>> Back to video
World’s Biggest Debate 2021 – Years 5 and 6 grand final
TONY DAVEY: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Grand Final of the World's Biggest Debate for 2021. My name is Tony Davey, and I'm the Speaking Competitions Assistant for the New South Wales Department of Education, and I want to acknowledge that I'm coming to you from the traditional lands of the Cammeraygal people. Of course, the two most important groups of speakers today aren't on Cammeraygal land, so we're going to hear from each of them about their lands as they acknowledge the country that they're standing on. We'll start over at Alex Park.
MARGAUX BOISVERT: Hi, we're Alexandria Park Community School and we're coming to you today from Gadigal land of the Eora nation.
CLEMENTINE ARTHURSON: We would like to acknowledge the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, whose land we are on today. We pay our respects to elders past, present, and emerging.
TONY DAVEY: Cracking stuff, both. So I've just got a couple of very quick jobs before I hand you over to our chair people for today. You're going to notice today that instead of using bells, we use a clock that appears beside me. You'll hear from the chairpeople about the timing, but basically that clock will turn orange-- green at three minutes, orange at four minutes, and red at five minutes, which is the very latest that anyone's allowed to speak.
My last job then is just to quickly let you know how we got here. So on 9th of November this year we had 50 different teams dial in and deliver a speech after a speech after a speech, each rebutting the person who came before them on the topic of banning homework. And that went from 9:00 till about 3:00, so it was an incredibly long day of pretty crazily good speeches. And 50 people later, we ended up with eight quarter-finalists. And those quarter-finalists have then held their quarters and their semis, and we've been left with Alexandria Park Community School and Randwick Public School as the last two schools alive in the World's Biggest Debate.
Congratulations to both of you guys, I'm sure it's going to be a cracking affair. And with that, I'm going to hand you over to our chairpeople who are going to run the debate for us today. I'm handing you over to Randwick Public School. Best of luck to both of you guys.
MIKA HALM-HARRELL: Welcome to the grand final of the world's biggest debate for years 5 and 6. Today each speaker may speak for four minutes. There will be a warning bell at three minutes and two bells at four minutes. There will be a continuous bell at five minutes. The adjudicators for this debate are Indigo Crosweller, Anna-Sophia Zahar, and Gemma Hedayati. Our negative team for this debate is Randwick Public School, Ironstone. Our first speaker is Henry Moore, our second speaker is Ashling Considine, our third speaker is Charlie Cheshire, and our fourth speaker is Clementine Arthurson. Over to you, affirmative chairperson.
MARGAUX BOISVERT: Thanks. Our affirmative team is the Alex Park Kids. We have been a team of five throughout this entire debate. For today our first speaker is Sofia Carbajal Zapata, our second speaker is Katja Moritz, our third speaker is Obi Adler, and our TA and fourth speaker is Aryaman Pachori. And I'm Margaux Boisvert, the proud chairperson for this debate. The topic for today is that students should be picked for selective high schools based on their primary school record instead of a test. Finally, please take a moment to make sure that all mobile phones and microphones are switched off. Now, welcome the first speaker of the affirmative team to open the debate. Please welcome Sophia.
SOFIA CARBAJAL ZAPATA: We as the affirmative team defined this topic as all students in years-- in year 6 that are trialling to get into a selective high school would get in based on their reports from years 3 to 6, as well as a bit of teacher feedback. We would put this into effect by giving the schools that year 6 students are trialling for all of the reports from years 3 to 6 as well as a minimum of three sentences from his teacher about whether they would-- whether they would recommend the student this-- the selective high school for the student.
As of right now, students-- the students might just have a good day or-- on the test or a really-- or really bad-- or a really bad one. This doesn't actually show how gifted students are and can make-- and can-- this doesn't really show-- this doesn't actually show how gifted students are and can mean that it's wrong-- that it's wrong-- it's the wrong people that get into a selective high school, and it needs to change.
