Debating competition 28/1/26

On the 28th of January, our Junior debating team took on Loreto Bray in close competition, with David’s acting as the opposition and Loreto as proposition to the declaration that ‘restorative justice is superior to retributive justice’.

Loreto opened the debate, arguing that addressing the cause of a crime is more effective than simply punishing it. That restorative justice is more cost effective and leads to fewer crimes in the long run. David’s quickly combated this argument through their captain Seraphina who used relevant examples to support why retributive justice is truly necessary, "how would you feel if every serial killer was out and walking?” 

Loreto’s second speaker took the podium, with the tough task of topping Seraphina’s excellent remarks. She argued that restorative justice is more progressive, that it strengthens community ties and gives victims increased satisfaction. David’s came back to the argument with a bang through their second speaker Leila, bringing up the points that punishment is a more immediate reaction to the unthinkable. Asking if everyone present would really be okay with someone who committed a crime just living their life, feeling no remorse for their actions. 

Then came Loreto’s third speaker who reasoned that justice is about making a victim feel better and not just punishing perpetrators, saying that through restorative justice victims are given a voice and support. The third David’s speaker Anna, easily tackled their points by observing that not everyone wants an apology, most want accountability. That restorative justice relies too heavily on a perpetrators sincerity. 

It was then time for Loreto’s fourth speaker, who spoke with the intention of locating a flaw in David’s argument. She covered each of David’s points and attempted to break down each and every one, giving evidence as to why restorative justice encourages closure and safety. This left David’s with some work to do, with the job going to their fourth speaker Dylan. Dylan passionately argued that apologising does not deter crime and instead encourages it due to the lack of consequences. 

Both of the team captains closed the argument by summarising their key points, and it was then left up to the judges to decide who had performed better. The two teams bonded over biscuits and treats before hearing the news. The result did not go in David’s favour and they came away just 10 points short of the win. However, their performance was absolutely incredible and hopefully they get the results they truly deserve in their next competition. A massive thank you to the students who participated and to Mr. Farnan who helped out. 

Reporter & Photographer: Abi Breathnach