DORIS YANG: I welcome you to the final of the 2018 Premier's Debating Challenge for Years 7 and 8 Championships. This debate is between Northern Beaches Secondary College Manly Campus and Fort Street High School. The affirmative team from Manly is first speaker, Bezi, second speaker, Hannah, third speaker, Emma, and team advisor, Eleanor. The negative team from Fort Street is first speaker, Matilda, second speaker, Rose, third speaker, Leonard, and team advisor, Dennis. The adjudicators for this debate are Emily, Toby, James, and Pat.

Each speaker may speak for six minutes. There will be a warning bell at four minutes, with two bells at six 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 one minute. Finally, before we begin, please ensure that all mobile phones are switched off.

The topic for this debate is that the government should provide free unlimited internet access to all Australians under 18. Please welcome the first speaker of the affirmative team to enter the debate.

[applause]

BEZI SAUNDERS: Technology gives opportunity. The role of the government is to provide opportunity to the youth of Australia. And we believe that our model is the best way to give opportunity to students. So we are debating the topic that the government should provide free, unlimited internet access to all Australians under 18 years.

Our model is that by 2025 the government will have set up a national internet service in every household that has Australian residents or citizens under the age of 18. All residency records and birthdays will be checked to find out who is applicable to this programme. If you are connected to this network at home, then you are connected anywhere it is installed.

There is still an option for parents to keep their private internet services if they choose on a sort of opt out, opt in programme. So today I'll be talking about how internet equals advantage and how the public will react to our model.

My second speaker will be talking about the necessity in evolving technology, and about how this will benefit certain groups, such as low SES groups and those in remote areas. Now, onto my first point.

The internet is a massive advantage. We know this because it can instantly find relevant news articles and reports which make school work easier and allows students to access knowledge at anytime from any place that our programme's installed. It also holds communities, which provide support programmes, as well as the ability to shut away destructive communities.

So firstly, I will talk about the academic advantages of internet access. So because of the access to a vast database of knowledge, kids with internet can quickly find endless sources for essays and projects. As a result, class tasks have adapted and require more sources and more information. This means low SES kids or children without internet struggle in school, and can have a disadvantage because they do not have internet.

So under the status quo, these students struggle in school. And this can affect the HSC marks and [inaudible] life. And we believe that students should have the opportunity to be able to have internet because of this.

So furthermore, kids short of time can and do take advantage of internet in spare time to study as they approach the HSC. To prevent internet free kids from missing out in such an important stage of their life, since the HSC is done in the ages of 17 and 18, another advantage-- yeah, so this is really important for these kids under 18.

So another disadvantage in school caused by the lack of internet is that internet free kids will not be able to work on group projects. They will largely comple-- they are largely in and completed in Google Drive, or at home and in other programmes such as this. So furthermore, we believe that the majority of kids without internet live in rural areas where it's extraordinarily time consuming to travel to friend's houses to work on these projects, all because internet cannot reach them in their area.

So now on to the less important and still important social advantages of internet access. So for minority groups, the internet provides a platform to reach out and find support. We see this especially in social community [inaudible] social media such as Tumblr, where the LGBT community bands together, discusses issues, and tell each other how to deal with these issues, or reassure that they have people to support them.

And we also see this with mental health websites that provide support networks and chat rooms for people to be able to talk about their issues. And we believe that people without this internet will find it much harder to access these support programmes, and that this will be much harder for them overall to be able to get this opportunity and advantage from this.

So also, internet allows to Skype and text, allowing kids to communicate with friends and family. This is especially important. Friends and family are often sources of support and reassurance in life, and the internet provides an advantage with this.

So now on to my second point. And this is how the public will react to our model. So as you can see, there is a problem and a need for our model. It is also clear that the government needs to intervene with this issue. And recently the internet has been added to the rights of the child. And we believe that all children should have access to an internet, and the government should provide them with this basic human right. And it is essentially the government's responsibility to do this.

So let's look at the two groups of people effective in Australia with internet. That would be under our model. So there's the kids without internet. So our model gives these kids internet, and the ability to research for school, work on projects, talk to [inaudible] friends without having to worry about the financial burden or other factors.

So my second speaker will expand on this and how this will affect our kids. So our model will also affect-- and under the status quo, these kids shouldn't have to pay for internet in the first place, as this is such a necessity to them. But our model will be able to allow them to do this without having to pay.

