Video transcript
NSW Premier's Debating Challenge 2018 Years 5 and 6 Debating Final

DUAA SIDDIQUI: Welcome to the State Final, the Premier's Debating Challenge for Year's 5 and 6. In 2018 876 teams entered the Year's 5 and 6 Challenge. And this debate is between the only two teams still standing. The Summer Hill Strikers and the Hastings Debatinators.

The affirmative team from Hastings is first speaker, Imogen, second speaker, Julian, third speaker, Matilda, and team advisor Charlie. The negative team from Summer Hill is first speaker, Aileen, second speaker, Chloe, third speaker, Joe, and team advisor, Emma.

The adjudicators for this debate are Kate, Ellie, and Toby. Each speaker may speak for 4 minutes. There will be a warning bell at 3 minutes with two bells at 4 minutes to indicate that the speaker's time has expired. A bell will be rung continuously if the speaker exceeds the maximum time by more than 1 minute.

Finally, before we begin, please ensure that all mobile phones are switched off. The topic for this debate in that all schools should put the smartest kids in separate classes. Please, welcome the first speaker of the affirmative team to open the debate.

[applause]

IMOGEN LUNN: There is a massive problem in the world around us. Smarter kids are being held back by the rest of their class. They aren't able to extend themselves or reach their full potential, because they are being put into random classes, not classes that are based on their ability. It is not fair to force kids who are smarter than their peers to do easy work. And it is not fair to force kids who aren't as smart as their peers to do work that they struggle with or do not fully understand.

We define the topic as all primary schools across Australia, private, public, private, et cetera. This is because in high school you have multiple classes, and therefore, would need to see it in multiple tests. Also, the majority of high schools already have enrichment classes, which are different to composite classes. This change would take place across the whole of Australia.

In the first week of the 2019 school year, tests will be set to determine the children that are smarter than their peers. Each individual year will have a separate class for the smartest children. I will be talking about how, firstly, it is unfair to all kids, smarter than average, average, and less smart than average.

Secondly, it will be easier to differentiate for teachers. My second speaker's arguments are, thirdly, children will reach their full potential. And finally, parents will receive their money's worth of education.

My team's first argument is that it is unfair for all children of all abilities. Right now all children in primary schools across Australia are either being held back in their learning or are struggling to keep up. It is unfair to make kids do work which does not cater to them.

The smarter kids should not be forced into doing work that they already completely understand. They should be doing work that challenges them and extends them, not work that they can complete in under 10 minutes. The same goes for kids who aren't as smart and who need some extra help. They need work that they are able to complete and able to understand.

This is unfair for all children. The less smart kids are not only struggling to complete their work. They are holding back those smarter as well, because they complete their work much faster than the rest of their peers and are then having to sit down doing nothing but the occasional extension work for long periods of time.

After the change, all children will now be doing work that is the right level for them. They will no longer be unfairly forced to do work that some kids find far too easy, and some kids find far too hard, because those who need extending will now be extended, and those who are working at an average level or a level where they need a little bit more help will be catered to.

This is important because kids smarter are currently being handed work or tests that they can complete so much faster than the rest of their peers, do so, and then have to sit down doing nothing for however long it takes for the rest of their peers to complete the work.

They feel frustrated and bored, because they aren't learning anything new. And this is when the government needs to step in and extend those who need extending and put them in an environment where they are being challenged. That is why we should put the smartest kids into a separate class.

My team's second argument is that it will be less stressful for teachers to differentiate their students. Right now, teachers are struggling to ensure that all their students are learning what is appropriate to their intelligence bracket, because all classes are a mix of learning levels. Composite classes, for example, are supposed to be enrichment classes, but due to the fact they are comprised of two year groups, the higher year group ends up learning things below their age group.

When the teacher, as usual, fails to properly differentiate, the smarter students are being pla-- to differentiate, smarter students are being placed into these classes, but are unable to extend their learning due to the dismal failure of their teachers, unless they are entirely ambiguous, which the vast majority of students are not even close to.

After the change, however, the smarter children will be put into these classes, and not only will both smart and average kids get a chance to learn the things they need to. Teachers will not be under the same magnitude of pressure to effectively differentiate, as they will only have to differentiate between the average and under average students, which is a learning group that is far easier to breach than the previous one.

