DEBATING This year marked an exciting change in the debating programme at Trinity college, that sought to develop and grow this important co-curricular activity at the college. This change was the creation of a new, independent Trinity debating tournament, which promised to provide younger students with countless opportunities to enhance their debating skills. With a new debating system in place, there was immense positive interest from the younger years, with many students keen on trying out debating and building their public speaking skills. In addition to these younger students, there were a handful of new senior students participating in the programme.
The younger debaters were involved in the Trinity debating tournament, led by both Ms Katie Rolston and the senior students. This tournament firstly involved teaching the younger students the integral concepts that formulate the art of debating. With a variety workshops led by senior students, the younger students explored the three M’s of debating; Matter, Manner and Method. After this learning process, the younger students were ready to debate. Teams comprised of students from varying year groups would compete in morning debates, initially focussing on classic topics such as ‘That video games containing violence be banned for children?’ but then moving to more advanced topics such as ‘That Australia should become a Republic?’ and ‘That we should regret the rise of eco-tourism’. This range of topics allowed students to learn an immense array of new knowledge surrounding contemporary issues, as well as significantly enhance their public speaking skills. It has been a privilege to watch these young debaters grow over the course of the year, with all of them dramatically boosting both their confidence and debating skills. I sincerely hope that Trinity continues this independent tournament and I can’t wait to hear about the future growth of debating at Trinity College. Jeremy Hansen (12.4)
TRINITY COLLEGE ANNUAL 2018
The senior debaters (Year 11 and 12 students) were enrolled in the WADL competition at the senior level, were they competed in a combination of both prepared and improvised debated. Students were tasked with using a prowess of rhetoric devices a to present convincing arguments towards topics such as ‘That we should have mandatory sexual education for home-schooled students’ and ‘That the government should have unrestricted access to people’s data in order to prevent crime’. The senior teams debated in a professional and astute manner that ensured these teams were a strong opposing force for any competitor.
Jeremy Hansen (12.4)
SENIOR DEBATING BACK ROW: Asher Fatin, Joseph Pinto, Joseph Dawson, Sean Carroll, Alexander Galante, Jeremy Hansen
178
FRONT ROW: Simon Homsany, Dimitri Tsagaris, Ms Katie Rolston, Thomas Payne, Jacob Mangan