And thirdly, under the status quo, these kids will never even have the opportunity to have internet in the first place. And our model would give these kids the ability to do this. Now for the other group, which is the kids who currently have internet. So as I stated before, parents shouldn't have to pay this in the first place. So we are simply providing them with the essentials that the government didn't provide earlier on. So these parents will now be able to spend their money on other aspects, rather than internet, and not suffer the disadvantages.

Also, we live in a society where everyone should be treated equally. And that's why we are giving it to everyone. And even if the family chooses to opt out to the programme, this will benefit them as well because they will be able to use it as a back up for when internet is down.

So therefore, our model will [inaudible] benefit and will ultimately affect both groups in a positive way. It will be also able to solve the issues that the status quo and must be implemented. Thank you.

[applause]

MATILDA GIBIAN: The first speaker of the-- oh, sorry.

The first speaker of the affirmative team gave a few main points, that having the internet can give children a massive advantage in school. But we believe that this project will take too long to be in action to give the children of today a massive advantage in school, and also that society isn't at the point where having a device is a necessity to be good in school and to have this information. And we believe that schools and libraries have devices and have information that you can access quite easily without needing your own Wi-Fi and device.

They also pointed out that having internet is a necessity and a right of the child, but many parents may see fit that their child shouldn't have Wi-Fi and that their child should be focusing on school, and not want this distraction for their child. As well as this, it isn't really a necessity at this moment, especially when you consider that many schools do still work on pen and paper, and many schools have decided against the BYOD project, because they think it offers distractions and that [inaudible] paper can give them many advantages, especially in the HSC, where it's still writing.

They also stated that it can help these children find a voice and project their thoughts. We're not really sure about this, because if they are claiming that this is like this internet that everyone will have, I don't think that the kids that haven't really had this Wi-Fi before, haven't really had access to this are really going to be the ones most vocal in this situation.

If you're a child who has had access to this internet before, has been using a device your whole life, has been connected to social media, compared to someone who hasn't had access to Wi-Fi, is used to using pen and paper, is used to just going about their life without using this internet, you're much less likely to use it in the way that you are really becoming vocal and projecting your voice on the online community.

They also stated that this would help HSC students. We have two responses to this. Firstly, that the majority of students do turn 18 during the school year, and when you turn 18 you do lose the right to this internet. And if they are really saying that this will help lower SES background people, then really it should be for the HSC if anything, because they need this to help them. And if they're just taking away this thing that they've had their entire life because their family can't afford it, as the affirmative team has pointed out, then why-- then it's not really going to help them, and it's going to be a massive disadvantage to them.

As well as this, the HSC is writing. And if we put too much emphasis on the technology side of things, if we don't focus on writing, and working with pen and paper and with your own brain to find information, then this might not really help with the necessary skills that they need. The affirmative team tries to make it seem like not having internet can hugely disadvantage students and that having it is a right that every student deserves, but we, the negative team, disagree, and think that their solution is going to try and fix this fairly small problem in a way that could do more harm than good, and could ultimately be ineffective.

To convince you of this, I will be talking about the way the model would work, and how it could backfire and do some harms, and some alternatives to this model that are already in place and are still working right now. My second speaker will be talking about how this Wi-Fi could provide distractions, especially for those who may have not used it before, for those who have been using it for a long time and are not limited anymore.

My team's first argument is that the phenomenal cost of this project could cause harms. A project like this is obviously going to cost an insane amount of money and time. And we believe that this could cause real harm to the people that need this the most. An example of how a project similar to this could cost a lot more money and time than was predicted is the government's plan to introduce the MEM, which started out being predicted at only a few billion, taking a few years, but has grown and is still in the process of being fixed, and has grown over budget by billions of dollars.

This model has the potential to be even bigger than that. As even though the affirmative team has provided an opt out system, not many families are going to opt out, as this is free internet. They won't have to pay for it as much, and especially as it may seem like a good idea in the beginning. But for many families, the majority of families will be on this. It will have a constant need for maintenance and upkeep if they're going to want this to work properly for every student in Australia. And it's going to continuously need to be built upon because there are more children every year.

They will have to keep track of ages and shut it off when they turn 18. And we believe that as the government runs out of money, they'll take shortcuts to try and make this more effective for them. This could really hurt rural areas, as it's likely that this project will start in cities, as there are more children there, and it is easier to do it where there are more children.

Once they get to rural areas, they will be out of the money and resources they need to apply this, especially when these places are far out, when there's a few people in one area that might need this internet, and then a few people kilometres away that are going to need this. They will likely have gone over budget and will have less facilities in place to do this.