This is important because teachers are already catering for so many students, answering questions and solving issues that keep them sleepless at night. It is just not fair to force teachers to do the impossible and differentiate between the two extremes of capabilities, as teachers need a break too.

For example, teachers have to respond to thousands of interactions with students daily, a task that is raising increasing concerns for teachers' well-being. And forcing teachers to differentiate their students is leaving them feeling stressed, exhausted, and, to some extent, sleepless. That is why we should put the smartest kids into a separate class.

[applause]

AILEEN CAO: We, as the negative team, accept the affirmative team's definition, but we disagree with it. But before I begin, I would like to point out some evident flaws in the opposition's case. The opposition stated that teachers cannot differentiate between smart students and students of a lower academic level. However, many teachers take tests that can help differentiate students. And this has been woodworking for hundreds of years. There is no need to fix something that isn't broken.

The opposition also stated that teachers will be stressed after a day trying to decide which kids are smart. Don't you think teachers will be more stressed after teaching students that have extremely high academic level? The opposition also stated that things will be better after the change, but the affirmative team has suggested that smart kids will learn more. But things are perfect right now. Smart kids don't need to be given harder work, as they can do harder work at home. Or they can simply put their skills to teaching the kids of lower academic levels things that they don't know yet.

The opposition also stated that it will be easier for teachers after this change. However, all the smarter students will be in another class. And so teachers will struggle to teach every single struggling kid that needs help. If every single child needs help, then how will teachers get to every single struggling student. Right now, smart kids can help their struggling students. And this is the perfect balance.

The opposition also stated that smart kids can do what they don't understand, but challenged kids can't. What's the difference, except the difficulty of the work? The opposition also stated that smart kids are not achieving the best of what they can do. However, right now children are taught work that is slightly above their level to challenge them. Smart kids will be putting their skills into teaching their struggling kids, and hopefully improving their skills as well.

As the first speaker of my team, I will be talking about how there be more bullying after this change, and how this will affect children's mental health negatively. Our second speaker will be talking about how there will be a lot of undue pressure, and how this will negatively impact Australia's education. Our third speaker will rebut and summarise our team's case.

My team's first argument will show that this change will increase hard feelings between students. Right now, bullying is not as prominent in classes, as there are no classes that are better than everybody else. Bullying does not happen extremely often, as bullies cannot claim that they are much smarter than other kids, as they are put into an academically smarter class. There is no big gap between students and classes, as everybody is evenly mixed into classes of similar academic level.

After the change, a gap will form between the classes of different levels. Kids more advantaged academically will bully kids who are at a lower level of education, claiming that they are much better off than these kids, while kids with a high confidence level will give smarter kids a hard time about how they are nerds.

For example, if a test suddenly sets a group of other people to a higher position in the school, wouldn't you feel spite and annoyed [inaudible] children suddenly moved to a class for smarter kids if you weren't part of this class? Children are touchy, and this change would only set students further apart from each other.

Soon the only interactions between students will be things like calling a gifted and talented student a nerd. That's important, because one of the main qualities of a good school is good relationships between students. Also, if all students can think about during school is when they will get bullied next, this will further make Australia's level of education drop, as students won't be thinking about their work.

Also, we need happy people to be part of the next generation. Happiness is extremely important in life. Many people will develop higher levels of stress after this change, which could lead into mental health problems. And this is just one reason why schools should not put the smartest kids into a separate class.

My team's second argument [inaudible] this change will negatively impact children's mental health. Right now mental health is already of concern to many health specialists. Therapists are becoming more in demand, as tests and assessments put more and more stress on students, often resulting in mental health issues.

After the change, parents will put even more pressure on to their kids to get into the smart class. This change would put huge amounts of stress on students, added to the expectation that they always need to reach the top. Many parents would lecture their kids about trying their best so much that children would slowly begin to believe that this single test would impact their entire lives.

Children would put increasing amounts of pressure on themselves to make it to the smart class, and because most of them wouldn't achieve this, this tension would explode, and instead, leave depressed kids who don't believe in themselves anymore. This single change could change the whole child's life for the worst. And this is just another reason why schools shouldn't put the smartest kids into a different class.

