Video transcript
NSW Premier's Debating Challenge 2019 - Years 5 and 6 Debating Final

MATILDA DODD: Welcome to the 2019 state final of the Premier's Debating Challenge for Years 5&6. At the start of the year, 923 primary debating teams entered this challenge. They competed in four round-robin debates to determine who the 142 zone champions would be, and those teams competed in a series of knockout finals to decide the 10 regional champions.

With the state championships tournament abandoned due to the bushfires, those 10 champions then competed in three debates against each other across last week to determine the semifinalists. And now, we have before us the only two remaining teams in the hunt for the 2019 championship. Best of luck to both teams.

This debate is between the Bowral Bombarders and the Hastings Debateinators. The affirmative team from Bowral Public School is first speaker, Eden Ray; second speaker, Violet Fitzsimons; third speaker, Macey Doyle; and the team advisor, Lucy Rouse. The negative team from Hastings Debateinators is first speaker, Kaeleb Morris; second speaker, Zake Morris; third speaker, Poppy McIntyre; and team advisor, Sofia Mansfield. .

The adjudicators for this debate are Joel, Simon, Alex, Bella, and Kearney. Each speaker may speak for four minutes. There'll be a warning bell at three minutes with two bells at four minutes to indicate that the speaker's time has expired. A bell would be rung continuously if the speaker exceeds the speaking time by more than one minute.

Finally, before we begin, please ensure that all mobile phones are switched off. The topic is that we should require all students in Years 3 to 6 to do 30 minutes of homework every weeknight. Please welcome the first speaker of the affirmative team to open the debate.

EDEN RAY: There is a big problem in society today. Students aren't regularly doing homework. They are doing inconsistent amounts of homework and not having enough education. We propose to fix this problem by making every day 30 minutes of homework. This will impact students, parents, and teachers. It will be public and private in all of Australia.

It will be implemented by 2020, and there'll be no cost required. And this will be Year 3 to Year 6. The rules and guidelines are 30 minutes every weeknight. It can be split up into sections, so they can cater to the student's needs. If they have activities, they can split it up. It is only weeknights, so the weekends are time to relax and for free time.

I will be discussing it will be beneficial for the students' education, and it will teach them responsibility. My team's second speaker will be discussing it will teach them skills for later life. My team's first argument will show that it will be beneficial for the student education. At the moment, students are doing inconsistent loads of homework. They are not doing homework Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and doing all of it on Thursday.

We need to teach our students that, that is not good. And they need to have consistent workloads, and this is not good for their education. They need to have a good education standard. After the change, students will learn to have a consistent workload. They will always have at least 30 minutes that will increase their education. They will either be able to revise what they've done in class to really go into depth of what they've learnt and to really understand the concept, or they can do a research task and learn something new and extend their learning in that way.

This is important because students' education is really important, and we need our future generation to have a good education. And having 30 minutes of homework every day will drastically help the kids' education because they will be doing more work and learn more general knowledge. This is 2 and 1/2 hours extra of learning every week, so this will really benefit the students in that way.

Realistically, what this looks like is kids are doing nothing Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. They are doing all their work on Thursday. They rush it. They are not showing the teachers their full potential. They do not understand how crucial this is for their education. And when they get their homework on Monday, the students aren't coming home and thinking, oh, I'm going to get it done straightaway because that's going to be the most beneficial. That's what I'm going to do.

They're actually going to go outside, play with their video games, go to parties, do social activities. But what they actually need to be doing is doing their homework, so we need to have this rule in place to teach them that. By having this rule in place, we'll help their learning. This way, they will not rush their homework and will consistently have 30 minutes.

So this will be spreading out their workload and make them less stressed than they already are. Instead of cramming it all into one day or specific time, they will have consistence, so they're not as stressed. And we are implementing it in 3 to 6 because it will help them have skills for later life.

