The Inter-House Debate was on ‘This House believes that the UK should adopt a duty to rescue.’

Wellesley House vs Lyon House

The debate between Wellesley House and Lyon House was of an incredibly high standard for the start of the year. Both teams had completed some thorough research into the pros and cons of duty to rescue laws. Sam from Lyon House opened the debate with an impassioned plea for us to consider the plight of various people whose lives could have potentially been saved by a duty to rescue law. Grace followed from Wellesley delivering a powerful introduction to their strong arguments. The middle speeches from Ben and Niamh were outstanding - well researched, full of energy and overflowing with persuasion. A healthy floor debate saw lots of interesting questions being asked, followed by closing speeches of a very high calibre from Amelia and Adam. In the end, Lyon House just won the debate by 1 point (for style) with a score of 44/50 as opposed to Wellesley House’s 43/50. Well done to both teams.

Rev'd George Beverly - Chaplain

Arion House vs Blackford House

In essence, this means that if someone can prevent serious harm to another person, at minimal cost to themselves, then they have a moral duty to intervene. It was a surprise to many, that we did not already have this rule in the UK, therefore, potentially, as Arion House argued, we could watch someone suffer, get injured or even die without intervention. Blackford House believed that the duty to rescue, infringed on personal freedoms, that if the UK made this law, as it is in the Netherlands and Portugal, it would penalise individuals who struggle to cope in stressful situations. Arion concluded by saying the most important route should be whatever will save the most lives, which was, they argued, to adopt the duty to rescue. Arion won the debate: 34 to 29 points.  

Alison Grant - Deputy Head

Flickr album: Inter-House Debating - Round 1 - 26th September 2022 | Height: auto | Theme: Default | Skin: Default Skin