[applause]

JULIAN REED: The negative team's idea was that students would be bullied and will have their mental health badly affected. We just can't accept these for two clear reasons. Firstly, your mental health is not going to be affected, since you are learning more challenging things. That is why we must have this change, so that kids have their knowledge expanding and not decreasing to badly affect their mental health.

Secondly, as you already stated, bullying is very uncommon. This change will not change that at all. In fact, it will probably increase it even more. I mean, it will probably decrease it far more.

For example, if children are in the same class with less smarter kids, they are more likely to bully them because they aren't as smart as them. Putting them in separate classes will remove that and stop the bullying even more, instead of increasing it. That is why the other team is unfortunately, but obviously wrong.

My team's third argument is that this change will allow children to reach their full-- students to reach their full potential. Right now, very intelligent, bright kids are being put into the same classes as other children who aren't at their level. They are just not able to keep up with these intelligent people at all. And the few current composite classes are not doing enough to effectively bring every student to their complete and full potential.

This means that these very intelligent children are not able to reach the height of their potential. These children are being held back by these other students because they are in the same class, and are not learning everything they can. This is having a horrible effect on these very capable, smarter children. They are not being allowed to learn all they can for the future. This may include their future job or schooling life.

It is extremely important that we change this, because it is not only affecting school results and work capabilities, but it is also affecting their feelings, thoughts, and perspectives. Students are feeling like they aren't getting adequate learning. They know they are being held back, and they know why. Yet still they feel either that they are deliberately being denied adequate learning opportunities, or they will just have to accept that they aren't smart enough. Neither of these options are good and must not happen, for they will both confuse and make kids unsure of why it is they are not learning everything they need.

Meaning that they will feel reluctant to ask and will not be nearly as enthusiastic where they were or could have been. And these children will just accept that they aren't smart enough and that they aren't good enough. This is completely incorrect. This is completely incorrect. Though, it is what they believe in this case, effectively lowering their enthusiasm even further, and badly impacting their current schooling and future life, not being able to reach their full potential at all.

It is at this point that it is crucial for the government to step in and fix this major unfair and unnecessary problem. For example, at the moment, kids are not allowed to reach their full potential. Their education is being stunted. This is frustrating for kids, as they want to learn and reach their full potential. This change would allow them to do that. They will be happier and work better, as they will be with people of similar intelligence.

This change will make Australia a more intelligent country, as the younger people, full of potential, will be getting a head start that they desperately need. That is why we should put the smartest kids into separate classes.

My team's final argument is that this change will ensure that parents will get their money's worth on their child's education. Right now, parents are paying a huge amount of money to give their child the best education possible. They are spending more on their child if they are smarter and more capable of learning extra and more pricey information. These parents are paying these large amounts, and, in some cases, extra money on things like taxes or fees, because the parents are trying to do the best they can for their child.

All this, however, is being completely and unnecessarily wasted. These large sums of money and payments are not giving any extra impact on the children's education. The students who are less capable, or whose parents aren't paying as much money are getting the exact same level of education, meaning that, as I said, the children won't be getting enough opportunities. And as my first speaker clearly stated, it will be completely unfair.

It just is not right to hold back kids' learning and not allow parents to give their child's education paid for adequately. As it stands, parents might as well pay minimum taxes and fees, and their child will still get the exact same, restricting education. This is leaving parents feeling frustrated and really irritated, for all they want is for their beloved child to get a correct education. They see this and become infuriated at the school's education system, making them react harshly and angrily towards their kids, others around them, and especially the schools. That is why we must put the smartest kids into separate classes.

[applause]

CHLOE O'KEEFE: Good morning. Before I begin my speech, I would like to point out some obvious flaws in the opposition's statements. The opposition stated that education is expensive. Most public education is relatively free. And if there is a smart class that will be introduced, more people are more likely to spend money on things like tutoring to let their kids get into the smart class, making this ultimately more expensive.

The opposition also stated that if a child cannot reach their full potential, they will become depressed. However, by putting kids into a separate class with a good teacher will further decrease the disadvantaged kids' education, as smarter kids will help children who are not as smart if they need help or when they finish their work. Because not everyone can ask the teacher. They are only one person. They cannot help everyone at the same time.