Now, better alternatives to this that could help the students that do need this, instead of just letting students that already have these facilities and already have the money to pay for them get this internet first, get it the best way they could without undermining what the people that need it is improving funding for libraries and schools that already provide this free access, and improving the way that we hand out devices to children in our schools so that we can use them.

We believe that this is a much more beneficial way to deal with this problem than just applying this fix all that anyone can deal with without considering how much money it's going to cost, and how the government will most likely run out of resources, as with the [? nbm ?] problem, and go over budget. And we believe this will go on much longer than needed.

[bell]

Thank you.

[applause]

HANNAH TOYODA: Ladies and gentlemen, our society is evolving in technology. And in order for our students of Australia to receive the best education possible, we must provide all of the students under 18 with unlimited internet access.

Firstly, I would like to address some errors in the opposition's case. They first rebutted us by saying that the process will take too long to implement, and therefore, be ineffective. However, we believe that there is a serious problem, and we need to fix it. We believe that even if what they were saying was true, it will be more beneficial in the long run to prevent our future children from suffering from these disadvantages of no internet connection.

They also stated that it will be a distraction and they won't know how to use it. However, firstly, we believe that every child should be able to access the internet no matter their use or their intention for use. We believe that to have internet use for both leisure and education is more important and better than having no internet access whatsoever.

They also said that kids that haven't used the internet before will not be able to use it well. We can easily provide education of this, since kids with tend to engage with technology quite easily and learn quite quickly. They said that the HSC is on paper. So this won't actually improve their education for the HSC. Yes, the HSC is a written test on paper. However, they need to do research. They need to do studying. They need to look up information and type for this test. And they can simply not do this without internet.

They also stated that we are trying to fix a small problem, and it's not that big of a deal. However, being deprived of a disadvantage that you need in order to reach a full education is not a small problem, as it is the government's responsibility to provide the best education for Australian children.

They also stated that parents think that their child should focus, how technology provides a distraction the same way books do, a massive source of knowledge and information that occasionally causes you to go off topic, and in the long run is effective. They stated that parents should be able to keep internet access away from their kids if they choose. We do not believe that parents should be able to withhold such an educational and useful in general tool, even if they do believe it's the best for their kids, because it is not. It is the best for their education.

They say that we don't need it because devices are in libraries anyway, and they're still accessible without our model. However, the majority of internet free kids live in rural areas, away from these kind of infrastructures that provide this. Anyway, kids should still be able to work and have access to internet in their home.

OK, their first speaker of the negative team brought up two main topics, the costs, that our model won't work, and that there are other alternatives. Firstly, they said that it's going to take too much time and cost too much money. We have two responses to this.

The internet is actually extremely cheap. It is just waves going through the air. And the internet people, such as Telstra, just jack up the prices in order for profit. And the government can easily pay for this.

We believe that even if this does cost a lot of money, the health and the knowledge of our society, and our future comes way before any economic issues. They said that we have other alternatives, such as the [? nbm. ?] However, things like the [? nbm ?] that are currently available are not effective. The main difference is that everyone is not accessible to it, because it is not available in all locations, and it's also not free, unlike our model, which provides it for every single student. And this is just a framework, and our model will actually solve the issue of the disadvantages.

OK, now on to my substantive. My first point is on the role of technology in society. You see it all around you. Someone's playing games on an iPhone, typing an essay on the train, FaceTiming their friend in another country. You can see our modern digital technology has seamlessly integrated and enhance this world.

Technology is a varied area, but it's ultimately a force for good. And this will be touched on my next point. The main reasons for this technology is connection and information. Connection allows friends and families to support each other over great distances, plan meetings in advance, and help parents find their kids in a large crowd. Connection is a part of human social nature and has been one of the oldest technologies. This information aspect ties more heavily into education, as the internet is a particular vast platform dedicated to collaboration and education.

No, it's not perfect. Yes, there is some rubbish to sort through, but it is not exposed as education. Fosters critical thinking and research skills. Any questions? The internet had answers.

So we have proven to you the digital technology and why it is beneficial. But why is this essential to students? Because it is relevant. Our world changes and evolves, and education moves with it. Schools will always want to prepare people for the real world and give them the best education that they possibly can receive. Technology has so many uses, and is already being adapted into many learning programmes. And with writing essays, making online projects in Google Classroom to collaborate society places huge importance on technology, and so do schools. It reflects the changing society that we live in, and is essential for students to get the best education.

All students should have internet access because of the value of it in society in our education system. It provides many opportunities which everyone should have access to. No one should get left behind in this changing world.

