DPM's Speech: Barack Hussein Obama said "There are no black americans, there are no white americans, there are just americans", that statement can only exist in a nationalistic society to believe in something other than those identities, that statement can only have meaning and unify people if there is a theme called America, that is more than just borders, but is in data collective identity that people subscribe to and enjoy. Nationalism is good. First thing I wanna look at, the harms that nationalism has been accused of. The first general clash was "Ah, nationalism is often used as na excuse for violence", like ethinic violence was the example giving in the POI. We think that the examples of interethinic violence are of failures of nationalism, not of the full function of the thing that we support. We think that when you hate someone else for being different from you, the best way, in fact the only way, to fix that, giving that you can't change a lot of the difference between peoples such as race is to find another imutable characteristic that you can all subscribe to cohesively, that, ladies and gentleman, is the nation, but not just the borders of the nation, not just the government, but the notion of the nation as a collective (Brilliant!) that supersedes you, that you wanna contribute to, that you have a interesting [pride beyond you], that's when you dont hate the people different from you, cause they're actually all just americans. We think that those differences are less likely to exist when nationalism actually is ... And yes, nationalism does involve a certain amount of exclusion, right? If you are an american, that means by definition that you think you are better than people who are not american. But, to the extent that all collective identity must be based on exclusion, why do we prefer nationalism? Because you cant change a lot of things about yourself, if you are black and people have formed a identity around hating black people, you cannot access that, but almost [without any counterpoint] nationalism is acessible by all. You just have to subscribe to the values and to the concept of the state, you have to show patriotism and you can be participant in it. You dont have to, right? You can be the least nationalistic person in the country, I might be the least nationalistic australian, cause I dont like cricket, but I can. The avenues of entering in to that collective are opened to me, when they might not be opened otherwise. Secondly we heard is that wars are created by nationalism. Incorrect. Wars are created for security reasons, for the selfishness of individuals wanting resources, for the selfishness of individuals wanting to feel protected or for the expansionary ideals of governments, right. But the question is if a war does or does not happen. What is the best way for a community to be able to protect itself. And we dont think that it is for an minimalistic [account] of the state where everyone is an ... individual participant in the cosmopolitan mass. It is when you believe that a threat to Australia is a threat to you, that is the only way that you protect other people, we think that sadly that is sometimes necessary. What we heard from opening opposition was "We think that certain characteristics are imutable, and that nationalism is one". We disagree, you can choose to stop being a living member of a nation or even a nationalistic member of a nation, and that is a far less imutable characteristic than the ones that you are born with. Closing. POI: When nationalism involkes only one set of values, cant politicians supress to said by evolking that political actions, like Bush did through the Patriot Act? Yes. And then all of the counterpoints can say "Actually, it is not 'American' to, like, reduce freedom, in fact it is ... unamerican". We think that there is constant ... about what that nation means, and that's why it changes overtime. That debate is a good thing, cause it means that public values are clear, and they constantly talk about it, rather than just individuals talking about their own values and never I guess engaging with anyone else's. Second point I wanna look at, the benefits of nationalism. What we heard in response to all the benefits that Kiran put to you was, from the opening opposition, "Ah, those are actually the benefits of the state, not the benefits of nationalism". The full functioning of the state needs nationalism to work, for people to cooperate with laws, they can't just believe that a police officer will arrest them, cause there aren't enough police officers to arrest everyone. You have to have an interest in the order of the people around you, you have to have a interest in the thing that you live in, possibly even beyond your life, beyond your own borders, and beyond that of your family, because you see that there is something that you do believe in there, because if you like America, your children should like America, your neighbours should like America, and you have an interest in protecting America and comply with the laws. We think that other things like religion, like ethinicity, even sexuality to the extent that does or could challenge the idea of nationalism, one day, we think those alternative directions of [] other than the state are actually that threat the full function of the state. So if you can get a lot of benefits from collectivization, which is conceded, they said it's just provided to the state. We think that having an identity based in ethinicity weakens that state, by creating an alternate source of [], right? To your god, to a group of people, and not to the nation itself. We think that humans need to collectivize to [] and that nationalism is the certainty of that collective, is the certainty that the collective you participate in and other people helping you. Those are the good that matter to people that opposition leader was talking about, that is why the state offers those goods to people, because nationalism offer a certainty in that. The final point I wanna look at is a substantive point, about the importance of belief in the state as a concept. If you value and believe in your state, if you love your nation, and, importantly, if you can see that your nation as having values and characteristics that you want to survive