, your rights, your parental freedom. And this offense comes on top of a lot of persecution in these sorts of minority communities anyway.

Because we see that racist people, Islamophobic people tend to be really outspoken. And so we can see this in a lot of Jewish schools, such as Moriah College, where they have all this security around the ground because they are so fearing of persecution. And with that background, suddenly the old white men of the government are telling you that your right to express religion in your child's education is gone.

And we think that ultimately what will happen is that the government is promoting the religious-- it is promoting that we are intolerant to religion. It's accepting that people in society are not supposed to accept other's religion. And that's ultimately such a bad message to disenfranchise this whole group of people. This is the only policy that would disenfranchise both the conservative church and progressive immigrants and everybody in between. Because what we saw when people were protesting at the building of the Bendigo Mosque is literally going to be endorsed by the government. It is going to be endorsed by the government that religion is not OK, and religion is not a suitable thing to express in society. And that is ultimately a message of hate that is being preached by the model of the opposition.

My second point today is that the model provides a step towards a monoculture. And we think that multiculturalism and different views in society are the way that society moves forward. It's the way to advancement. And we think that when teenagers are in their high school, their values and ideologies can be formed at a [INAUDIBLE]. And so we think that when heaps of teenagers that otherwise would have gone to religious high schools, now go to these generic schools, we think that what will happen is that they'll lose a lot of their religious values and religious ideologies that they otherwise would have grown up with and introduced into society to provide a broader range of opinions and ethics.

So we think that instead of having a greater range of values and beliefs, the opposition's model will lead us to provide a step towards a monoculture, where society loses its assets of variation. Society loses its assets of differing of opinions, and those opinions are provided through people with different upbringing in different schools. And so we think that if you want the vast range of opinions, if you want religious freedom, if you want your child to be raised with your morals and ethics, then the only way to turn to in this debate is the negative side of the house. Thank you.

[CLAPPING]

Ladies and gentlemen, the opposition felt like today that we were pushing religion under the bus. That the moment that we took a child out of a religious school, they could no longer be an effective Christian and effective Muslim. Within this is not the case. They said we're putting religion behind closed doors. But really what we're doing is putting it out in front of those very same doors.

We want to create a transparency in our society where children of all faiths and creeds can be exposed to different cultures. And we will prove to you why when we are exposed to different cultures, this will help societal intolerance, whilst not infringing upon the child's education and religious upbringing.

So I'll answer three main questions in my speech today. Firstly, parental choice. Do parents have the choice over the education of their children? Secondly, what is best for societal harmony? And thirdly, what is best for children?

So under that first issue, the opposition said today that parents have the right over their children. And because they're not harming anyone else, they can legitimately do what they want to do with their children. However, we'll show you today that parents will indirectly harm our society in general by continuing to perpetuate significant societal stigmas based on religion. So on that first issue, the negative team said that families are entitled to enforce their family values, and they have free choice. For example, they can be sent to sporting schools, are can be sent to acting schools, et cetera.

We have three responses to that. Firstly, we are not debating that. That's an issue for another day. And even if we did, sport and loving [INAUDIBLE] isn't the grounds for significant discrimination. We have Islamic phobia, we don't have a phobia of people who can dance well.

Secondly, parents are indirectly hurting society. The government needs to do what's best for the most number of people. Sure, perhaps the opposition is arguing that the parents will help the child, but the parent is indirectly harming society. Because when they're sending their children to these exclusive religious colleges, they are continuing these negative attitudes of society toward those religions.

When we have negative attitudes towards those religions from society, we have discrimination, we have Islamic phobia, et cetera. And this isn't good for the collective population. So we are to have a mutual advantage where the government can help the most number of people they can justifiably intervene.

Thirdly, parents cannot [INAUDIBLE] the long-term welfare of their child. But why? Religion is very deep, it's a very fundamental part of anyone. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that it's a very significant, if not the most significant, part in an individuals decision making calculus. Therefore, when being impaired by religion, they cannot see the other detriment to their child that we have proved today.