My team's second argument will show that it will help the student's responsibility. At the moment, kids aren't responsible. They procrastinate and rush their homework. They're very disorganised with all their homework loads. And this is leading to bad habits that they are learning that is not beneficial for them or their future life.

They're staying up way to late to finish their homework. It is leaving them sleep deprived and not ready for their work and homework. I have a change. Kids will learn beneficial mentally-efficient methods to achieve their goals. They will learn responsibility to organise their homework and putting this rule in place will help the students give them and teach them because in high school, you constantly have homework and having it in 3 to 6 will really help them teach these skills before they get dumped into high school.

This is important because we can't leave our students without responsibility. It's important skill to learn. Our future generation needs to be responsible, and they need to know that having an inconsistent workload is teaching them bad habits and is really bad. Having consistent workloads is more beneficial as it is spreading them out, not making them stressed, and they can have more activities that they can do. And that is why we are proud to affirm.

KAELEB MORRIS: The other team's idea was that this change will be beneficial for students' education. They are wrong for two clear reasons. Firstly, students will feel overworked because they will be doing an unnecessary amount of homework. These students won't be able to concentrate at school the next day due to the unnecessary amount of homework that they did the previous day.

The other team also claimed that kids will learn general knowledge from homework. Homework is about revising what these students did at school. If they're learning general knowledge as well as revising, we are most definitely overworking these 9-- to 12-year-old primary school students. That is why the other team is clearly wrong.

The other team's idea was that this change will teach kids responsibility. They are wrong for two reasons. Firstly, you can learn responsibility in lots of different ways. Pressuring kids to finish homework every weeknight is not a very good way to teach kids responsibility. It would be much better to teach kids responsibility through owning a pet or having a bank account to save money.

Secondly, it is just far more important that kids get time to do what they want instead of just having to do what their teacher tells them. Kids should be allowed to do what they want outside of school. For example, a child who loves playing football has a training session every afternoon, but now, this child can't go to their training session because they have to do their 30 minutes of homework.

This kid will then feel sad and disappointment because they can't do what they love doing. That is why the other team is clearly wrong. We agree with the definition presented by the affirmative team. Today, I'll be speaking about how kids need a break from school and how kids need exercise. My second speaker will be convincing you that kids need time to do other extracurricular activities and that teaching will be more stressed.

Together, we will convince you that we shouldn't require all students of Years 3 to 6 to do 30 minutes of homework every weeknight. My team's first argument is that kids need a break. Right now, school students across Australia desperately need a break from school that day in the afternoon to ensure that they can rest their mind ready for a focused and beneficial day tomorrow.

However, if this change comes in, kids will feel overworked and pressured to get their homework done instead of getting a vital break that they deserve from all the things they would have learned at school that day. Kids need this break so then they don't feel overworked and can concentrate at school the next day just as good as they would on a day when they didn't have to do homework that afternoon.

The education system will be hit worse because these students should be allowed a relaxing break from brain-straining work. Also, these school students aged 9 to 12 have lots of other things going on in their life. Adding this unnecessary half an hour of homework will just double the amount of stress on these kids which is horrible because kids at this age should never feel stressed like they would have when this change happens.

For example, Janine Allis, CEO of Boost Juice, is currently thriving both her and her incredibly successful company. She's making massive amounts of money per day and is currently living a very happy life. This incredibly successful woman went through the exact same education system as we all are now. We're creating successful and rewarding business businessmen and women.

Things must stay the same so that we keep on making incredible human beings like Janine and many more. That is why we shouldn't require all students in Years 3 to 6 to do 30 minutes of homework every single weeknight.

My team's second argument is that this change will worsen kids' physical health. Right now, kids have a jam-packed schedule with, in most cases, some sort of activity on every single afternoon. They go straight from school to do an activity and come home late in the afternoon. Everyone knows that kids have a lot of energy, so when they get home after a long day, they just have enough time to run around outside for half an hour or so.