The opposition stated that students need to achieve their full potential and might not be able to get good jobs. Even if they don't achieve their full potential in primary school, there are still six more years in high school to achieve this. Primary school is just getting a taste for what they like and what they don't, whereas high school is more focusing on one thing, which is where they can actually reach their full potential.

The opposition stated that bullying is not a huge problem and that putting kids into a smarter class would stop bullying or prevent a lot of it. However, by putting kids into a smarter class, you are simply acknowledging that they are better than everyone else, increasing bullying.

The opposition also stated that students would not be bullied, because they are not in the same class. Yet the smarter kids would probably still tease the struggling kids, saying that they are dumb. And the dumber kids will probably start teasing the smarter kids saying that they are nerds.

The opposition stated that mental health would not be effective because they are learning better things. They might be learning better things, but their mental health will be affected, because-- it will still be affected, because they will think they are too dumb to get into the smart class or they are nerds.

The opposition said that not being allowed-- that the kids right now are not being allowed to learn for the future. Yet many children learn extra things at home that they are interested in, or could work on these things in school after they have finished their work.

Now, on to my case. My team's third argument will show that many people will have to go through a lot of unnecessary pressure. Right now parents are putting small amounts of pressure on their kids for the tests. But this is not overwhelming. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It is healthy, because this encourages kids to do well in things like [? netplan ?] and ICAS.

After the change, many parents will start to put unnecessary amounts of pressure onto the kids to get into the smart class. If they do get in, they will constantly be pressured to keep up with all of the other kids in the class. This is important, because it will put many kids under large amounts of stress, affecting the way that they learn. Kids deserve time to be kids and hang out with friends and play, which they can't do if they are constantly studying to keep up with everyone else or get into a smarter class just to meet their parents' and peers' expectations.

Take a random student with above average intellect, for example. Their parents put mild amount of stress on them for things like [? netplan ?] and ICAS so they work well. But after this change is introduced and the smart class has [inaudible] student, their parents will put so much pressure on them that their child would start to snap under it, because that is why we should not put smarter kids into separate classes.

My team's fourth argument will prove to you that this change will negatively affect the education of Australia. Right now education's a balance because smart kids are mixed in with children who are less academically advantaged. This means that smart kids can bring up the people who are more challenged, because the people who are more challenged are subconsciously taking in the smart-- the things that the smarter kids learn.

Furthermore, smarter kids can help their more academically challenged friends after they have finished. After all, a teacher is only one person and can not help everyone at the same time. After the change kids will be split up, so they will only have the teacher to help them, which isn't enough. If students can have friends that help each other, it will mean that teachers are less stressed and that students can get their work done more quickly, meaning they can get more out of the school day. This is important, because it means the grades of the more academically challenged people will drop even further, making them feel worse about themselves and how smart they are.

For example, taking a class with a--

[bell]

That is why we should not move smarter kids into separate classes.

[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 the intelligent people that are supposedly going to start bullying the average kids are smart enough to understand that bullying is the wrong thing to do. Secondly, the less smart kids that are supposedly going to call those 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 team's idea was most certainly wrong.

One of the negative team's other ideas was that the kids will place 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 extremely important, doing the best you can, not necessarily being in the smart class, just doing the best you can. That is why the negative team's 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 far. 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 team's 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 team's idea was most certainly wrong.

The negative team also said that smart kids should teach the less smart kids in 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]

JOSEPH BRITTON: In this debate, I saw three questions arise. How will it affect both students' and teachers' mental health? Is it fair for all parents, teachers, and students? And how will it affect children's education?

First of all, how will it affect both students' and teachers' mental health? The opposition tried to convince you that kids who are smart want to be pushed. But if someone pushes you too hard, you will most definitely fall, as would happen if you had too much stress. You'd definitely snap under it.

They also tried to convince you that less smart kids look up to the smarter kids. Well, would you look up to someone who took your position, the position you deserved? All they would want to do is spite them and be envious of them, and that's what would cause bullying, not go, huh, they're smarter than me. I want to be [inaudible]. You're going to go, they're not smarter than me. I deserved that.

