PM's speech: Madame chair, the global poor, all around the world and no matter what country in which they live, currently live under in a system of dictatorship. They live under a dictatorship known as no alternative, shackled by capital that have been unjustly acquired, constrained by landed gentry that have no incentive but to pursue they own interests and chained by the fact they can´t do anything but to look at the question of their own subsistence, they are unable to reach out the right to liberty and the self-determination that we think inheres in the human condition. How are we going to define a Marxist revolution in this debate? We say that in all its forms it shares the feature of wanting to break down the system of private property, that’s what a Marxist revolution means. It can take place in one of two ways. One, it can happen through internal systems, that is to say you voting Marxist governments who support things like mass redistribution and the abolishment of private property, or it can exist externally in the instance of forcibly bringing down governments that for far too long have treat in this people lives. The first thing that I am going to note just on account of the model is just a picture of what we think this world looks like, that is to say that we accept that this attempt to revolution won´t succeed in all instances, that in many just lead to the rise of Marxist parties but in the world succeed we encourage you to use your imagination, that is to say, just notice how chrono centric our vision of civilization is that is a system of private property emerged out of the enlighten that is the las 300 hundred years of human existence, prior to that people lived in sharing economies where they defined themselves as something greater than their labor and their productive force, that is the kind of world that we support. Two things then I'm going to begin with this speech, First, private property constitutes a fundamental assault in human dignity in three key respects, First, it is found and in has been acquired unjustly. In the vast majority of instances, the reason why wealthy countries are wealthy is trough processes like colonialism, through slavery, through patriarchy, it represents plunder when you refuse to give any representation or resources to whom and from whom you money but even if it wasn´t in those direct instances of theft in many instances it was negligence, that´s to say the creation of vastly constrictive intellectual property rates that means that individuals don´t in the poor have proper access to things like medication, its refusal to tax properly. We think negligence is morally culpable. The fact that it is unjustly acquired in and of itself gives the poor a claim to that property and its institution that is itself being harmful. The second thing it enables the poor in terms of a principle is that it allows them to get redress in opposition to centuries of disenfranchisement, that is to say theft and negligence represent the stripping of the individual right assert themselves. We are going to give you systematic reasons why you don´t get reforms on their side but notice that this as a principle argument is independent from a consideration of practices, that’s to say compensation or giving more money is unlike categorically what these people require in principle which is a redress from the fact that they´ve been taken out of the system of moral equality by theft and negligence. The last thing to say is let´s take them at their best, that is, let´s wipe the slate clean and accept that everybody has equal access to resources. Why then is property still oppressive and why does it represent an assault on human dignity? The first is that competition and the premise on which it is based is artificial that´s to say it trades on morally insignificant arbitrary factors. The fact of scarcity which allows many corporations to succeed, the fact that I was born with certain talents or certain skills that other individuals weren´t. We think that those are morally arbitrary from the consideration of deserve and we don't think that´s just ground. The second thing is a question of actors so capital continues to decide what begets it so you get to decide as the head of a corporation who you hire and what kind of skills you have. Principally private property assaults dignity … leads to good outcome. Notice what´s on the other side, the reason why they need to defend the SQ is that they don´t get the structural reforms that you require. There are three reasons for this, The first is the democratic system that trough processes of gerrymandering which are almost irrevocable in many parts of the world the poor are systematically disenfranchised, they don´t control hegemonic media that control media narratives about what a good policy is, they usually kept apart by racist rhetoric that accentuates other a script of descriptions preventing them from coming forward, the fact of historical disenfranchise furthermore means that they´re less likely to turn out the vote in a way that other people are. The second reason why you don´t get structural reform Is because it´s internationally imbalanced on the consideration of nations so the … institutions largely built by the west, the institution of human rights, which favors civil and political rights of a socio-economic human rights. We say that those things mean that the alternative they need to defend is continued and systematic in action. What do you get on our side? One, the success cases, these are the one in which the revolution works, closing I will take you if you have something, opening. POI: Despite this rhetoric, the last two decades the last two decades have seen almost a billion people lifted in Asia because private companies have an incentive to unlock an unskilled an uneducated workforce that they otherwise wouldn´t. We refuse that premise, the reason why we were able to get socio-economics rights in countries like China is through massive systems of redistribution and bringing up the poor from the public, so if you want to claim literally the communist country from your side is to say the people who´ve put it together the single biggest program of and social rights, yeah, I think enough said. So, let's say the world in which they succeed, we think that those communities will succeed for three reasons. First, it encompasses the vast majority of the global population and given that capital is dependent on labor to get any return we think that´s beneficial. Second is the location of resources in many parts of the developing world mean that they have access to those things. The third thing to say is that you get cross-pollination and you get global solidarity across racial lines what currently capital have the incentive to get them divided, those deals with the best case scenario for their side where you get complete revolution, Fanele will also talk about why you get structural reforms along the way that are beneficial. What we need from an opposition? Is a comprehensive account of property, why is just, and why it doesn't, as it continually done throughout history assault human dignity.