Exercise is a vital and necessary part of a child's life. Exercise burns energy and helps to prevent deadly illnesses such as diabetes. So how on Earth are the busy children of this generation going to fit in vital and crucial exercise as well as half an hour of non-beneficial homework? The fact is they're not. We'll be putting in unnecessary homework at the expense of children's physical health.

One in four Australian children are obese. However, the current system we live in is saying that this stat is only improving, but after this change, it will only become worse. It is recommended that children get one hour of physical activity at least every day, but this is obviously impossible. That is why we are proud to negate.

VIOLET FITZSIMONS: So the opposition said that 30 minutes was colossal amount of time. We're wasting students' time by this. And they wouldn't be able to attend soccer practise. Well, firstly, my first speaker clearly stated they could break up this time in however way it suited them. They could do 5 minutes in the morning, 10 in the afternoon, and there's plenty in the time of the day do this.

They also stated that after children came home from after-school activities such as sport, they could have a half-hour run around the yard, and that is enough time and they can go to bed then. We suggest we take away this half-hour run around the yard and use it to do homework as we've suggested. We don't see how they need to do sport and after-school activities and then do it around the yard. This thing's rather random.

They also stated that because of the 30 minutes, they take away completely from their social life and sporting, but we haven't made them do this on the weekends. They have two days of time to get all this caught up, to be athletic, to get the obesity rates down, so it's not as if we're ruining anything here. They also said the kids won't be able to do soccer and things in after-school activities because of the 30 minutes. Well, they've ignored our definition once again.

We also didn't see what the Boost Juice CEO has anything to do with this debate? One person under the education system? There's 24 million people in Australia. It's not that this one person reflects every other type of behaviour and education. We also don't know how this Boost Juice CEO is in any way related to the topic. They also said that kids this age have no need to feel stressed. Well, we believe that some amount of stress is vital for later life.

They can't just be ignorant of the fact that stress is a fact of later life. And 30 minutes is not that a large amount of stress. We see no issue with this. They are also acting as if we are bringing homework in now and that homework has never been a thing. They're already doing homework, if not already doing half an hour or more than that under the status quo.

So we see no problem with bringing it as mandatory. We're not bringing in homework. We're not bringing in the bad effects of this. We're just making it mandatory to do 30 minutes of this. They also said kids were getting a break from homework-- that we're not bringing homework. They also said that kids could do what they want outside of school. They shouldn't be controlled by their teachers.

Well, kids do pretty idiotic things sometimes. They're going to spend their time on Xbox and talking to their friends and watching YouTube. It's not going to be educational. We're also talking about, if they're using this model, they're not going to be forward thinkers. They're not going to think, oh, wait, I'll do my homework because that's good for later life. They're going to think, oh wait, I got a new toy. I'm going to play with that. It's not as if they're thinking practically here.

They also said that the kids can learn responsibility from pets and not from homework. Well, we think that kids actually are pretty irresponsible with pets. I mean, we could elaborate on this, but we think it's a bit of pretty much a sidetrack from the other team.

But kids aren't going to treat pets well. And that's just cruel to the pets, firstly. They also stated that 30 minutes is overworking kids, which it isn't. 30 minutes is a very, very small amount of time, and it's not going to take up much of the kids' day.

And they also said that we're teaching kids new thing within homework. Well, just so we're clear here, it's revision. That's what homework is. I'm not bringing in anything new. They also said that kids will be less obese under their model. We see how this is working. They're sticking with the status quo here, and if one fourth of kids are obese, then that's still going to be the same.

Anyway, but leading into my first argument. My team's final argument will show you that our model will prepare kids for later life. So right now, kids are easily getting away with not doing any homework. The teacher has 30 kids and homework to mark. And just four pages. That's going to add up to a lot of things to mark.

They are presented with no concept of working hard in their own time or to achieve their goals. In reality, they will have to work overtime. And so, say, this child becomes a lawyer. They'll need to review their case and work hard at home and research it and to make sure they've got their case straight, so again, they need to do a good job of work.