So on our side of the house, we showed you that in fact parents don't have a choice, because there is a greater mutual advantage for society to have when the government steps in. And that leads me onto our second issue. What is best for societal harmony?

So the opposition thought that if we flung these religious children into the playground of secular schools, they would be religiously impaired and discriminated against. But firstly, I think it's proper that we ask ourselves what is a secular school? A secular school is a school environment that is dictated, by the law, to ensure that the teachers and all staff are trained to provide all students with a learning environment that is completely free from religion. If the environment is free from religion, there can't possibly be a mass of Catholics who are trying to convert everyone. Because if they were, they would probably be in a Catholic school.

So under this issue, the negative team said that it's a restriction of religious freedom. And when there's a restriction of religious freedom, this actually impairs the tolerance of religions to other religions. We have three response to that.

Firstly, we're saying that normal schools can still cater for religion, for example scripture, IACF, the list goes on. Religious school isn't 24/7 of religion. It's simply learning your math, English, and science along other students who have the same faith. Now therefore there's no significant difference between the secular schools and the religious schools in terms of what the child can get out for their own religious benefit. So we see that because of the harms and because these children can gain the same religious outputs elsewhere, we are proud to support this notion.

Secondly we are not making them do it behind closed doors. We want to actually encourage a wide range of religions, which will foster tolerance. And thirdly, little tolerance is created. If it was as our first affirmative said, if we have a greater exposure, if we make these religions mix together, there'll be a greater collective understanding and this will change long-term, a long lasting change for societal norms.

And now the second negative, also under this issue of what's best for societal harmony, said that our model sends a message of societal intolerance because we're saying, you can't practice the religion you want to practice. And we would look down upon them when these minorities come into our secular schools. However, because we have those attitudes, because they're categorizing our society, the majority looking down upon religious minorities, that is proving our case. Because we want to get rid of these attitudes.

Perhaps their [INAUDIBLE] solution would be to sweep this under the rug. We want to get it open, we want to change these attitudes in the future. And therefore, our model is effective in such a way.

The second negative also came forward saying that this will lead to a monoculture, as we were encouraging everyone to convert to the same religion. We have two response to that. Firstly, Australia is already a multicultural society, where the problem is, even though we have many cultures, they cannot properly understand each other and discrimination does occur. For example. since there was a biased Islamic State, there's been negative attitudes to Muslim people on public transport and in other areas of public discourse. And secondly, strongly religious people, if these people are so strongly hold their religion, as the opposition categorized them to be, therefore even if they do step into a secular school, they were able to maintain their faith. And because they still have parental support, they have support from their churches on the weekends, and even lunchtime social groups to promote religion.

So on our side of the house, we gave you a more coherent understanding and showed you what's best for societal harmony. We showed you that there's a lack of tolerance in society, [RING] and that's because of a lack of exposure to different cultures. If we get more exposure, there's greater understanding. When there's greater understanding, there's less likelihood for discrimination.

So now onto the final issue, what is best for the kids themselves. So the negative team said that our model is ineffective as a ban on religious schools homogenizes the individuals. Their beliefs are crossed and their whole meaning of life is compromised when they're taken out of these religious schools.

Four responses to that. Firstly, the status quo shows that there already religious people who are in secular schools. So obviously you can still be a strong religious person in this environment. Secondly secular schools, as I proved earlier, with no influence of religion and the government legally obligates secular schools to be thusly. Thirdly, yet again, the problem that we're trying to solve, the intolerance. We do that better than the opposition. And fourthly, are there still religious classes. You still have the weekend to practice religion with your family. And there's no real difference between the religious school and the secular school in terms of what the child can get out of it religiously, because during the religious school, you're not doing 24/7 math, English and science.

So the first negative also said that racial assumptions occur, even with our-- so the first negative said that we can still learn about other cultures by going down to Hurstville, Westfield. We have two responses to that. Firstly, they're not actually socializing.