Now on to my next piece of substantive. My next point is about the stakeholders currently suffering in the status quo. These are financially suffering students, and these students living in rural areas who have limited access or unable to access the internet. Ladies and gentlemen, we, as the affirmative team, believe that no student should be deprived of the internet, especially in our evolving society of technology.

Currently the status quo, some students are unable to access the internet due to personal complications, which is an unfair disadvantage. This prevents those students from a great education, which is a disgrace, as the internet is an essential part of learning, such as just like pen and paper.

Our model is, without a doubt, the best solution of providing equal opportunity for every single student in Australia, as it removes these financial barriers from interfering with their education.

[bell]

The truth is, parents should not have to pay for their internet-- for the internet, as it is not only a learning tool, but it's also going to affect other students' learning if they cannot contact each other for group projects.

The government is obligated to step in when it-- the government is obligated to provide the best education for every single student and step in when this issue affects more than the individual themselves, which is, in case of this, the group projects of the students.

Under 18s are especially vulnerable to this, as they do not have a financial income to support payment for this internet, such as unlike university students or people above the age of 18. Take for example sanitary items, under the discussion in the media, being that they should be free or tax free in order to give access to every single female in need. Just like the internet, it is an essential item for living in our society, and financial issues should not be able to interfere to giving access to every single student.

Therefore, internet access for all students under the age of 18 is pure rights, particularly for struggling students to break down financial barriers. And that is why I am proud to affirm. Thank you.

[applause]

ROSE KENYON: The second speaker of the negative team brought up two new main points. Their first point was that this is a necessity. And their second point is that this helps minorities. We have [inaudible] both of these points. First I'll talk about necessity.

Yes, we agree, the internet is important. But you need devices to access it. So despite all the effort put into this model, it will not help minorities, and it will not help them gain this necessity because they do not have these devices. If they cannot afford internet, chances are they cannot afford most devices.

There is a bigger and bigger industry in devices these days. In order to get a good one that does not need constant maintenance, it is over $1,500. It is very hard. And if you get a cheaper one, you will need constant maintenance, adding up to a very similar price. This means that even with this model, they will still not be able to access the necessity of the internet. And they will not be helped by this.

They also stated it would help minorities. Now, there's an old quote out there called 'a rising tide floats all boats.' This is an old saying. And in the case of this topic, the internet is the tide. But what if you don't have a boat? You will not be floated by this, and you will only sink.

Devices are the boats in this situation. And these minorities don't have these devices. Therefore, they cannot break down these barriers, as the opponent's stated. And they will not be able to make the most of it. They will not be helped by this. They will only be hindered and laid further back. This is not what we want.

They also stated that somehow they will get money for this. But this money does not come out from nowhere. If the affirmative wants to claim education as their primary benefit, they will have to accept that this money is at least, in part, going to have to come out of education, therefore, hindering the schools so that the topics covered will be less developed, and it will be much harder for them to develop in personal time, because they will not know what to look for.

This will not help them. And as we stated, the internet will be bad anyway. So if you harm the school's internet as well, it will be very hard for them to find any form of educational sources.

Now, to continue my team's case. My team's third point is about how this will cause a major distraction to the children while they are working on schoolwork and homework. Kids all around Australia adore gaming, texting others, and using social media. This is known by all society, because there is many articles written about this, opinion comments. There are many surveys done on this. Heaps of articles are written about kids gaming, how it's not that good for their health, using social media too much, and all sorts of other things.

Their ability to do this is limited currently by the lack of Wi-Fi, while travelling, maybe at home, out about, or even at school, cause the sites are blocked. This allows them to still be productive offline and at school using things like Microsoft Word and other services that don't need Wi-Fi. So they aren't currently hindered in school by their love of gaming.

When their model is put in place they'll be much less responsible, cause they can use these games anywhere they like, especially when they're younger, when they don't understand what will happen in the future when they don't pay attention in games. This is because they have the choice to do this. And on unlimited Wi-Fi, they are almost guaranteed to do it. It is much more fun for them. It's much more enjoyable. And when they're younger, they cannot see the bad effects of this.

So before their model is implemented, kids will think, I can't use data for watching YouTube or gaming cause that will waste my data. I'm not going to do it. And then they'll think, if I waste data, it's bad, because I won't be able to use it for other things, and my mum or dad [inaudible]. And they'll just do home and schoolwork, which don't require Wi-Fi, or as much data as all because, oh, I don't want to waste my data.

