Last Friday, the Middle School students gathered in the Brother Paull Centre for the eagerly anticipated final between Bryan West and Treacy East. The topic was one that everyone in the audience had an opinion on

We have a love/hate relationship with our crows on campus. They love to break into our bags, eat our lunches, get into our bins and strew rubbish everywhere, and their cawing is not what one would describe as delightful on the ear. Still, they are a native species and culling them is not something we can do without permission.

The debate began in smart fashion when Treacy House’s first speaker, Christian Pecotic, boldly took the microphone, walked casually in front of the lectern and began in a clear and confident voice to assassinate the character of Aquinas’s crows. It was an impressive opener from a Year 8 student.

To open the argument for Bryan House, seasoned campaigner, Timothy Kania, proceeded to tell us that the bird we so readily disparaged as a crow was in fact a raven, a bird with phenomenal intelligence that was greatly revered by indigenous people: to kill such a bird was anathema.

Riley Nel then stepped up as Speaker Two for Treacy. He gave us some examples of the environmental impact of the crow population on the finely tuned ecosystem of the Mount Henry Peninsula. The crow population, he argued, was artificially inflated due to the readily available food source provided by our school lunches.

Orlando Iacono then delivered what was the most impressive single speech of the debate. He argued that historical precedents for culling crows proved that this had little to no bearing on the problem. Environmentally, he took the opposite view to Riley by reminding us to be careful what we wished for because the removal of the crows might just encourage other species to thrive, including dugites and rats.

Then the voice of countless hours of Inter-School experience stepped up to the plate: Nishok Nimalan destroyed what little was left of the crows’ reputation. “Winged demons” he called them and argued that it would be criminally negligent of us not to deal with the problem.

Our final speaker was Edmund Whyte, in what was an impressive performance from a student whose experience with debating has been limited to inter-House events. Edmund spoke with passion and tugged at the heartstrings, reminding us that nature is not ours to tamper with.

Fellow adjudicator, Mrs Manning and I were hard-pressed to award a clear advantage to either side. Ultimately, though, we felt that the affirmative, largely through rhetorical flourish and the depth of their rebuttal, were more convincing on the day. Congratulations to Treacy House for their victory and to Bryan House for being worthy opponents.