However, under the status quo, they're not being told they should work hard and spend their own time on these things, or spend this time practically, and breaking up into bits of half hours and giving them a stable workload. Kids need to understand that homework is more important than playing the Xbox, and they should do this continuously. And they will understand this after the government emphasises the importance of homework via moderating 30 minutes of work.

After change, they will also learn the skill of slowly chipping away at something to achieve a goal. So an example of this is a Year 6 cramps the math test for three hours the day before, so because of this, they're going to be sleep-deprived. They're staying up late. They're misusing their time. They're bombarding themselves with information that they clearly can't understand in such a short period of time.

And when the test comes, they're completely flustered with the information. They're not focusing on the answer there. They're focusing on all the things they've jammed into their head the night before and the lack of sleep they actually got. And they'll be sleep deprived from staying up cramming and then won't be able to focus on the test.

But now with 30 minutes per day, they'll be given the time to comprehend and review the information, not bombarding themselves with information they don't need. Now, they won't be leaving it to cramming as the only solution to learning the things at school and will spreading the time wisely. Spending 30 minutes every single day and spending this wisely and spending it in an equal amount of time on every day.

And we need to teach them this no when the stakes aren't too high. What about in high school? What is the risk to his later life? HSC, a work interview, we need to teach them how to handle their time fairly and to make sure they have a consistent workload. Otherwise, things would just grow into disrepair. And we can't leave them cramming and being sleep-deprived.

And they need to build this routine, so they can bring this into my later life and build the right when they go to university or onto later life, so they can handle real-life situations which is vital in real stressful situations when the stakes are high. So for example, a kids learns homework routine.

That carries them up into high school, and they calmly tackle challenges because they know how to do it from primary school. They don't depend on last-minute cramming because the average high school kid is going to focus on parties and playing video games-- yes, of course-- and is not going to study all week long. And that is why we are proud to affirm.

[applause]

ZAKE MORRIS: The other team's idea was that this change will teach kids skills for later in life. They're wrong for two reasons. Firstly, later in life, extra work is voluntary. So forcing kids to do half an hour of homework every day, this will create a mindset that they won't need to be mature enough to choose do your homework. This will not benefit their future in any way.

Secondly, Years 3 to 6 is not about preparing for later life. It is about learning, and although, you may think doing extra homework improves this, it is actually just making kids overworked, therefore tired the next day. This will ruin the next day. This will ruin their next day of school. That is why the other team is wrong.

Our team's third argument is that kids need to do other extracurricular activities. Right now, when kids are able to attend their extracurricular activities, they're not feeling stressed or worried about the 30 minutes of homework they must do after their desired activity.

It is in fact that extracurricular activities are vital to a child. During this crucial time, kids are able to express and practise their talents whether it be sport, music, or another activity that a child loves. When they are in their happy environment, they can make new friends, keep fit and healthy, and overall, just enjoy life, which we all know is extremely important.

Kids are able to have fun which they may not be getting in a classroom or on the playground. These extracurricular activities can also provide a career for children who do not find a university degree appealing. A kid who does not enjoy day-to-day work at school has extracurricular activities to turn to. This makes them feel less stressed about their future and extremely happy because they are doing something they love, and they pour their heart and soul into it without any worry of, say, 30 minutes of homework that they don't have time to do or do not understand the topic.

However, after the change, kids across Australia will have to either give up or not enjoy their activities outside of school. A kid who once enjoyed, lived, and breathed, say, basketball, now feels worried and stressed whenever playing basketball that they need to do this homework. This change will be literally ruining kids' necessary hours outside of school because they will be too stressed by either not understanding the homework assigned to them or are worried they won't be able to get it done in time to be getting enough sleep.