But after their change happens, they will not need to waste their data for watching YouTube or gaming. So they will think, I won't waste data. So I can watch as much as I like. There's no punishment that's coming. And they'll think, oh, work can wait. I can watch YouTube now, cause this is happening. So they will think there are no bad effects of this.

When there is nothing that affects them in this bad way, such as no data remaining and their parents finding out, they will definitely take advantage of it, and use it for a non educational purpose. This is important, because it defines one of the main reasons the affirmatives thought this model would be good to implement, which is education. But instead, it actually negatively harms their education, because they will be more entitled to play games.

In a survey carried out this year by the 'Sydney Morning Herald' it showed that half of parents who know how many games their children play, 75% of them say that their children played for more than the recommended half an hour.

This is just currently, and when that model is implemented, it would rise drastically, because children who didn't have access to games originally will now be able to play games. This sudden discovery is likely to spark interest. Because they have received no previous practical education on excessive gaming, they are guaranteed to cut into their learning time by gaming, because they have now been given this opportunity and they will want to use it.

This proves that their model will only make the current gaming situation worse, and will only hinder the education of the students and stop their future from growing. This is why we must not give unlimited, free Wi-Fi to all kids under 18, because it will hurt their gaming. Thank you.

[applause]

EMMA WALTON: OK, so to begin I would like to present some rebuttal, but some of my rebuttal will be embedded. Firstly, they said a government service will be-- wait. They said-- well, we say that a government service will be far cheaper, as they are not driven by profit. And this is important so that parents are not paying outrageous prices for their kids to access an educational tool.

The government should be responsible for providing education. And since this tool is largely used for educational purposes, we should provide this as well. The opposition also keeps saying that our model is ineffective, as it will take too long to implement and will run out of resources.

However, they brought up the example of the [? nbm, ?] saying it failed because of the idea. No. It failed because they used the wrong materials, and they rolled it out the wrong way.

The government who implemented this even said that they only use it for checking emails and constantly complained that gamers were taking up too much bandwidth. We need this bandwidth for watching videos, which have educational purposes too, and many parts of social media that can provide support.

OK, they also said unlimited internet is a waste of internet. But unlimited internet means you can have education provided by internet, and that is unlimited-- only limited by the time you are spending. OK, also you need a lot of internet for group work. It takes a lot of internet to be on Google Drive and seeing someone writing at the same time that you are writing.

OK, so the debate came down to two major questions, whether kids need or deserve internet, and whether our model will provide this internet. So in the first topic, our first speaker talked about how the internet is an academic advantage, as well as a social one, saying that we shouldn't continue to deprive currently internet free kids of these advantages. We want a level playing field. This is the point of capitalism, so everyone gets an opportunity.

These advantages were, the ability to access a massive collection of knowledge, the ability to access it at their or their friends' homes, and the ability to work on group work, the ability to find support largely on social media, the ability to contact friends and family also for support, and communication in general, which is a good thing. The opposition proposed these potential harms of internet access for all. One, that the internet may be destructive. It is better to have the opportunity to learn and potentially pass it over than not having that opportunity in the first place.

They also said that people who are not used to using the internet will not use it well, but since kids tend to engage with technology more than books or whatever else, we can easily teach them how to use this technology, since they will listen in any classes. Our second speaker talked about how internet access is necessary in a world increasingly reliant on technology. We are here to prepare them for the future and not the past. The opposition claims that people who can't afford internet can't afford devices. However, internet is something that requires monthly payments, therefore, a stable job, whereas devices tend to be a one off payment instead of a more difficult commitment. So they can save up small amounts over time and buy this device. However, they may not be able to pay for the internet for a long period of time.

OK, and now on to the issue of whether our model will provide this internet. So since our model comes into effect in 2025, we have seven years to roll it out. And we believe that this should be plenty of time. We can get many people to work on this at once, and it will get done in time.

Because of the excessive amount of paperwork in our society, it should be easy, or, at the very least, possible to find out [inaudible] and where we need to provide internet for them. If parents take advantage of this internet, we believe this is a worthy price to pay for a more equal playing field for all children.

The opposition brought up some major points against us, saying the [? nbm ?] failed. Again, they failed. So why won't our model? The [? nbm ?] used subpar materials, and the people who were responsible for rolling it out did not appreciate the full use of internet, and only aim to provide a limited area of the internet, which does not provide all the benefits.

OK, they also said that our model comes into effect too late to make a difference. However, technology will only go forward and not back. So we won't not need internet in the future.