beyond your own life and beyond your own direct experiences, that is a good thing. Why? Firstly, because youre more likely to plan in the long term, and believe and have intrest in the cohesiveness of that nation, incidently, thats the only way international commerce could function. Otherwise, no one would believe that a country would repay its loans, that a country would fulfill its treaties obligations, that a country would ever engage in commerce the same way tomorrow as it did today, but it does, because the nation state and the concept of nationalism has a direction forward through time. It has a certainty that comes when the collective believes in that certainty. We think that you only plan in the long term if you believe in the state, and we think that you only believe in the state if you have an nationalistic atitude. But the second benefit of belief in the state is that reduces what I've call the tragedy of community commons. If you dont have an interest in America as a concept, then you have far less of interest in politics, in laws, in actions that do not directly affect you or your family. We think that the ... of people going out of their way to protect others, we think that the [] of people voting on anything other than their direct interest can only exist when you believe in collective that is beyond your own. We think that belief in the state is one of the best benefits of nationalism. What has Monash told you in this debate? We've told that it is not reasonable to compare nationalism to a utopia of cosmopolitan love for everyone, but compare to the other ways in which humans can collectivize, things like ethnicity, religion, sexuality. We think that nationalism is better, it offers benefits of altruism, belief in the state, longevity, and it is far more acessible than any type of collective identity. Ladies and Gentleman, we think that is it important that there is an America, not just a black or a white America
I think this is perfect for a final. It feels more tangible than I often find debates of that time. It makes what is often a sport something real…This debate and its content remains relevant for this reason..
DPM's Speech:
Barack Hussein Obama said "There are no black americans, there are no white americans, there are just americans", that statement can only exist in a nationalistic society to believe in something other than those identities, that statement can only have meaning and unify people if there is a theme called America, that is more than just borders, but is in data collective identity that people subscribe to and enjoy. Nationalism is good.
First thing I wanna look at, the harms that nationalism has been accused of. The first general clash was "Ah, nationalism is often used as na excuse for violence", like ethinic violence was the example giving in the POI. We think that the examples of interethinic violence are of failures of nationalism, not of the full function of the thing that we support. We think that when you hate someone else for being different from you, the best way, in fact the only way, to fix that, giving that you can't change a lot of the difference between peoples such as race is to find another imutable characteristic that you can all subscribe to cohesively, that, ladies and gentleman, is the nation, but not just the borders of the nation, not just the government, but the notion of the nation as a collective (Brilliant!) that supersedes you, that you wanna contribute to, that you have a interesting [pride beyond you], that's when you dont hate the people different from you, cause they're actually all just americans. We think that those differences are less likely to exist when nationalism actually is ... And yes, nationalism does involve a certain amount of exclusion, right? If you are an american, that means by definition that you think you are better than people who are not american.
But, to the extent that all collective identity must be based on exclusion, why do we prefer nationalism?
Because you cant change a lot of things about yourself, if you are black and people have formed a identity around hating black people, you cannot access that, but almost [without any counterpoint] nationalism is acessible by all. You just have to subscribe to the values and to the concept of the state, you have to show patriotism and you can be participant in it. You dont have to, right? You can be the least nationalistic person in the country, I might be the least nationalistic australian, cause I dont like cricket, but I can. The avenues of entering in to that collective are opened to me, when they might not be opened otherwise.
Secondly we heard is that wars are created by nationalism. Incorrect. Wars are created for security reasons, for the selfishness of individuals wanting resources, for the selfishness of individuals wanting to feel protected or for the expansionary ideals of governments, right. But the question is if a war does or does not happen. What is the best way for a community to be able to protect itself. And we dont think that it is for an minimalistic [account] of the state where everyone is an ... individual participant in the cosmopolitan mass. It is when you believe that a threat to Australia is a threat to you, that is the only way that you protect other people, we think that sadly that is sometimes necessary. What we heard from opening opposition was "We think that certain characteristics are imutable, and that nationalism is one". We disagree, you can choose to stop being a living member of a nation or even a nationalistic member of a nation, and that is a far less imutable characteristic than the ones that you are born with. Closing.
POI: When nationalism involkes only one set of values, cant politicians supress to said by evolking that political actions, like Bush did through the Patriot Act?
Yes. And then all of the counterpoints can say "Actually, it is not 'American' to, like, reduce freedom, in fact it is ... unamerican". We think that there is constant ... about what that nation means, and that's why it changes overtime. That debate is a good thing, cause it means that public values are clear, and they constantly talk about it, rather than just individuals talking about their own values and never I guess engaging with anyone else's.
