The University of Notre Dame Australia triumphed over Macquarie University in the 2026 Archbishop Debating Cup Final, held at St Mary’s Cathedral Chapter Hall on 10 September.
Archbishop Anthony Fisher OP adjudicated the student debate, which centered on whether some forms of hate speech should be criminalised in New South Wales. Macquarie held the affirmative position, with UNDA opposing the proposition.
The chosen topic relates to renewed debate over how the state should respond to hateful rhetoric, rising antisemitism and protests affecting places of worship following the December 2025 attack on a Jewish Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach.
Restrictions introduced after the attack were struck down by the NSW Court of Appeal in April, leaving open questions about where protection from harm ends and freedom of expression begins.
The Macquarie team was comprised of Andrew Lindner, Diyon Foneska and Joshua Capollpo, and UNDA’s Hudson Carberry, Owen Koster and Veronica Chacty were allotted eight minutes of speaking time each. There was a buzz in the hall as about 100 supporters gathered to witness the debate.
Audible reactions arose to some of the arguments, especially when Macquarie’s first speaker, Lindner, argued that expressed hatred is a stage of violence “where the law must intervene.” Archbishop Fisher said he found himself “thoroughly convinced” by UNDA’s argument.
“Even if we concede the harmfulness of some speech, the question still remains: is the criminal law the best way to sanction said hate speech?” he remarked.
“A free society can expose and challenge bad ideas instead of abandoning them; hateful speech before the violence in Bondi doesn’t prove cause and effect, let alone justify the law attempting to create pre-emptive strikes against speech that might lead one day to bad behaviour.
“Those criticisms were well made.”
The archbishop congratulated all the debaters for providing continued, incisive analysis into the perils of hate speech in NSW, and everyday life.
“Underneath this debate were two differences between human beings: one being the different views that we might have about the purposes and power of intellect, speech and debate, and the other being the different perspectives of the purposes of civil law, and the proper limits to state power,” he said.
“The two teams [were] ready to give me answers as to what the right remedies were to deal with this issue of hate speech, and I was equally delighted to hear references from St Thomas Aquinas, to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, and from scripture and the Catechism to contemporary examples of hurtful speech.”
Despite the intense, high-stakes nature of the debate the evening was bookended by moments of humour. When introducing the archbishop, Natalie Ambrose, coordinator of the archdiocese’s university chaplaincies and host for the final, vividly explained that he had discerned his vocation while on a Contiki tour in the Mediterranean.
“Debating was a big part of my life throughout university and my adulthood… but none of that was mentioned in the introduction!” the archbishop returned during his adjudication.
He declared the art of debating is alive and well.
“It’s a great pleasure to be the adjudicator for this evening because I think debating can shape the way we think, the way we argue, our personalities,” he said.
“The final is always, and will continue to be, the intellectual highlight of the year.”