OK, again, on the same subject, the opposition says that the internet will be taken advantage of and provide distraction of games and movies. One, under the status quo, games and movies can be downloaded and played at any time anyway. Two, the educational benefits largely require kids to be online. Three, kids should be able to make these choices and learn from any mistakes they make. For these reasons, it should be clear that all kids under the age of 18 should have free internet provided by the government, and the harms that the opposition has proposed are not enough to deny them this right.

[applause]

LEONARD KELLY: So I thought that there were two main questions in this debate. So will there be any backlash from the model? Will there be negative effects from this model? Will this disadvantage certain students?

And secondly, the main, major, big question was, will the quality of education improve with this model? Will actually students will get better education? Will they be better students overall?

So on to the first [inaudible] question. So the affirmative team sort of failed to present us with a mechanism that would be different from the [? nbm. ?] They haven't really taught us how they would make sure that there will be no delays with building. And since they said all homes will be connected, this means that when a child is born in a family without it, the government will be required to build a new cable every time the new child is born. And we think that this means constant construction going on, and all this money being poured out from the education sector where it's more needed in special services, selective schools, other funding.

Yeah, they also said that the internet is just through waves in the air and it's really easy for the companies to use Telstra, for example, as their way to provide access to internet for rural communities. But what we're seeing now in the status quo is that, for example, Telstra, regional communities are paying money to Telstra so that they can get internet.

And if the affirmative team's model is correct and they say that, the government will use Telstra to give internet, then if Telstra's already providing that internet, and this internet is bad, how is the quality of their Wi-Fi going to get better? They've sort of addressed that there'll be more of the quantity, that everyone will have Wi-Fi. But they haven't addressed the fact that this Wi-Fi will be really bad because everyone will be using it.

They also refuse to sort of address the fact that there will be backlash from certain minorities, and these minorities include, for example, people who aren't Australian citizens. They said that people who were Australian citizens would benefit from this, but they forget to think about all the millions of migrants that come to Australia that are on a temporary visa and have children, and have to pay to go to public schools and aren't really citizens. These millions of migrants won't actually be able to access this resource and will be disadvantaged from all other kids who have it. And their quality of education won't be better. They'll just be disadvantaged compared to these other kids.

Also, they didn't really address the fact that most kids in Year 12, they're turning 18. And so from this time when, before the test, most kids will turn 18, this means that a certain point in that year, they will be cut off from this Wi-Fi. And this is really important, because what we think is that if these Year 12s are going to rely on this Wi-Fi, and suddenly it's been cut off in the middle of the year when they're really busy researching and revising, how are they going to have the time to try and get new Wi-Fi? They're going to become really stressed and worried about this, because now they don't have this free access to Wi-Fi that they've had for a long time.

Yeah, so now onto will the quality of education improve? So I'd like to first state the affirmative team at their best. So they said that all children will have access to internet at their homes. Children will easily be able to research things, do group projects, collaborate. They will use this for everything that they do, and that there'll be long term benefits and social benefits. But in this case, we see lots of people actually don't have access to devices, because they're poor.

If you think about it, if these [inaudible] families have to save up for things in small amounts, like $50 a month, then how are they supposed to have enough money to also pay for Wi-Fi while saving up for devices at the same time.

So we will see-- and they also say that we'll see everyone on devices. So first of all, this is bad. So first of all, the affirmative team, they haven't really mentioned the quality of the Wi-Fi. They've only said they'll be like quantity to people. Because if everyone's using the Wi-Fi, it means the whole system will be under strain, and internet will actually become really slow. So even if they have it, it'll become so slow and hindered that it will be unusable, because the one system is taking on all these strains of millions of people, using it at the same time. And then the internet will basically be unusable. So they won't provide any benefits.

So the affirmative team also stated that kids will always be on their devices and researching. And we think, first of all, that this is bad, because once they're 18, they lose this access. And if they can't be on their devices, and they've become so independent on researching on devices, they've become so dependent that they have this Wi-Fi, how are they going to be able to deal with it when they don't have this Wi-Fi anymore? How are they going to be able to research in books, research in other places, look for alternative ways to learn?

Also, if lots of people use Wi-Fi, this also means that kids are going to be more glued to their screens because they have access to Wi-Fi. They can always go on their phone and look at Wi-Fi. They can always look at stuff using the Wi-Fi. And this means that there'll be sort of less fa-- well, we can also say that this will mean less face to face conversation.