@@thumaido264 ahhh i see i see thank you. i figured this out a little while after watching this vid because im making my way thru all the debating vids on YT lmao.
Transcript of the CO extension because he's the Johnny Lawrence of this debate: Honorable Speaker, the poor of the world have two choices before them in this debate. The first is to engage in a revolution that will either fail, or, more terrifyingly, succeed; or, work within the system to improve their influence and their situation within the world both domestically and internationally today. We will show you how the latter is significantly better. Okay, we are going to deal firstly with the principle of the debate. Because we get that the principle that "this is what you deserve", "it's better to fight even if you are going to fail". Okay, it is principally deplorable to choose an option that will not only condemn millions of global poor to live in a post-revolution society where the people who control the economic and political leaps of power are now prejudiced against them, but to subject the poor to enconomic, politic and violent destruction, right? If you have two choices before you, and you choose to endanger the lives of billions of the most endangered people in the world, that is principally abhorrent. So we're going to take it on that basis. Okay, let's talk about how this revolution looks when it fails, because they admit that it'll fail in almost all countries. In the United States, this is going to fail; Europe, this is going to fail. What are the harms of a failed Marxist revolution? It puts the interests of the poor diametrically opposed to the interest of the wealthy; this revolution threaten the property rights of the people who have power in society; political power, economic power; it threatens the lives that they have built for their family; it is based on the rhetoric that you don't deserve to have the things that you have, that you feel that you worked your whole life to obtain, the generations of wealth that you intend to pass on to your children; you threaten to take away everything from the people who have power. This will lead to a hatred, or at least an opposition, to the poor. Secondly, what will this do to the rich? It will cause them to act in self-defense; so the biggest risk isn't that people lose some stuff. The biggest risk is that this revolution fails and the people who have political power in the open world turn against the poor domestically and internationally. What does this look like domestically? Look at how tenuous any welfare policy is in the United States currently. Look at how thin a margin Obamacare passed to give basic medical care to the poor of the United States. The reason that you got this kind of support is on a broad based rhetoric that the poor deserve our help; that their interest are in line with ours, that they deserve help and that we can help in this way. If you make it so that the poor are a threat to the wealthy and the economic powerful in these countries, those policies will certainly fail. There will also be harms to any form of international support. Donations to the World Bank, to the United Nations Development Fund, those all depend on development will in the developed countries to give their money to help the poor. If the poor are set to take away everything they worked for and they loved, that is awful to them. So that's why it's bad if it fails. POI: You spend ten seconds on the principle. Colonialism and slavery were themselves acts of war. Given that the capital was unjustly acquired, disenfranchisement requires reparations, and at best, property (...)? A: The poor of the world, if they are made significantly worse off, if they are oppressed violently and economically and politically, will not take solace in your principled victory. We are fine to stand on practice here. Next, what if it succeeds? Which is the real danger in this scenario. Where is it likely that this will succeed? In countries that there is a State that can be overthrown by anomaly; in the places where the poor are the most vulnerable. First, the gov gets up and says that Bangladeshi factories are currently very bad; imagine if the country was thrown in a state of rebellion, what would be made of these people both economically and politically? Economically, all investment from the West in the development world that suffer a violent Marxist revolution will immediately disappear; given that a Marxist revolution will likely fail where the capital is globally, people will withdraw and not have any jobs and investment in this country, and it will lead to a huge period of economically instability that will take away the livelihood of literally millions of people - this is the serious harm. Next, it will lead to a complete shutdown of government. Who pays the police in this State, where you will completely disarm the government and remove them of any sort of legitimacy? Who oversees the electoral mecanism by which this new communist party is brought to power? They give no reason to believe that a State that it's violently converted to Marxism will be a utopia for the poor - in fact, we think that these States will likely lead to incredible perversion incentives for state capture; these kinds of revolutions are usually a very narrow military movement that were not brought by basic publics of poor. There's usually one strong militant group in these countries that will take power under the guise of Marxism - look at the massive Marxist revolutions in South Africa and South America, and look how they did not lead to a great redistributive State that help the poor, but