The motion for the semi-final was “This house believes that hacking is an acceptable for protest against large corporations”, and we were dealt proposition against Andrewes house, who were opposition.
Raffi R (L6ths)
James J was our first speaker, presenting our core ideas, such as our definitions of hacking and protest, as well as the idea that protest has been a necessary form of protection for people throughout history. In fact, we noted that it has been looked upon favourably in history, even when it was illegal, showing that morality might not always be an equivalent to legality.
He then went on to argue that hacking is necessary as a form of protest, due to its wide ranging powers as well as it being preferable to other, more violent forms of protest that may arise without it. The opposition tried to argue that hacking was not ethical, violating a human right to privacy, which Peter N responded to, talking about the benefits it would have in authoritarian countries and other, more damaging forms of protest that it would take the place of. The second opposition speaker then argued that hacking as a form of protest was not practical, and that ‘protest’ could be used as a front for hacking selfishly.
Both teams then gave closing arguments, summarising their positions. In the end, we won, with Mr Hoyle finding our arguments and definitions more convincing overall.
It was an excellent and enjoyable event. We hope we will have lots of support for the final on the first Thursday back after half term – please do come along!