For example, a kid loves playing the trumpet immensely and even thinks that playing the trumpet might be a professional career for them because a job in an office does not appeal to them. Then the change is brought in. This child is worried and scared that their dream of playing the trumpet will be unachievable because they don't have the physical time or strength to do it. And whenever they play the instrument, they just worry about the 30 minutes of homework after it.

They're constantly nervous and worried which is not what we want. We don't want kids left confused because they don't know what to do when they are older. This is what the affirmative team are proposing. That is why we should not give students 30 minutes of homework every day every weeknight.

My team's fourth argument is that teachers will get super-stressed. Right now, teachers across Australia already have lots of work they have to do but not enough for them to get stressed and worried about it. They are planning good quality lessons for their students, and they feel like they are doing a good job. However, after the change teachers will be completely overworked and stressed because on top of all the other work they have, such as marking and planning lessons, they have to plan half an hour of homework for their students.

Teachers have approximately 30 kids in one class. 30 minutes of homework would include approximately 30 double-sided sheets of homework which is overall 6 sheets. 30 times 6 is 180. This means that teachers now have to plan 180 individual sheets of homework on top of all the other things I listed before. Teachers will become overworked and tired because they have to plan all that homework in the afternoon.

When teachers are tired, they can't plan good quality lessons for their students, so this change will also affect the teacher's students. So it's obvious that what the affirmative team is proposing is completely ridiculous. For example, a teacher who has 30 students in their class is always stressed, tired, and worried about going home after school because they know that they have to plan work, mark work, and plan more homework for the students because of this change. They then feel pressured and stressed. That is why I'm proud to negate.

MACEY DOYLE: Our team has found three main issues within this debate. The first one is whether homework is actually beneficial to students and teachers. The second one is whether this would stop kids from doing extra activities. And the third one, whether this would help kids in later life or not.

The first one is whether homework is beneficial? The other team stated that homework is unnecessary, but homework is really necessary because you can learn more skills. You can understand things that you didn't quite get before better. You can do research projects about things that you don't have time to do at school, use materials that you don't have at school that you can use at home.

The other team stated that homework is just revising. However, homework can be different in its own beneficial way, and it is not just necessarily revising as students can be doing research projects as well. The other team is acting like homework is non-existent at the moment. However, going with the status quo, homework is there, and teachers are still going to have to make students' homework.

All we're changing is that students are doing it more consistently and creating good habits. The other team stated that kids don't understand homework. However, they can ask their parents, older siblings, teachers, the internet, for help if they don't understand. And there are many ways that they can understand.

The other team said that teachers would be stressed because they'll be marking pages and pages of homework. However, teachers are already doing this at the moment, and all we're doing is making students' workload more consistent and more efficient.

The second issue in this debate was whether students would still have time to do extracurricular activities. So there are 24 hours in a day. 10 hours for sleep, 6 hours a day at school that the students are spending, maybe 2 hours of extracurricular activities, possibly 1 hour of travel to and from school and to extra activities. That still leaves 5 hours unused.

When they're doing their homework, they have 4 and 1/2 hours still left to destress, do those things that a student wants to do-- and maybe that guy who practises trumpet-- and follow his professional dream of being a trumpet player. And they also still have the weekend. And what we're doing is just making them use their time more efficiently, so they're not cramming on that night before that test and staying up late and losing sleep and stressing over it.

And they're doing it properly and more efficiently than they would be with the current model. And kids can still have fun that they want to do, and they can destress, and they can spend their time on other things because they still have that extra time. It's only 30 minutes each night. And as we said before, these 30 minutes can be separated, so they might do 15 minutes before they go and do the extracurricular activities and 15 minutes after. It doesn't have to be all in one workload.

And as long as they do 30 minutes each night, it doesn't matter when they do those 30 minutes. The other team stated that students would be stressed when they're playing basketball and doing their extracurricular activities. However, it's only half an hour and maybe they've already done 15 minutes beforehand. And so students won't be stressed.