Just because I see someone in the distance who's wearing a turban, doesn't mean I can actually interact with them or learn to understand their own belief systems and also [INAUDIBLE] the tolerance. Secondly yet again, they cannot actually converse, so they can't learn about their values.

So the second negative also said, very vociferously, that religious schools are the fundamental building blocks to a child's education. Education's important, religion is important, let's pull them together. And therefore children can be more comfortable in the environment that they learn.

We have three remain response to that. Firstly, they're not actually comfortable all of the time. Religious schools enforce very vigorous values upon their students. And this is the case. [RING, RING] And if this is the case, we have students being marginalized.

For example, if someone is homosexual, they don't feel they're safe. They're not comfortable to come forward and seek support. Secondly we are compromising, yet again, religion in education. All day we've shown you that religious schools can offer religion just as well as secular schools, as the religious school isn't 24 hours and seven days of religion.

And thirdly, the education and perspectives of a child is actually impaired. Because secular schools, not only they can teach a wider curriculum that, for example, some schools, religious schools, deny the Big Bang Theory or fossils in extreme cases. So we're going to gain more knowledge with the students and also they'll be exposed to more perspectives. And being exposed to different perspectives, different religions is an important part of education as children grow up. And we showed you, on the other hand, it's better for kids, as children can develop better emotionally and have more perspectives to be more successful in adulthood.

So ladies and gentlemen, in closing, we've shown you three main things. It is not the parents choice when there's significant detriment to having these religious schools. And therefore the government can step in. Secondly we have shown you that long-lasting change is achieved through our model for society norms, and lastly, it's better for children. Thank you.

[CLAPPING]

OK. Good afternoon everyone. I've interpreted this debate a little bit differently to how the opposition has, in three different themes. These are, the effects of religious education, what is the best way to meet the requirements of a religious student, and what role does religion play in our lives?

But before I even begin in the host of problems, I have the oppositions case, to begin with a little introduction for you. An education should not be twisted and manipulated to try and solve this concept of discrimination. The opposition has this in their minds that a secular school begins the answers to a world free of discrimination and religious inequality. And this statement is inherently false for a lot of reasons I'm going to discuss a little bit later.

A child's education should be paramount. And when a child is forced into a school that they're not comfortable with, and suits them, is not tailored to their requirements, the education is going to suffer. The opposition's argument, and their model, inhibits the idea of choice to this child. And I'm going to return to that later as well.

I'd like to put you all in the perspective of a student from a strong religious background, for example. This student happens to be from an Islamic background. They're a devout Islamic student. They pray every day, they eat halal food, and this student happens to wear the hijab. This student attends a secular school in a region which is known for its adverse reactions to the Islamic religion.

She's not allowed to pray every day, as per her religious requirement. She is persecuted for wearing her hijab at school, because of the attitudes that the majority of her, mostly white, classmates have towards her. And there is no halal option on the canteen menu for her.

Now the opposition seems to have a very different understanding to the negative team as to why someone might attend a religious school. To me, and to the whole team, and I think, honestly, to every single person who attends religious school, the reason is not so that you can only learn about Catholicism, or only learn about Islam, and you will remove all the other religions from your life. That is inherently false.

The reason why is that you go to a religious school to meet the requirements that your religion sets for you. Now I'm going to discuss that in my first point, what role does religion play in our lives? The opposition has stated that religion inherently creates some kind of disadvantage. The opposition insinuated that a form of religious education is bad. It leads to, and I quote this, vilification, secrecy, discrimination, intolerance, condemnation, fear of abandonment, depression, and a whole host of other issues. Social stigma relating to other minority groups, which are somehow related to religion, and a host of other problems that one gets.

Now let me expand on these points briefly for you. Religion is not inherently this terrible evil that will cause a whole host of problems. And religious education, furthermore, is designed to suit this student who happens to be a member of this religion. Now the opposition has heavily insinuated, throughout this debate, that a religious education will bring a host of intolerances to the student, and are therefore belittling religious education by removing religious schools.