As first speaker, I will be speaking about how in a test kids could crack under pressure and how with our model we would base it on the consistency of good or bad grades. Our second speaker will be speaking about how the students and-- about how students could just tutor for the test and how it would give students an opportunity to share what schools [inaudible]. Our third speaker will be summing up our case.
Now on to my first point. Selective high schools are a big deal. They pick certain students that will do-- that will do the high school curriculum but also an extension. This knowledge could be a massive help in later years, such as year 12 and university, but it would also be a massive-- but it would also be a massive impact to life after university.
For example, if a student had just graduated from a selective high school and made it into a university where they were doing a course, the student might already know some of the basics of the course and it would take some pressure off their shoulders, which would help them a lot. If they knew-- if they knew some of the basics to the course, they would be able to move on to more advanced stuff, therefore helping them take a test or study for one-- or study for one.
Because selective schools are such a big-- it's-- are such big, it is obvious that students would want to get in. With all that pressure to get into a selective high school, it would-- with all of that pressure to get into a selective high school by doing just a couple of tests, students performances could be affected with all their nervousness, but I'm not-- nervousness, but our model would-- but with our model, it would make-- it would make getting into a selective high school based off three years.
And that wouldn't just be for-- and it wouldn't just be three years of pressure because over time, you forget things-- you forget things and it would be very unlikely that a student would be reminded about a selective high school every day. And also a lot-- but also a lot of-- a large proportion of students wouldn't find out about selective high schools at a very early stage. This is why our model would be better than just taking a test.
Now on to my second point. Would be basing-- would basing-- would basing where a student would go-- would go to high school off a set of four tests better than basing it off students' performances over a period of three years would be better than basing it off of performances of over a period of three years? No, it wouldn't. Like-- like I explained in my first point, students performances at the selective would be-- at the selective test would be majorly affected with all the pressure. Or a student that could-- or a student that couldn't-- could deal with pressure could have a really good day, but why would you base it off one day rather than three years?
Basing it off one day means that some students that don't deserve to make it into a selective high school wouldn't make it in because of the pressure, or that others that don't deserve to make it in and can deal with pressure would make it in because the overall average would be lowered. This means that some students would-- that some students would far-- that would be far more advanced than this-- than the school that they are at and would mean that they're completely bored.
But this might just make them-- but that-- this might make them have an attitude. For example, if a girl is taught at their high school and the-- and the test has come in, she might think that she already knows everything about the test. This means that she wouldn't study and would end up failing. Another example is about a student that makes it into a high school that they don't deserve to. This would mean that the students would start failing because they couldn't keep up with the work.
And they-- the-- both of these-- [inaudible] both of these scenarios means that students get bad-- really bad educational outcomes. But with our model, students would correctly get into the right selective high school because instead of-- because instead of having four tests, it would be-- it would be the school performances and how they would actually perform, and would really show you how it works. This is why I'm proud to affirm.
MIKA HALM-HARRELL: We now welcome our first speaker, Henry Moore, to the stage.
HENRY MOORE: Before I begin, I would like to highlight some major flaws in the affirmative change model and arguments. The affirmative team has laid out an unrealistic model that would be impossible to implement. Imagine this, teachers having to mark their students every single day on every tiny little thing they do as a test for three years. This is catastrophic just for the teachers because they-- because 58% of teachers across Australia are already feeling stressed and considering leaving the profession.
This would also be super hard to organise. How could we get thousands and thousands of reports and test scores across to-- across to the people who are running these selective school exams just for them to average them and then have to pick out the smartest kids from thousands of sheets of paper? This isn't fair on the students.
The first affirmative speaker talked about how important selective schools are, and how one test can put loads of stress on students, but I have two problems with this. This is actually not relieving the stress from students from doing one day, it's increasing it three years of-- for three-- for kids who really, really badly want to get into a selective school, three years of studying super hard and trying desperately to get into a school that will set up their lives and career. It's just not fair. They need time to relax and be normal kids as well.