However, they will be stressed if it's that day before the test, and straight after basketball, they've got to go home and study for three hours which leads them to be stressed and gives them inconsistent study time. The last issue in this debate is whether doing this would be beneficial to later life. The other team stated that in jobs, extra work is voluntary, however in later life, you do still have to work overtime and not at the office and work from home.

For example, teachers. They're doing their work at school teaching their students, but when they go home, they still have to organise lessons, plan lessons, mark homework, and having this model will get students into good habits so that when they're older, and they are in the work industry or in high school, they can do this consistently and well, instead of rushing and doing it badly.

The other team stated that even if that's true, 3 to 6 is not useful to later life-- is too early to start practicing these good habits. However, what we're stating is that these children can learn these good habits so that they don't have to learn them later when it's harder to learn. And what we're doing is putting this in early so that students know how to do it for high school as well as in the work industry. So all our model is changing is that students are doing their work more consistently and that is why we are proud to affirm.

POPPY MCINTYRE: We, the negative team, saw this debate come down to two main issues. Firstly, will this benefit kids' education? And secondly, will this benefit other aspects of kids' life such as responsibility. So on the first issue of will this change benefit kids' education, the other team's idea that kids will get a better education and become smarter because of the change, they're wrong for three reasons.

Firstly, kids are not going to get a better education because they're doing 30 minutes of homework every night because 30 minutes of extra homework will actually just tyre the kids. They'll be too tired the next day to do the proper curricular work at school the next day because kids have a lot of things going on in their life, and they're already tired in the current situation that we live in.

Plus 30 minutes of unnecessary, non-beneficial homework, then they're just going to be tremendously tired and way too tired to learn well the next day. Secondly, homework is unnecessary. It is not part of the curriculum in primary school, maybe in high school, but not in primary school. Homework is revising the same topics that they have learned that day, and in primary school, this is not very important.

The stuff they have learned is still fresh in their mind. They do not need another couple of shades of the same stuff they have previously learned. Homework is a complete waste of time in primary school that kids could be spending at their extracurriculum time or getting exercise outside in the playground.

Thirdly, this change will create more marking for teachers. They claim that homework is just revising the same thing you have loved at school. In Years 3 to 6, you don't have enough things in a school day to take half an to revise on them in the afternoon. So teachers will have to set more work which means more marking, which means not enough time to plan quality lessons for the next day. That's why the other team is wrong.

The other team stated that they can break up the homework. However, this removes any educational benefit. If you're doing 6 five-minute sessions a day, you won't actually be learning because you'll do five minutes of something and then you'll have forgotten it because you only spent five minutes on it. So you have to do another five minutes on it, but then you won't know what you've done, and it'll just become confusing because you're splitting it up, and you have no idea what you've done removing any educational benefits.

The other team said in their rebuttal that Year 3 kids aren't going to think to themselves, oh, I'm going to do my homework. Well, it isn't like parents are just going to let kids sit around not doing their homework if homework is what they need to do. Parents will make sure that they do what is necessary for their kids' education, and we don't need the government to enforce this change that actually won't be beneficial to most kids.

So at the end of this issue of will this benefit kids' education, it is clear that it will only make kids more tired therefore making their education worse. So on the second issue of will this change benefit kids in other aspects of life, the other team idea was that this change will teach kids responsibility. They are wrong for two reasons. Firstly, responsibility is making your own choice to make the right choice, but the affirmative team are proposing that we force kids to do homework-- which is not making a choice-- removing any element of choice.

Kids aren't going to learn responsibility from being forced to do something because that is the opposite of what responsibility is. Secondly, responsibility does not even compare in importance to kids' health and fitness which the opponent team's model is going to make worse because kids won't have enough time to run around and do sporting things to improve their health. That is why the other team is wrong.

The other team's idea was that this change will help kids with later life. They're wrong for two reasons. Firstly, this change will not help. If anything, it will make it worse because kids have lots of things to do in the afternoon. For example, they won't be able to socialise with their friends, and these are important life skills for the future. won't They won't to be able to have time to help out around the house which is definitely a like skill.