Second point I wanna look at, the benefits of nationalism.
What we heard in response to all the benefits that Kiran put to you was, from the opening opposition, "Ah, those are actually the benefits of the state, not the benefits of nationalism". The full functioning of the state needs nationalism to work, for people to cooperate with laws, they can't just believe that a police officer will arrest them, cause there aren't enough police officers to arrest everyone. You have to have an interest in the order of the people around you, you have to have a interest in the thing that you live in, possibly even beyond your life, beyond your own borders, and beyond that of your family, because you see that there is something that you do believe in there, because if you like America, your children should like America, your neighbours should like America, and you have an interest in protecting America and comply with the laws. We think that other things like religion, like ethinicity, even sexuality to the extent that does or could challenge the idea of nationalism, one day, we think those alternative directions of [] other than the state are actually that threat the full function of the state. So if you can get a lot of benefits from collectivization, which is conceded, they said it's just provided to the state. We think that having an identity based in ethinicity weakens that state, by creating an alternate source of [], right? To your god, to a group of people, and not to the nation itself. We think that humans need to collectivize to [] and that nationalism is the certainty of that collective, is the certainty that the collective you participate in and other people helping you. Those are the good that matter to people that opposition leader was talking about, that is why the state offers those goods to people, because nationalism offer a certainty in that.
The final point I wanna look at is a substantive point, about the importance of belief in the state as a concept. If you value and believe in your state, if you love your nation, and, importantly, if you can see that your nation as having values and characteristics that you want to survive beyond your own life and beyond your own direct experiences, that is a good thing. Why? Firstly, because youre more likely to plan in the long term, and believe and have intrest in the cohesiveness of that nation, incidently, thats the only way international commerce could function. Otherwise, no one would believe that a country would repay its loans, that a country would fulfill its treaties obligations, that a country would ever engage in commerce the same way tomorrow as it did today, but it does, because the nation state and the concept of nationalism has a direction forward through time. It has a certainty that comes when the collective believes in that certainty. We think that you only plan in the long term if you believe in the state, and we think that you only believe in the state if you have an nationalistic atitude.
But the second benefit of belief in the state is that reduces what I've call the tragedy of community commons. If you dont have an interest in America as a concept, then you have far less of interest in politics, in laws, in actions that do not directly affect you or your family. We think that the ... of people going out of their way to protect others, we think that the [] of people voting on anything other than their direct interest can only exist when you believe in collective that is beyond your own. We think that belief in the state is one of the best benefits of nationalism.
What has Monash told you in this debate? We've told that it is not reasonable to compare nationalism to a utopia of cosmopolitan love for everyone, but compare to the other ways in which humans can collectivize, things like ethnicity, religion, sexuality. We think that nationalism is better, it offers benefits of altruism, belief in the state, longevity, and it is far more acessible than any type of collective identity. Ladies and Gentleman, we think that is it important that there is an America, not just a black or a white America
Raphael Ferreira good
Amazing, good job, I love you
I thought this was going to be a meme, holy, its a entire argument
@@cherto_poof is that u?
W h a t
how i wish i can be as good as them... however, this inspires me to practice and practice...
Ha luh ? bida bida much ?
me too
Archiemxx1
Hear hear
Dpm , gave a perfect speech , everything needed in a speech was in his speech , hear hear !!
Steph is a LEGEND!!!! This is a great debate…feels like yesterday…
Gov Whip was good…
Closing opposition was fantastic
What a debate!
no; oo says the gov should not have a role in advocating for an identity; co says having many different identities is good for society
MG is brilliant
love your debate videos! Thanks!
OG won.
If you are American, you naturally think you are better than people that are not American. That cannot be more true
the pm was also good too!!! I loved it!!!
what does he say at 24:18 ? Quote: "So clearly the American flag was ... for the purposes of this debate"
thanks
"ironic"
@@thejmallu4393 👍
Can anybody summarize this debate for me? My computer recently crashed and I barely got any permssion to use UA-cam.
Bubby Yo it's a big state vs small state debate
class work.
the dpm was good
Can someone tell me what is said at 2:10? it's premised on _______ its specific commonalities.
I think it's "reveling"
That debate just went back and forth :/
I can not understand this video, so who can translate this into Chinese or with subtitle???
winner?
OG
This is not the motion for a worlds finals.
I think this is perfect for a final. It feels more tangible than I often find debates of that time. It makes what is often a sport something real…This debate and its content remains relevant for this reason..
16:22
HAHAHAHA. I feel you.
dont u think PM is charming
0:29
thank u
I can
why