Children also need test experience. So to say that-- to say that-- that it's mean for them to turn up on one day and they might stuff up on the test and that it doesn't accurately represent their score, test taking is an experience that they need to become familiar with in later life. So it's a vital skill in academics that they should learn. I, as the first speaker, will talk about how teachers are unfair and biassed, and how this system will cause so much unnecessary stress. My second speaker will talk about how students change and develop, how getting rid-- how doing this model is getting rid of a whole industry, and how doing this-- doing a test allows students to perform to their full potential.
Our team's first argument is that teachers aren't fair and can easily be biassed. Teachers can actually have favourites. It could be the smartest kid, the sportiest, or the kid with the best personality. So if these kids are the only ones who have and get opportunities and end up getting good reports, the kids that get into selective high schools aren't the smartest at all. This is super unfair for the kids who put their heads down and work quietly hoping to get into a good high school. Schools can also mark drastically differently. So if one school teacher marks differently to another, which is certain to happen, these poor students miss out on a vital part of their life. How unfair is this?
Our team's second argument is that this model causes so much unnecessary stress. Right now kids are happy just living their lives, not needing to worry about things like exams and test scores every day. But implementing this horrific change will only cause kids to overwork themselves even more. Over 75% of mental health problems occur before the age of 25, and putting this stupid idea into action is practically begging for this percentage to grow.
Imagine your own kids coming home, stressing about a small art test that shouldn't even account for anything. Yet this simple test is stopping them from actually having a relaxing, well-deserved afternoon. But yet they completely ignore the thought of taking a mental health break. Instead, they just keep studying, overworking themselves to the point where they're creating a horrible routine. It is crucial that we keep our current system in use.
MARGAUX BOISVERT: Please welcome the second speaker for the affirmative team Katja Moritz.
KATJA MORITZ: The affirmative team stated that there could be biassed teachers and so suddenly the grading and marking on these reports is going to be unfair as some classes are going to be able to get into schools much more easily. But this point is clearly invalid, as you won't have a teacher that grades you really well if you're not doing really well for three or four years straight. Sure, there might be a few teachers that are a bit more giving with their marks, but you're not going to have a whole-- like, all the teachers that you've had aren't going to be generous in giving their marks. This means that you can average out different marks that teachers have given so that it doesn't actually make the teachers more biassed.
They also said that three years of-- three or four years of-- three years of work just for the selective high school test is going to make students a lot more stressed than if they were to just do a day of testing. However, this is flawed as you're not-- the students aren't going to be reminded every day that what they're doing is for selective. Because it really isn't just for that, but it's also just for their general education. Also, this. This means that they can just do work like normal and show their true capabilities rather than the capabilities of if they were really stressed and under pressure.
They also said that-- they said that-- they also said that teacher's having to write-- like, having to write all the reports and extra para-- extra sections for each of the kids about the selective high school is going to be way too much work for this. However, this is obviously flawed as you already write an entire report as a [inaudible] stop for the students, and they managed to do that. So this is pretty much no more work other than three or four sentences about where the student should be placed. And it really doesn't need to be complicated, it can just be saying that they don't believe that a school like this would be good for a student.
Now on to my team's case. As second speaker, I will be speaking about how students can just be tutored for tests, and how letting primary school-- schools share their reports can give these schools a say in what they think is a good high school for the students. Students can easily be tutored for selective tests, and this doesn't show their true abilities. You see, a student can be desperate to get into-- to get into a school like Sydney Girls High School, and so they do tutoring for 10 hours a week for the term before the test.
The tutorers know exactly what the test is like, and can tutor this student to match it. This is unfair as a student suddenly is able to master the test and make it into Sydney Girls, so they aren't actually as gifted as most of the other students in the school. Furthermore, this student now stops tutoring and falls behind in their work. If students were to make it into selective schools because of their reports, it is much more fair as they can't get tutored as easily. This makes it much more fair for the students that don't get tutors.