They won't have enough time to go to extracurriculum activities which is definitely an important life skill. Secondly, this doesn't have anything to do with the topic. Doing homework won't benefit a child's life. It's doing homework. It's revising about something that they learned in the past. How's that going to help you in the future? That is why the other team is wrong.

The other team also stated that mathematically, kids currently have five hours left, but who's ever found themselves with five hours left in the day? They didn't mention anything about meals. And travel does not-- it takes more than one hour in a day. Who's ever found themselves with five spare hours? That is absolutely ridiculous. And 4 and 1/2 hours after the change is also not going to be true because no one has five extra hours. That is why the other team is wrong.

ALEX DE ARAUJO: Awesome. So firstly, obviously, a huge, huge, huge congratulations to both teams. All five of us on the panel thought that they did both an incredible job from both teams just in the quality of arguments and rebuttal that they brought up across all six speakers and all eight members of the team.

And even if they didn't put on a fantastic performance today, which they all did, just getting here in the first place is such an amazing achievement. So both teams, I think, deserve a second round of applause.

[applause]

And while we thought this was an incredible debate, we thought there were two general pieces of feedback for both teams in particular, which really stood out to all of us. The first was just clarity, so there were times in this debate where it wasn't really clear the exact worlds that either team was standing for.

So we needed a crystal clear picture of exactly what children on your side were actually doing. So on the affirmative, it's something like a brutal 30 minutes a night, maybe an hour more in some cases, that's pretty much what they have to stand to and paint a picture of.

On the negative, it's parents enforcing homework as necessary but also prioritising children's exercise and extracurriculars throughout the week and talking about the balance that they actually have and how much time kids are spending on homework in their ideal world. So a little bit of clarity from both teams about specifically how much time kids are spending on relative things under both sides and using those differences pointing out why this side's ahead.

Secondly, we thought responsiveness needed a bit of work. So we thought all six speakers were really great at responding to arguments and rebutting, but sometimes, the specific rebuttal left a little bit to be desired. So sometimes, it would not change throughout the debate from the rebuttal that we heard at first speaker to the rebuttal we heard at third speaker even though the argument and counter-rebuttal had changed a little bit from the other team, which meant that they couldn't really adapt to the arguments at third speaker as opposed to the arguments at first speaker, if that makes sense to both teams.

But secondly, they would often try to rebut small strands of the argument as opposed to the gist and the meat of the argument itself, often choosing to rebut examples and smaller, different versions of the argument as opposed to what the argument actually looks like. So given that, in terms of issues in the debate, the panel were unanimous in terms of verdict, and we saw it as being broadly coming into two categories.

Firstly, how would this consistent homework affect children's education? And then secondly, how would inconsistent homework affect children's well-being? On education, affirmative tells that children are currently performing their homework inconsistently, that they're procrastinating and staying up late, and that enforcing a consistent homework workload will reduce stress, eliminate their rushing at the end to complete it, and teach important skills like responsibility.

Negative, in response, tell us that homework, firstly, is not particularly important because it's just revising, but we thought firstly, they could have done a little bit more of this to tell us exactly why it's not revising, but secondly, that affirmative did give a nice set of examples like research projects and catching up on stuff that you'd missed which tended to rise above that initial rebuttal from the negative.

The second thing that negative tell us is that life skills like extra work is sometimes optional in later life, and it doesn't need to be taught at schools. It can be taught later. To which affirmative say that it is often necessary, and they do use the example of teaching which we thought was quite clever, and that teaching children life skills when they can easily pick up habits as young kids as opposed to waiting until it's too late, was quite helpful. So we feel that this argument ultimately stood from affirmative.