They're belittling religion, one of the cornerstones of our society today, which is currently even on the decline now. They're belittling religion in general by this model. This model is destructive to the 80% of our population, roughly, who believe in any form of religion and are devout in their religion.

Now religion is a variety of deeply important beliefs and practices, I'm sure you are all aware of that, and these are so intertwined into an individual's life that to attend a secular school which does not meet their religious requirements is going to severely inhibit their quality of life at school. The opposition has told you, time and time again, that you can just pray at lunch, and you can go to church, and you can talk about it with your parents.

But when you are at school, there are specific requirements that your religion must meet, including diet, including fashion, or religious articles of clothing, and including prayer times and what you must read. These also include things such as languages. For example, Judaism requires the teaching of Hebrew, Islamic requires the teaching of Arabic, Hinduism requires the teaching of Sanskrit. These issues are not going to be taught at secular school, because these schools do not have to cater to these students. One religion class a week, or one religion class a month. These religion classes already exist. These don't provide the needs that are required for these students.

A student does not attend a religious school to isolate themselves from other religions and other people of society. They do this to meet their own religious requirements. The opposition has even said this themselves with a quote from the third speaker, just maths, English, and science under the same faith. A religious school promotes a community of people under the same faith. Meeting their religious requirements all saying the same things together.

These people are not isolated. They do not have a variety of intolerances to other religions because they are having to attend a religious based school. Religion plays an incredibly important role in an individual's life and attending a religious based school is only going to enhance one's connection with their own religion.

Now our material about parents still stands completely. And we feel that we have proved that parents have the right to choose a school that suits their child's needs and they can ensure that this school is suited to their child's lifestyle. Religion is probably one of the most important factors in one's lifestyle. And therefore to attend a religious school it's going to only help a child's lifestyle further.

They've tried to tell you that kids who go to these schools are going to somehow become very-- they're going to condemned by their families and a whole list of problems. They're going to be in an existential crisis when they fall out of their religion. However, when one attends a religious school, they're not in an environment which is out there to persecute them. They're in an environment which is there to encourage a communal understanding of faith.

Now on to the second issue. What is the best way to deal with the religious requirements of a student at school? The opposition has stated that they are going to bring these religious classes, and religion is going to become this public and open concept, and it's going to be full transparency, and all of these things. But this negates the idea that a religious school is some kind of closed off box full of these only religious views in regards to something. And that when you attend these schools, you are only going to understand [RING] this religious base of thought.

However, despite the fact that there may be a variety of people who are religious at a secular school, who may continue to enforce these beliefs on their students and persecute others [INAUDIBLE] in these beliefs to go to a religious school does not necessarily negate ignorance of other religions. States of religion one and two, which are often actually [INAUDIBLE] schools [INAUDIBLE], do teach a variety of religions and the understandings of religions as we've discussed.

Religion and the principles of religion also encourage a whole host of ethics, morals, and values, which promote tolerance and respect to individual members of society. By banning religious schools, this better image of religion, as said, is going to be counterproductive. Because as stated, this concept of religious diversity and belief is going to be suppressed, and we're going to reduce the concept of religion and religious faith and practice to textbook material with these religious classes that the opposition wants to impose.

Socialization and acceptance of religions. The moment you attend a secular school, you're going to become so much more well rounded and minded. It's not necessarily going to happen in a secular environment. Religion does not equal intolerance, and secularism does not equal tolerance.

Now on to the final theme of today's debate. This is the effect of religious education. The opposition is saying that our religious education shelters students from multiculturalism or inter-religious relations. They have stated that when children are young, they are impressionable and they're going to be intolerant towards other religions. They're going to vilify minority religions and there's going to be a secrecy and a lack of trust in these students.