You see in school playgrounds that everyone's on their phones. And this will only get worse when the affirmative implements their models. So everyone will be on their phones. No one will be communicating to each other, because they have this free Wi-Fi that will make-- and then they'll become addicted to this, because all the time they have access to it. And this is really bad, because then they won't talk to each other. They'll just become dependent on Wi-Fi. And when this is suddenly abruptly stopped, they'll be so dependent that these families with low SES-- low SES families that won't have-- the kids that won't have the Wi-Fi anymore, they'll be stripped of the Wi-Fi. They'll sort of lose-- and because they're so dependent on it, they'll sort of be lost. They won't know how to talk to other people. They won't know anything else.

And we think that if they use it all the time, this means that-- and on with the quality of education, we believe that already we're seeing schools have Wi-Fi. And so that this means that in schools when they actually do use the Wi-Fi, they already have it. And in homes, we will see that the Wi-Fi is so slow, hindered, and bad that they won't be able to use it. It won't improve the quality of their education. In fact, this can have a negative effect on the schools, as the Wi-Fi there is also connected to the system, and will become more slow hindered as well. So the whole system will be worse, and the education quality will be worse.

[bell]

That's [inaudible]. OK.

[applause]

EMILY KIM: OK, before I get into the adjudication, I just wanted to take a quick second to say, thank you to everyone who has been here for this tournament. I genuinely enjoyed being here as an adjudicator. I was so happy I got the opportunity to meet all of you, to adjudicate you, and get to know you as people. I think you are all excellent debaters and excellent people, and you should be super, super, super proud of everything you have done at this tournament. So a round of applause to everybody.

[applause]

And please make sure to thank the teachers and coaches who did come and support you this entire time.

OK. So what you just witnessed, as I'm sure you all know, was a really excellent and interesting debate. So I'm going to start with a couple of things that I wanted to say generally to both teams, and then I'm going to go into some specific feedback and tell you how the debate actually broke down.

So at a general level, what we thought was really good in this debate was we had quite a high level of engagement on both teams with arguments that the other side was giving. That was something really excellent, and it made-- the debate was very exciting, but also meant that both teams were able to tackle some big issues without just kind of giving their own material to us.

We also thought there was some very impressive understanding of kind of the complex infrastructure and the complex social issues that were at play in this debate, which is something that is not easy to do for this kind of a debate. And these debaters were debating well above their age level there. So congrats to both teams on that.

Something we thought maybe could have been done slightly better by both teams, though, was maybe taking a little bit of time to acknowledge different groups of stakeholders in the debate. That is we thought both teams did quite a good job, often strongly characterising a particular type of kids that were maybe helpful to their case. But in order to ultimately win a debate, it's also important to engage with the types of kids who maybe at first glance didn't seem that helpful to your case, but the other side was bringing up and engaging with quite thoroughly.

So what that meant was acknowledging, even if it might make your job a little bit harder, that kids are not all exactly the same, surprisingly. And there is some level of nuance to various groups of stakeholders that we're talking about in the debate. So that was just one thing that we thought could have been done kind of a little bit better across both teams.

So how did we see this debate break down? So we thought there were kind of three broad questions that emerged in this debate. The first one was about whether internet access is actually really that important for kids. The affirmative team gave us a lot of really great material on this question. They told us that internet access is very important for educational growth, because it allows you to do very up to date research to do your assignments, because schools often require you to do online research in order to hand in your tasks, to engage in things like group projects when maybe you cannot physically meet with your peers, and also to engage in your own study in a very quick and efficient way from the comfort of your own home.

They also gave us some very interesting material about the social benefits of being able to connect to internet, including the ability to form online communities that might not otherwise exist for you. For instance, if you are of a minority background, being able to meet other people like you. Also, being able to communicate with friends and family that you, again, maybe can't physically meet up with all the time, and also just the bare, kind of fundamental need to be able to know how to control and use a tool that is becoming increasingly important in the evolving world. So they gave us a lot of great material there.

What did the negative team say in response to this? They told us that maybe it is not true that internet is that necessary for school. So they taught us a lot of schools are moving away from having such a focus on using only technological devices. They're kind of going back to traditional learning methods. And they also said, in cases where you may need to use the internet, you might have some level of existing measures, like kind of libraries at school and that kind of thing.

However, frequently throughout their case the negative team kind of conceded at times that they thought that internet could be a very beneficial and important thing to kids. And then the bulk of their case often rested on proving that we couldn't achieve those benefits. What that meant was they seemed at times willing to accept some of the broad benefits that the affirmative team was giving us, particularly because we didn't get much of a response to, in particular, the social benefits.