They'll also try to convince you that there will be no bullying, as kids know it's wrong. Kids don't know it's wrong because you become arrogant in yourself or you become envious. If you are put in the smart class, you'll become arrogant and abuse the privilege of it to try and put yourself above the other students. And if you didn't make it in, you will be envious and try and use your assumably more generally larger physicality, as most students who don't like academics prefer to be sporty, would have a larger physique, they'd use that to their advantage to try and harm the students they are envious of.

They also tried to convince you that'll be easier for teachers if they don't have the smart kids. Well, if the smart kids are in another class they won't be there to give their friends pointers. So it's just going to be, ooh, me, miss. Me. I need help, for nearly 30 students, meaning it's going to be more difficult for the teacher and put more stress on them. And as I have said before, when you're pushed too hard, you fall.

They also tried to say that parents won't push their kids if they're not ready. Well, most parents do love their children and want what's best for them. But for many parents, this means a better education. The parents would push their kids and become ignorant. Because they want their kids to do something, they become ignorant of some minor things that might hurt them, such as a slowly deteriorating mental health.

They also tried to convince you that children will not care that they're not at the top. Well, most children are naturally competitive. We are as humans. We want to be the best. And we're envious of those who are better than us. So this will most definitely cause bullying.

But they also tried to convince you that if a child cannot reach their full potential, they become depressed. Well, primary school is not for your full potential. It's for just getting a feel for everything. So you say, ooh, I like maths or, ooh, I like English. You have to learn everything so you can find your passion, so you can pursue that in high school when you get electives.

They also tried to tell you that bullying would not be a huge problem, and that putting kids into a smarter class would stop bullying. How would it stop bullying? It's not that big of a deal if you're in a different class, except if it's because of a reason. That will just increase bullying and ramp it up, not put it down.

They also tried to tell you that parents would only put a tiny amount of pressure on their kids. They wouldn't. It'd become amassed and damaging. [inaudible] affect children's education.

They said teachers cannot currently differentiate students, so that's why the grades are dropping. Well, teachers, they're trained to differentiate. They're paid to differentiate. If they're not differentiating, that's where the problem is, with the teacher, not with the student.

They also tried to tell you that teachers wouldn't be stressed after a day of running around going, your problem, my problem, your problem, my problem. No, they would. They would eventually snap.

They also tried to tell you that smart kids can do what they don't understand, but challenged kids can't. There's no difference between being challenged and smart, except for the level of work you can do. So if you do something you can't understand, then at a smart level, you should be doing it a more basic level.

I also tried to convince you that all children are doing work that is not catered to them. A lot of children are. Classes have teachers that are there to help students who are struggling and that can give the smarter kids help with extension work. Now, is it fair for budget reasons and for what children are doing?

The opposition stated that right now things are too expensive. Education is free. The only fees are for excursions, where you would pay anyway if you went to see that movie or that play and you'd get generally cheaper because it's an education discount.

[bell]

And that is why I'm proud to say we should not add another class for the smartest children.

[applause]

ELINOR STEPHENSON: All right, so I want to start this adjudication by congratulating every speaker in this debate on what the panel unanimously thought was a really, really excellent debate. We want to congratulate every speaker in this debate for getting to the state final, and further, for delivering a debate which was a super high quality for a state final. It was a debate which we really enjoyed watching, and which we thought was really excellent.

And we unanimously thought this debate was a really close one and a really good one. We thought that every speaker spoke in really good detail. And obviously, every speaker was super smart and would be in the top class if this model was a thing.

So what I'm going to do in this adjudication is, firstly, give a couple of pieces of general feedback that we think teams could work on into the future. Then I'll go through how I saw the debate. And then for some suspense, I'll give the result that the panel was unanimous on at the end.

So in terms of general feedback, we thought a couple of things would have enriched this already very excellent debate a little bit more. The first thing we'd say is that it would be really valuable for speakers to sort of quantify the likelihood of their points. So this was a debate in which we saw both teams claim that they were going to make bullying worse or better. And what we really wanted to hear is why it was likely that one conception of how bullying would occur was more true. And that was true for a couple of points within this debate.