The opposition loves to tell you all of the problems they have with religion and with religious education. Yet they fail to understand the communal aspect of religion in general, and the teachings and the understandings found practically every religion in the world in mutual respect and understanding. For a student to attend a religious school, they are in an environment which they are basically designed to be comforted by, as they happen to be a member of that religion and they will be taught in an environment which supports and promotes [RING, RING] that religion.

The opposition has also told you that only valid religions are taught, and this is going to lead to disrespect, and this is going to lead to things such as condemnation from their family if they were to deviate from this. The opposition wants to tell you that we need to learn who people are as people-- students must learn who their other peers are as people.

The opposition seems to forget the importance of religion in someone's daily life. Someone's religion is a huge factor of who they are as a person. And when one understands and studies a variety of religions, it does not negate disrespect for those who do not follow their own religion. To be condemned by one's family is not something that is specific to religious schools. It can happen in and outside of schools, whether you attend a secular school, or you attend a performing arts high school, or whether you get home-schooled.

The opposition has also stated that attending a religious school will impair your judgement. And they've actually indirectly said that this will lead to a lack of worldly knowledge. A secular school is not an environment which immediately breeds this intelligence and well-rounded understanding of the world. [CONTINUOUS RINGS] Religion is an incredibly important factor in one's life and religion does not equal intolerance. And religious education is what is best for the student. Thanks [INAUDIBLE].

[CLAPPING]

Well, on behalf of the Adjudication Panel, and I'm sure on behalf of the entire audience here, I just want to express how pleased and grateful we are, and impressed that we saw such an incredible debate this afternoon, or, in fact this morning rather. This is the culmination of, obviously, several days of very intense debating. We've asked a lot of these kids, but they've risen to that challenge. Because as you can see, they are exceptionally talented debaters. So I think these teams, but also all the teams who have spent this week debating, deserve another round of applause.

[CLAPPING]

So as most of you here will know, when you have a panel of three adjudicators, you can have two different kinds of decisions. One is unanimous, one is split, where two adjudicators go one way, and the other adjudicators goes to the other. This has been a unanimous decision, but all three of us want to emphasize that it is an exceptionally close unanimous decision. For all of the adjudicators it was a very close decision.

Sorry. I'm going to talk about the issues that came out of this debate in turn, and then obviously announce who won. Firstly, I'm going to look at this question of the rights of parents and the ability they have to kind of shape the family life and shape the education of their children. But more importantly, questions of harm to children and broader harm to society. And whether either of those things justify the banning, or indeed the continuation of religiously based education.

Firstly, a piece of feedback that we wanted to give both teams, which we think is instructive for them, but also instructive for the other debaters in the room, is that we thought that the debate needed more close examination of how religious education from day to day actually works. So how religious schools teach certain subjects, how they don't teach certain subjects, and also an acceptance and a representation of the variety that exists within religious education.

From schools that are, at best, probably nominally religious, I'm sure we can all understand that those schools exist, through the schools that are profoundly religious, whatever religion they may happen to follow. So I think both teams really needed to give us more of a sense of how these schools operate, how they interact with their students, the volume of students, perhaps, that are taught by those schools. Whether most schools that are religious are actually pretty moderate. And mostly other secular schools, whether most are quite hard line. Things like that to give us a sense of the landscape that we were looking at when it came to religious education. That said, we thought the debate obviously continued on from there on a reasonably even playing field.

So firstly, on the question of the rights of the parent. The negative team wanted to say that parents have reasonable absolute rights to shape their family as they saw fit, particularly as regards religion, because religion was so deeply felt and religion was so important to one's everyday life and how one ran one's family's life. And then had the affirmative team say that there's a water's edge to that power of parents, and we limit it when we can demonstrate harm coming to children. Or in fact in this debate to broader society as a result of an individual parent making a set of choices, or two individual parents making a set of choices.

So the question of the rights of the parents. Both teams kind of agreed that parents have a set of rights over determining their child's life. But they also both agreed that there is an end to that right, and it's a question of harm and the consequences of those decisions. So that question of rights of parents was actually dependent on the next two issues in the debate.