Picking students for selective high schools based on how they do in primary school would give the teachers-- would give teachers the opportunity to have an-- have a say in whether they recommend a selective high school for the student. A student and their parents might really want the student to make it into a selective high school. However, they might actually thrive more at a mainstream school. With our model in place, the teacher would be able to say this and recommend that the student doesn't go to the selective high school. This means that this student can get more out of their high school education than they would have if they were at a selective high school.
You may be wondering how this student could make it into a selective high school through a test-- through a test if they aren't actually gifted. Well, like I said in my first point, they could get tutored or could just have a really good day as my first speaker said. Letting teachers have an input on a student's high school can mean that these students get better-- gets better educational outcomes. As picking students for selective for select-- a selective high school based on how they do in schools is more accurate, as students can't be easily tutored and can give teachers an input on the student's high school results in a good way. It is clear that we should put our model into effect. This is why I'm proud to affirm.
MIKA HALM-HARRELL: Please welcome our second speaker, Ashling Considine.
ASHLING CONSIDINE: The second speaker of the affirmative team stated that it wouldn't matter if you had a biassed teacher for one year. But in their model they said this would be from years 3 to 6. This means immediately, one year is 25% to 33-- to 33% of their results. This is far too much for it to be nothing. Nothing is 0%, 33% is a third, which is too much-- too much for it to be ignored.
She also stated in her first-- in her first argument that students will just get tutored, which means that they will perform well in the test because of their tutoring. They said that this is a bad thing, but in reality being tutored is putting in hard work. The test has never and will never be based on natural smarts. Although this is a part of it, it is about the hard work that you put in. Hard work means more, which means being tutored isn't a bad thing. We shouldn't stop this and it isn't a reason to not do the selective test.
Their second argument was that-- was that teachers and schools can put in a say about which school they want their student to go to. To begin with, teachers already do this, they already put a score in. We just want there to be a balance. But even with this, it's a whole lot of work. It's not just three or four sentences. Three or four sentences does not decide which high school you go to. It's a lot more work to that, and we just want a balance.
Our team's second point is that children in primary school change and develop in learning ability, so it would be unfair to introduce this system. The affirmative team's model completely favours naturally smart students and ignores the idea of improvement throughout their school years. An example of this is students who struggle with a specific but important subject like maths or English. In the first couple of tests, their teacher begins to notice gaps in their learning. With extra help and more explicit lessons, it would not take long for this change to lead to improvement.
But at the end of the year when the final few tests come out with extremely positive results, this work means absolutely nothing because the first few tests brought down their grade average. Improvement is the backbone of learning in children, but by introducing this massively flawed system we are proposing that it means nothing.
Our team's fourth argument is that it will explain how stopping the selective school test will have catastrophic effects on our economy. The tutoring and selective test industries are booming with thousands on it-- with thousands relying on it to bring in the money that they need to survive. The affirmative team is suggesting that we unemploy thousands of people and flip the way of lives of millions on its head just to build more unwanted stressed, anxious families and schools. With tens of thousands of children completing the test, it means an entire industry will be shut down, putting thousands of lives on hold.
Our team's fifth argument is that a significant proportion of students do not perform to their full potential in school. Many students in schools feel socially isolated, and even more are ostracised for just being themselves. Although this is a-- which means it is not a surprise that they have negative feelings about school and do not perform to their full potential. Although this is a problem we are trying to fix, sometimes this damage can be irreversible. These children need a test, because otherwise their future is being based on a place where they didn't perform to their full potential. A place of discomfort, a place of bad memories.
The test, however, allows them to perform to their full potential and unleash any hidden abilities they felt too scared or shy to show at school. Overall this entire system causes unfairness and stress throughout everybody who is a part of the education system, teachers and students. It is important that we remember this before we jump towards this catastrophic change.
MARGAUX BOISVERT: Please welcome our third speaker, Obi Adler.
OBI ADLER: The negative team said that the three to four sentences would not decide if a student makes it into a selective school. We never said that it would decide if they make it into a school, we said that it was just-- it was just an extra teacher note of why they would recommend that-- this specific student to that school.
