The inter-house debating competition finished just before half term, with Rigaud very narrowly beating Sherrignton in the final, proposing the motion “This House would be teetotal”. Rigaud proposed that the dangers of alcohol, on health, social and economic grounds mean that a societal shift away from the use of alcohol was recommended. They brought lots of supporting evidence to bear in their argument, including the high use of alcohol by those who commit crimes, the suggestion that the government’s high taxation of alcohol indicates it is perceived as a significant risk to society, and the addictive nature of the stimulant.

Sherrington opposed the motion with a range of striking ideas, persistently challenging Rigaud about the difficulties of implementing a cultural shift in behaviour. Benefits of drinking in moderation were included in Sherrington’s argument, from the cultural contribution, the income from sales and the range of jobs all held in place by the alcohol industry. After a heated floor debate the judgement was given: 36 points to Sherrington and 38 points to Rigaud.

Well done to all the speakers, who showed, as always, how well rounded and skilled our pupils are, and how interesting the world around us is, if only we interrogate it for information and question what can be inferred from it. In this year’s competition we have debated about whether public figures have the right to private lives (defeated), affluent nations should accept significantly more immigrants (a draw), the use of drones (defeated), vegetarianism (proposed), the sale of organs (proposed) and teetotalism (proposed).

Thanks to Ellie and Charlotte for chairing, and to all the pupils and staff who came along to support and join in the floor debate.

Article written by Mrs Catchpole, English Teacher