And that is the question of harm to children and harm to broader society as a result of allowing a certain set of schools to educate a certain set of children in society. So on this question of harm to children, the affirmative team wanted to tell us that religious schools kind of churn out or graduate students who are intolerant. Who are, in some way, blinkered to broader society and particularly to other religions, and indeed to secularism, to a secular Australian society. I'm going to deal with that under the question of harm to society, because I think that links to the question of how those kids act and interact with society, particularly after they've left school. So I'm just going to park that for one moment, and get on to this question of the more particular and individualized harm to children as a result of religious education.

And this came principally from the affirmative team, who said that children who in some way want to deviate from the precepts of their religion and what is being taught within their religious school would have a very, very difficult time of finding someone with whom they could talk freely and openly and without judgment about those particular decisions or those particular circumstances. Whether that be an unplanned pregnancy, whether that be questioning one's sexuality, or indeed just leaving the faith, that they wouldn't be able to find someone who could take that role for them. And that there would be generalized hostility and judgment directed to them as a result of being within that reasonably cloistered community all within that school.

As a result they pointed to things like depression, self-harm, anxiety, and most worrisomely, suicide, as a result of feeling that you couldn't express your true self and you didn't have role models and counselors of one kind or another who could assist you in that. And that secular school, by contrast, because they were intended to be without the ingrained and inbuilt values that might attach to religion, were obligated, and indeed were more able therefore to deal with those children who found themselves in those heartbreaking circumstances. So at the end of the debate, because we thought that the negative team didn't effectively prove that those children wouldn't have those harms visited upon them, we thought that there probably was a minority of children who would suffer in certain ways because of their very particular circumstances in religious schools.

But we then turned to the question of the experience of the majority of religious children, or children from religious families in the schools. The negative team talked about there being a significant benefit and comfort to children and their families as a result of being able to express their religious beliefs day-to-day at school. And that religious beliefs could not be as easily restricted or corralled to just weekend faith services, you're praying over the dinner table at home, or indeed IFCF groups at lunch. That religion was, for many people, not all religious people, because I think we agreed by the end of the debate there was certain religious people who perfectly happily went to secular or public schools. But that for certain religious students, their religion imbued their life and was a really necessary part of their everyday life and everything that they did.

And then indeed structurally for things like food, dress, and particularly prayer for Muslim students or other religions that require schedule prayer, that there were structural reasons why non-religious or secular schools might not be able to accommodate them. And that for those students, because it is such an important part of their life and for their families, that was a real harm in not being able to express their religion and live out their religion in the way that I imagine those students believe that a supreme being desires them to do.

And so we agreed at the end of this question of harm to children that, yes there was a small set of students who were tragically ill-served by religious schools. What we thought the negative team demonstrated was though that for the majority of religious students whose parents choose these religious schools, there was going to be sincere problems shifting those students over to a secular model of education that didn't respect, and didn't accommodate, and in many instances, we were concerned, probably actually created tension with their religious beliefs. So that's what concerned us at the end of that question of harm to children.

There was a minority who might tragically be harmed. We thought the negative team demonstrated the majority were probably well served by religious schools. But additionally that secular, or public, whatever schools, might not actually all that much better at accounting for students going through those crises. And so we weren't necessarily sure that that was a pitfall that was exclusive to religious schools.

So on to the question of harm to society, to return briefly to what I flagged earlier, this question of turning out children who are intolerant, who don't understand other religions, who are genuinely unable and ill-equipped to integrate with broader society. We thought that the affirmative team were able to demonstrate that there is some affect of cloistering that occurs. That you have a simply less diverse experience of the world when you attend a religious school that is designed to cater to that religious faith in large part or in some part.