The opposition also incorrectly stated the economy will get [inaudible] and a lot of people will lose their jobs. The people working for the selective tests aren't just working for that test. They work on other things like the HSC and-- the HSC and improving-- and improving the education curriculum that we have today. They won't be losing their jobs or money that-- [inaudible]. Doing the-- supervising the selective test and running it is only part of their larger jobs.
They also said that one biassed teacher can screw up their entire report. You can have biassed teachers that-- that will be biassed towards you, and they will highly recommend you no matter what you do. You can also have teachers that will-- that will not like you, and that they-- and they will-- and the bias may end up putting you in a worse position where you may not want the school-- but you may not want to get the school that you're in. And we-- and we as the affirmative team believe that the opposition's point in biassed teachers is invalid.
The opposition stated that one bad report could potentially differ from a student getting into a selective high school. This point doesn't really make a difference in this debate, as all of the students will also have their primary [inaudible] report taken into consideration. For example, student A got a bad report in year 6 while student B got a fantastic report. This is fair for all students as every student is being taught the same thing, even if some students have disabilities. It would be better was giving them six-- at least three years to prove themselves other than just once just for testing.
The opposition also said that it's not bad if students get tutored, as they put in hard work. Other students might get put-- might put in the hard work too, but they might not be able to do the-- but they might not be-- but they might not have the correct guidance. We as the affirmative team will-- know that no matter what, children will get tutored, and the-- and the opposition's point is invalid.
The first speaker of the opposition stated that some kids will get overworked from trying to get a good report all year round. It's the same thing with test-- with tests in this day and age, as you study hard to get good results on the tests so you can get into the school that you want to. The opposition also said that kids-- that kids will perform better in test conditions. This-- we as the affirmative team believe this to be completely false. As we said before, and my second and third speaker also said, there is stress that builds up on the one stress day that could potentially change your entire high school experience just because you went-- you went to a separate school.
It shows-- it shows those [inaudible] people also have different strengths, and we can't judge people-- and we can't really judge people based on what they do in one test but based on-- based on their academic performance. Children-- children have different strengths, and while one may be good at sport, one also may not-- be good at maths. These children should not be separated by one academic test.
So in summary, we as the affirmative team saw this debate come down to three main points, these being the student stress levels, the student's capability and potential, and-- we saw this debate come down to three main points, these being extreme stress level, student's capable-- capabilities of potential. We as the affirmative team have won this debate due to our superior arguments and the fact that with our model in place, all stakeholders will look better than if we keep the current status quo. This is why I'm proud to affirm. Thank you.
MIKA HALM-HARRELL: Now welcome our third and final speaker, Charlie Cheshire.
CHARLIE CHESHIRE: Like my first speaker stated, the affirmative model is completely unrealistic and impossible to organise and achieve. We need to keep the system like it is. It has worked for many years and has the perfect balance. The first speaker on the affirmative team said that we would get less accurate results with the test because it is short. I've got two problems with this. This is completely wrong because it is-- the test is less accurate because students can't-- the test is more accurate because students can't perform properly for four years straight to get their full potential and accurate scores.
Also, even if the results are more accurate, which they aren't, they are taken off the children report four years ago. This does not show how smart they are right now. They also said that the test is stressful because it is so important. I've got three main issues with this. The test stays important anyway, this does not change. Secondly, the test only goes for two hours. It is not every school day in your life for four years, which would build up to overwhelming stress. This is merely two hours, which is nothing. And thirdly, the good outweighs the bad because tests are great practise for the future where we'll have to sit job interviews and the HSC.
The second speaker on the affirmative team said that the test would favour tutoring kids. I've got three problems with this. Firstly, tutoring shows that the children are putting hard work. This shows that they want to do well and that they are prepared to go to the limit to achieve what they want to achieve. Secondly this change does nothing to stop children from being tutored to get into selective schools. It's the same as it was before, so your argument is completely invalid. And thirdly, after the catastrophic change children will just be tutored even more for every test they do in the classroom, which amounts to way too much tutoring.