In response though, negative tell us that teachers now will have to plan much more homework during the week. And that can have their lesson plans and their mental health levels. We thought firstly that this was quite a narrow part of the debate, but secondly that affirmative did outline throughout their case, there problem was the same amount of work for teachers, or at least very, very similar, just spread out throughout the week. And so we didn't see too much of an additional harm to spreading out the workload throughout the week if they would have had to do it anyway.

So ultimately here, we thought there was some considerable benefit to be had for children's education. On well-being, and this is where the bulk of team negative's substantive really came out because they told us that school students across Australia are getting a desperately needed break from school right now, and that taking it away would make them feel pressured and overworked.

And we thought they did a really good job of expanding this to exercise and important extracurricular activities throughout their case which children might lose out on. And they did an excellent job of proving that those things were important. However, affirmative, we thought had a suite of equally really impressive responses to that.

Firstly, they said that there is enough time during the day to add an additional, if necessary, 30 minutes of homework. Secondly, that children could break up the 30 minutes to what is necessary. Thirdly, they do have the weekends. Fourthly, they tell us that some stress is helpful. And finally, most importantly, they tell us that children aren't doing any more homework than they originally were. They're just doing it at a different time.

So even though we thought the negative gave some clever responses to some of these, we thought this was a little bit late in the debate, and on the whole, we thought that the range of responses from the affirmative was enough to prove there wouldn't be that much of a harm in adding an extra 30 minutes or shifting the homework to 30 minutes per night.

So ultimately, here we thought there was enough time for the boy on the basketball court, which team negative brought out, to destress without having to lose out on anything in particular and that this consistent homework wouldn't come at too much of a cost to other things. And ultimately, that meant that its educational benefits outweighed the other considerations that we thought about, and because of this, we have very narrowly given this debate to the affirmative team.

MATILDA DODD: A speaker will now congratulate the winning team.

SOFIA MANSFIELD: Good job, you guys. State winners. That's so good. You should be so proud, and you're very scary as well.

STUDENT: You're the best first speaker.

STUDENT: Good job.

STUDENT: You were so good.

MATILDA DODD: A speaker from the winning team will now respond.

LUCY ROUSE: Well done, guys. You should be so proud of yourselves for coming second. That is so much out of the whole state, and you did a really good job. And this was such a close debate. So well done.

VIOLET FITZSIMONS: Can I just say something? You beat us before anyway, so-- yeah, we still beat winning team.

STUDENT: We shook their hands.

STUDENT: No worries.

TONY DAVEY: Yeah, that is true. Across the, what is it, five debates now, that made up the tournament, you've both got an equal number of wins and an equal number of wins against each other. It's just the luck of the draw that you guys happened to win the last one. So that's something else I would recommend taking away.

It's now only fair that we recognise your achievements with medallions, and we'll hand out the trophy. So if you could welcome up the leader of The Arts Unit, John Benson, who's in-charge of this debating, public speaking, and all of the other things you think of as The Arts Unit like school's back and those kinds of things. So come to the front. Let's give him a hand.

[applause]

So first of all, we're going to welcome up one by one, and we'll get the chairperson to read the names out one last time. The unlucky, equal number of wins having, extraordinary, Hastings Public School team. Here we go.

MATILDA DODD: Kaeleb Morris.

- Matt, are you going to stand there?

TONY DAVEY: Yeah, come stand in line.

MATILDA DODD: Zake Morris. Poppy McIntyre. And Sofia Mansfield. And their coach, Carl Morris.

TONY DAVEY: Congratulations, Hastings. Very [inaudible]. Well done. And for last time this year, we're going to welcome up the 2019 state champions from Bowral Public School. Congratulations, guys.

MATILDA DODD: Eden Ray. Violet Fitzsimons. Macey Doyle. And Lucy Rouse. And their coach.

- And their coach.

[applause]

TONY DAVEY: And I will get you guys to stay there as we hand over that. Since we, for the first time ever I think, have the reigning state champions here, we might as well get you guys to present the trophy and hand it over. It no longer lives at your school. All of you can get up.

STUDENT: Thank you.