Most of the responses here were about kind of the educational benefits in saying you could already access them to the extent that you needed, to which the affirmative team was able to reply by saying, it is quite fair to assume that we should give all kids the ability to do that from their home, that you shouldn't have to always go to your local library to do that.

So we thought at the end of the first issue, what we thought is that both teams, maybe to differing extents, but broadly agreed that internet access probably was quite an important tool for most kids to be able to access for their own social and educational development. Secondly then, what did we think about the ability of this model to be rolled out effectively? A lot of the negative material came to head here.

They told us, firstly, it was likely to be impractical. It would probably not be implemented correctly, because it was particularly costly, time consuming, and complicated. And they told us that things like schemes like this had not worked successfully in the past. So they were unsure why the affirmative team is able to solve all of those problems. So they give us problems, like what that might mean is it kind of gets rolled out in cities, but regional and rural kids ultimately get left behind, that sort of thing.

The affirmative team, we thought, could maybe have done a stronger job responding to this particular issue. We thought at times their responses sounded a little bit dismissive. And they told us that, well, we can fix it because we're going to implement it in a different way. And we're not going to kind of have the same problems. We're not going to incur the same difficulties, because we're going to roll it out differently. We know what went wrong those times so we won't do that this time.

What we thought at the end of the second issue is that we thought the negative team did quite a good job establishing that there was quite a significant chance that maybe this might not be rolled out perfectly as the affirmative team wants. However, what we did think that the affirmative team managed to do is to prove that it at least definitely wouldn't go wrong, and there were still kind of maybe ways in which we could address it differently so that even if it wasn't perfect, we could maybe do it better than it has been done before.

So then we got to the final issue about how kids will actually utilise this kind of new free internet access. The negative team gives us a lot of strong material here, and tells us that children are likely to use it irresponsibly because they suddenly have unlimited internet wherever they go. They're going to be distracted, playing games all the time. And they're going to be really addicted to this new, kind of unlimited access.

The affirmative team also gives us some good material here. They tell us from early on in their case that internet is already being used by kids in a particular way. That is, it is being used to do assignments. It is being used to study. It is being used to access social benefits. And they tell us the remaining kids who will now get newfound access are likely to just use it in the ways that they wanted to use it in the first place just to be at a level playing field with the other kids. And they also tell us that kind of most kids, especially those maybe who haven't had access to things like games before, are probably unlikely to engage with it in that particularly negative way.

What we thought at the end of this third issue is we accepted that there were maybe instances in which some kids would maybe get really addicted because they have all of this new free internet. They can use it whenever they want. However, we thought that because both teams had kind of conceded, and the affirmative team proved very strongly early on in the debate that this internet access could have huge and important benefits to all of kids in society, we were willing to accept that some kids might use it irresponsibly for the sake of the kids who would broadly use it fairly, and would use it in the right way, because we accepted that maybe kids did need the fair chance and the opportunity to use it in those ways as their peers have been doing for years and years.

So at the end of what was an excellent and enjoyable debate we have awarded this in a 3-1 split to the affirmative team.

[applause]

DENNIS YEO: Well done, guys. So I think you did really good [inaudible] obviously because you won.

[laughter]

You're a really strong team, and we wish you luck for your future debates.

[applause]

DORIS YANG: A speaker from the winning team will now respond.

ELEANOR YETTS-MCKERNAN: OK, wow. That was a really big thing. And we are really happy to have won. But honestly, we did not know how this was going to play out. You rebutted our model so thoroughly, we had no idea who would win. Your points were so strong.

And over the week, we've come to know you as people as well. And we know you're so nice, and we wish you luck with your future debates.

[applause]

INTERVIEWER: So to present the medallions, we have Lloyd Cameron. And then to present the certificates to all the participants, and, firstly, to our runners up from Fort Street High School, please welcome Matilda Gibian.

[applause]

Leonard Kelly.

[applause]

Rose Kenyon.

[applause]

Dennis Yeo.

[applause]

And their coach, Martin Cox.

[applause]

Ladies and gentleman, Fort Street High School.

[applause]

And now from the winning team, let's first call upon Bezi Saunders.

[applause]

Hannah Toyoda.

[applause]

Emma Walton.

[applause]

Eleanor Yetts-McKernan.

[applause]

And on behalf of their coach, Madeline [inaudible].

[applause]

And just while they're getting that photo I'll give to Lloyd Cameron the Lloyd Cameron Cup to the winners of the 7 and 8 Championships.

[applause]

LLOYD CAMERON: Have a handle. Yeah.

[laughter]

[applause]