They also said that teachers would have a say on the students' futures. I've got two problems with this. Teachers already do this, and the balance in the selective test is what has worked perfectly. All they are doing is throwing this right off balance and causing the system to collapse. And secondly, students know their own interests best, not the teachers.
The third speaker said that three to four sentences won't affect much on what the student-- students will get into selective schools. This was your point, you are just backing out on what you already said. He also said that the HS-- he also talked about the HSC, but the HSC is why we should do the selective test like it is. The HSC isn't a build up of marks from year 7 to year 12, it is one test.
He also said that the results would be more accurate because you have four years. Four years is too much. We need to keep this simple and accurate. We don't need results from four years ago, because they don't show how smart the student is right now, which is what the selective test is all about. He also said that students won't perform well in test conditions. This is ridiculous. Children will be preparing for this and they only have to concentrate for two hours, not four years. If they can't perform well in a test, how will they perform well for four years of primary school?
In this debate, I have seen two main points come up. Will we get the right kids into the selective schools, and will students be more or less stressed? In this argument, weighing up the right kids into the selective schools. In this argument, the affirmative talked about how students will be stressed on the test, and this will make the results not accurate. We said that this change would result in kids being marked from a four-year-old result, which is far less accurate. And also, our argument put down theirs because children can't perform properly for four years.
In the stressful argument, the affirmative team tried to convince you that this change will make kids less stressed because the test has a big buildup. It is only short, that is what we said. How-- kids only have to concentrate for a very short amount of time, so they will be less stressed.
In conclusion, my first speaker explained how teachers have favourites and how this will rig the results. He also said how children will be stressed because the test affect-- every single test they do in primary school will affect their future. My second speaker talked about-- Thank you.
TONY DAVEY: OK ladies and gentlemen, please now welcome back a representative of the Adjudication Panel-- that's Anna-Sophia Zahar-- to present the adjudication and announce the winner of this year's World's Biggest Debate. Give her hand, guys.
ANNA-SOPHIA ZAHAR: Hi, everyone. Congratulations on what was a fabulous debate. Every adjudicator on the panel thought that this was extremely high quality and extremely close. We think you guys all did a wonderful job, and it's amazing for you all to get so far. So first of all, congratulations on that. So we think something that was particularly well done in this debate was the amount of material everyone brought in and the amount that they explained all their points, which was really, really good. We also think both teams did a really good job of trying to look at characterization and how to paint a picture of the worlds they were talking about in the debate.
So the general feedback we have, which I'll go through quickly-- then I'll go through the reasons for the decision and then I'll announce the decision at the end-- was twofold. So the first piece of general feedback the panel wanted to give teams was to have an overall strategy in the debate. So to know what you were trying to prove in the end, and how you were going to win, and then know how you needed to characterise the different actors in the debate, for example, teachers or students, in the most strategic way to be able to win. So some of the time our characterization wasn't very helpful for what we were trying to prove, or contradicted with some of our arguments. So we want to try and keep it as consistent and thought out as possible.
The second thing was that we needed to prove from the start of our arguments and from the start of our first speakers' speech why that argument is a harm in the debate. So if we're saying something is bad, we need to explain why exactly it is bad and what the impacts it has in order to make it really important and matter in the debate. But overall, we thought this was really, really good.
So the panel thought there were two main questions in this debate. Firstly, which type of test or kind of method of testing students was more reflective of their true abilities? And secondly, what were the impacts of both on kids' well-being and their development? So the first question then on what was the more-- the test that was more reflective on student's abilities. The affirmative team tells us that the test on the day doesn't reflect their abilities because it firstly depends on how they do on the day. It might just be an off day for them. And that secondly also depends-- sorry, is harmed by the amount of pressure that is put on them in the leadup to the test.
The negative team then tells us that the aversion over three years does-- does a worse job of reflecting this because some students improve over time and initially will not do as well. And this also depends on different changes in their abilities. I think it is-- sorry. Rather, the whole panel thought it was unclear which one of these was more likely, so which one of these is necessarily more reflective. And I think some more engagement or rebuttal here could have made that more distinctive about which team came on top.