What we thought the negative time were able to demonstrate though, well the material we thought the negative team brought that the affirmative team needed a more effective response to, was firstly that a lot of religious schools makes the specific efforts to integrate knowledge of and learning about other religions or indeed non-religions into their curriculum. Particularly through their inclination, more than secular schools, to run studies of religions classes, particularly in later high school. We also thought that they were able to demonstrate that for a lot of religions, acceptance, love, and nonjudgmental love for humanity at large was a precept of that religion and a principle that was taught quite firmly by these religious schools. And so we weren't concerned, at that point, that they would be churning out people who are unable to both interact with and integrate with broader society. And respect other religion to understand that tolerance and integration, to some extent, is a virtue of Australian society.

We did agree with the affirmative team that if you go to school with a more diverse set of people, your interactions with them are going to be less trivial and incidental than if you do you just happen to see them at the shopping center. Or you have minimal interactions with them at an excellent, but unfortunately only once a year, debating competition such as this one. And so we agreed with the affirmative team that those interactions would be of less value and less intensity if you didn't go to school with a diverse group of people.

But we did also think that religious schools, by their nature and by the structures of their curriculum in many instances, were able to produce children, essentially, who didn't necessarily then go into a society and go out into society and render it less tolerant, render it less able to integrate with one another and create cross-religious kind of connections and relationships.

So on this question of whether-- that leads neatly on to this question of whether it harms multiculturalism. We had an affirmative team that said that to teach children in exclusive environments that one particular religion is correct and to imbue them with a belief that only one religion, and oftentimes loosely connected to ethnicity, is correct is unhelpful. We've already demonstrated that we weren't sure that that would be the case.

We thought the negative team were also able to demonstrate that multiculturalism doesn't necessarily mean secularism. That multiculturalism is not entering into a community and subsuming one's faith to the broader secular precepts of that community. But rather multiculturalism is living out one's faith, living it out quite seriously in many instances, and then stepping out into the very multicultural Australian society, still representing that faith view and having that faith view. And not having it minimized and subsumed by broader society, but representing that faith in a melting pot of religions and people who hold certain sets of values.

So we weren't sure that multiculturalism was at risk as a result of religious schools. And indeed that religious schools are probably preparing students well, if not better than, secular schools, for a society where you have to live in tandem with people who you disagree with by who you are ordered to love, and accept, and engage with.

On the question of minority religious communities. We thought that the negative team-- the affirmative team built into their model some protections for people who would not, as a result of their model, be able to live out their religious beliefs by the inclusion of things like scripture classes and allowing students to do things like engage in prayer groups and things at lunchtime. I've already discussed how the negative team demonstrated that for a lot of religious minority groups, the structural realities of a secular school may not be able to absorb and integrate their religious beliefs, and so those religious beliefs would be quashed. We thought that, particularly in areas where a person of minority religious observance was forced into a secular school, where the majority were actively hostile to that student, that that student would probably be harmed. And minority religious faiths, sheerly by virtue of their minority numerical status, would be minimized, marginalized, and those students, as a result, would be harmed.

So at the end of this debate, we thought that the affirmative team were able to demonstrate that there would be serious, non-trivial harms. But to a reasonably small section of students who may not actually be all that well-served by secular or religious education. What we thought was that the negative team were able to demonstrate that multiculturalism is designed to integrate diverse viewpoints. That religious schools were not churning out students who were intolerant, unable to interact with broader society, and had no conception of the value of, or the utility of other religions and their existence. And so for those reasons, in what the three of us want to really emphasize was an exceptionally close debate, we've awarded it to the negative team.

[CLAPPING]

[INAUDIBLE] will congratulate the winners.

We'd like to thank you guys so much for debating today. We learned a lot of things, but I think you guys, in this competition, overall debating against all the other teams, we've learned a lot from you guys. Did really well and deserved to win. Thank you.

[CLAPPING]

Response [INAUDIBLE].

We'd like to also thank you for a really great debate. Also to all the other teams, we've really enjoyed the competition. It's been a great experience. And to everyone who ran the competition and put it on. And we'd like to thank you for that.

[CLAPPING]