So when both teams are trying to claim a benefit or a harm, it's really important to explain why your version is the one which is most likely. The other thing we'd say is that we thought that both teams sort of preferred-- so affirmative preferred their smart students. Negative preferred their struggling students. And we think at points in the debate, it would have been useful for teams to try a little bit harder to engage across those two different groups of stakeholders.

And the final thing we'd say is we think it would be helpful in this debate to provide a couple more real life examples from class. So rather than talking in really general terms about smart kids or kids who are below average, it would be useful to tell us what that really means in terms of what they're doing in maths or what they're doing in reading. So we thought that a little bit more realism in this debate would have helped.

In terms of how we saw the debate as a whole, though, we thought there were two main questions. The first one was whether or not separation of smart and less smart children was something which was good for their academic success. And the second one was about whether or not it was good for their welfare.

On the first one, though, about their academic success. Affirmative does a good job of explaining that there's a significant problem in the current education system where teachers struggle to deliver really specialised education to children with different learning needs, and that's something which means that smart kids are likely to stagnate, and which means less smart kids are likely to struggle.

Negative responds by saying that there's already some opportunities for extension, but moreover, being in combined classes is something which facilitates sort of peer mentoring and allows smart kids to help less smart kids. We thought that affirmative responded to this argument quite well by suggesting that actually it was probably the teacher's job to help struggling kids, but additionally, that they were best able to do that job at the point where they knew the general level of ability of their class and they were able to deliver specialised learning to smart kids and to average kids. So overall, we thought that teachers were able to do their job best when their classes were differentiated.

Then in terms of whether or not this plan was something which was good for welfare, affirmative tells us that academia is really linked to welfare in that children who are not being taught at the level which they deserve or require are likely to struggle or to stagnate in a way which makes them doubt themselves and lose confidence in academia. Negative tells us that actually this model is something which is likely to exacerbate bullying, because it makes differences in intelligence between students more visceral. And additionally, it was likely to increase pressure on students.

We thought affirmative's response that perhaps bullying was something that was more likely when classes were combined, but additionally that pressure wasn't always a bad thing and could actually be a motivating thing was quite good. And at the end of this point, we thought that probably bullying was likely to exist in both worlds. It was quite marginal as to where it might exist more. But it was probably the case that children were more motivated and happier with their academic success in a world where they had more catered lessons, and they were with peers of a similar level of intelligence.

So at the end of this debate we thought that this model was something which delivered children a better education academically. And although its impacts on welfare were quite marginal, we thought that children were probably happiest when they received lessons which were catered for them. And so as a panel we unanimously but closely gave this debate to the affirmative team.

[applause]

DUAA SIDDIQUI: A speaker will now congratulate the winning team.

EMMA WEN: Congratulations for winning the Premier's State Debating Final. You are very good debaters. It was an honour debating with you.

[applause]

DUAA SIDDIQUI: A speaker from the winning team will respond.

CHARLIE FORD: On behalf of my team, I would like to thank the timekeeper and chairperson for timekeeping and chairpersoning, the adjudicators for coming and adjudicating, Tony for recording and just doing all that good stuff, and the audience coming here and watching us, and the two coaches for coaching our teams and doing an amazing job with that. And also, I'd like to thank the other team for an amazing debate.

[applause]

INTERVIEWER: So ladies and gentlemen, one last time, the representatives from Summer Hill, who did such an amazing job making it to this semifinal, and making this semifinal so close. So please welcome up their first speaker.

[applause]

Congratulations to the second speaker, Chloe.

[applause]

And congratulations to their third speaker.

[applause]

And congratulations to their team advisor.

[applause]

And once again, to their coach, who's done a remarkable job this year, Ms. Glenda Belle. Congratulations.

[applause]

Ladies and gentlemen, your very worthy 2018 runners up, the Summer Hill Strikers.

[applause]

And we welcome up one by one the state champions. Please, welcome their first speaker.

[applause]

And their second speaker.

[applause]

Third speaker.

[applause]

Team advisor, an excellent thank you giver.

[applause]

And their coach, Mr. Morris.

[applause]

So ladies and gentlemen, the 2018 Premier's Debating Challenge for Years 5 and 6, state champions.

[applause]

AUDIENCE: Woohoo-hoo.