But negative team does a good job to tell us that teachers can be quite biassed, and in fact this characterization is agreed with strongly by affirmative, which means that perhaps their biases will average out. But on the whole, it seems like your-- your marks or how you do over these three years depends a lot on your teachers, and that probably meant that this test was now a lot more subjective and probably worse at determining who was determining people's skills and who is more suited for selective. So we think that this point overall went to the negative team, who were able to prove that this amount of bias meant that it was probably less reflective of students' abilities.
Secondly now, looking at the impact on their well-being, the affirmative team tells us that they'll be really stressed because the selective school-- it's a big deal. There's a lot of pressure surrounding it, and a lot of that pressure is put on students to perform in this one test. The negative team similarly tells us that students will be stressed, but that stress will be over a longer period of time. The affirmative team does a good job to say from first that the stress probably won't be as bad because students won't think about the selective test every day, but I think neg manages to show it.
And in fact, this is sort of backed up by affirmative teams' characterization that because the selective test is such a big deal, students probably will be thinking about it for a good deal of that time. The affirmative team tells us that students will get lots of tutoring for this test, and I think that this argument could have been made more important by explaining what precisely is bad about tutoring. Does it create inequality or unequal access of opportunity? But I think negative also point out that this tutoring could just be gotten over that period of three years as well. So I think the tutoring argument doesn't have a huge impact in the debate because it is unclear why it is really bad, and it is also a bit unclear under what side we get more anyway.
So it does seem worse on affirmative because it seems like kids are-- sorry-- as stressed for a longer period of time, i.e. three years then just being stressed for the test because it was-- because I think negative team were able to prove that it was likely that they would be stressed for a good deal of that time. And at best, it sort of seemed like they would be equally stressed on both sides. But very closely, we gave this question to the negative team as well.
Finally then, just considering some of the material in the debate. Aff-- sorry, aff said that this probably wouldn't impact teachers, and I think they were right to do this. So it didn't seem that teachers would be hugely impacted because they write reports anyway, and to either side. But the second thing-- sorry, the second point on economics didn't really matter in this debate. Firstly because it wasn't really pointed out what the-- the giant harms were and why we should necessarily care. But also I think affirmative team does a good job to say that these people can just get jobs in other areas, so it probably wouldn't be as bad.
So on the whole then, because we thought that the negative team were able to prove that the single test was more reflective of students' abilities, that also is probably marginally better for their well-being, we gave this debate in a consensus decision-- so everyone agreed to give it to the negative team. But this is an excellent debate, very, very close, and congratulations to both teams. You did an amazing job, well done.
TONY DAVEY: Cracking stuff. Thank you, Anna-Sophia, and I'll add my congratulations to both teams as well. I super enjoyed this debate. And I'll hand you over now to Alexandria Park Community School, who all five of them have done a great job this year making it all the way to this state final. It's now their job to congratulate our state champions, Randwick.
ARYAMAN PACHORI: Firstly, congratulations to Randwick Public School for winning this debate. You're an awesome team who deserve to win. Thank you all to the adjudicators for attending-- adjudicating this debate, and thanks to Tony Davey and everyone who helped set up for this fantastic debate. You're all amazing, thank you so much.
TONY DAVEY: Cracking work, Alexandria Park. We look forward to seeing all of you in coming years in the Premier's Debating Challenge. I'll now hand over to a representative from the equally strong five-member team of Randwick Public School to congratulate Alexandria Park.
CLEMENTINE ARTHURSON: Congratulations Alexandria Park, you guys were really good. And congratulations on making it this far. That's honestly really great. Thank you adjudicators for adjudicating this debate.
TONY DAVEY: Cracking stuff, Randwick. And to both teams, this officially closes this 2021 State Final of the World's Biggest Debate. Cheers guys, we'll see you around.
End of transcript