instead led to a concentrated military government that oppress the poor and its opposition to maintain political power. It's perhaps the most dangerous to give these sorts of bodies absolute power over the developing world. It is a narrow movement that will not lead to a better outcome, and will in fact disinfranchise the poor and desestabilize States that need it the most. Okay, let's talk about our alternative. Why it is better for people to work within the system? How can the poor make things better? We think that there have been huge steps forward in the international system; things like the World Bank, the United Nations. The United Nations gives millions of food/day to the entire world. And even the WTO is making huge steps forward; the recent agreement in Nigeria led to an agreement to reduce agricultural subsidies from the developed world to the developing world by 65% over the next five years. This is a huge economic win for the developed world. Why is this happening? Firstly, growing social awareness and vocal criticism of oppression of the West of the global poor in the developed world; from scholars that come from Harvard [nice shade, man] that say "this is bad, and we shouldn't oppress people like this". Secondly, growing economic influence of these countries. Regional trade blocks, like MERCOSUL, like the upcoming African Trade Union, are giving a more equal economic footing for the global poor to negotiate equal rights with the global powers and this is improving the situation. Lastly, domestically, the poor in democratic countries and even in countries like China that are less democratic, have a substantial ability to pressure their government to do things that are better for them. If you have a global poor that is able to unite for a Marxist revolution, clearly they can enact some sort of democratic change to give themselves better policies within the country. It is significantly better. We think that this is not a round about machines, right? The machination point, I'll spend the last fifteen seconds dealing with, mechanization is not what this round is about. This round is about economic destruction and political disparity for the developing world. We think that if you have principally the choice that leads to growth or deplorable destruction, then the latter is unprincipled and unjust choice for the global poor. We are proud to oppose. [you're alright, larusso]
@@nintendo2000 not what I'm saying but anyway, just to be clear, if the motion contained the word practical instead of the word justified, would you say the same thing and if not why
i have to watch this as a assignment for my debate class, i was suppous to watch only 7 minutes but ended up watching the whole thing! its alot more intresting than i thought
Madam chair, The global poor all around the world and no matter in what country in which they live currently live in a system of dictatorship. They live under a dictatorship known as no alternatives shackled by capital that's been unjustly acquired, constrained by landed gentry who have no incentives but to pursue their own insterests and chained by the fact that they can't do anything but to look at the questions of their own subsistence. They're unable to reach out for the right to liberty and to self-determination that we think inheres in the human condition. How are going to define a marxist revolution in this debate? We say that in all its forms it shares the feature of wanting to break down the system of private property - that's what a marxist revolution means. It can take place in one of two ways: (1) one is it can happen through internal systems that exist presently - that is to say that you vote in Marxist governments who support things like mass redistribution and the abolishment of private property - or (2) it can exist externally in the instance of forcibly bringing down governments that for far too long have tread on these people's rights. The first thing that I'm going to note just on account of the model is just a picture of what we think this world looks like - that is to say we accept that this attempt at revolution won't succeed in all instances, that in many instances it'll just lead to the rise of Marxist party but in the world in which we do succeed we encourage you to use your imagination - that is to say just notice how chronocentric our vision of civilization is. That is a system of private property emerged out of the Enlightenment that is the last 300 years of human existence. Prior to that, people lived in sharing economies where they define themselves as something greater than their labor and their productive force - that's the kind of world that we support. Two things then I'm going to begin this speech with. (1) First, private property constitutes a fundamental assault in human dignity in three key aspects: (i) first, it is found and it has been acquired unjustly. In the vast majority of instances the reason why wealthy countries are wealthy is through processes like colonialism, through slavery, through patriarchy. It represents plunder when you refuse to give any representation or resources to whom and from whom you took money. But even if it wasn't in those direct instances of theft, in many instances it was negligence - that's to say the creation of vastly constrictive intellectual property rates. That means that individuals don't in the poor have proper access to things like medication its refusal to tax properly - we think negligence is just as morally culpable. The fact that it is unjustly acquired in and of itself gives the poor a claim to that property and to the institution that is itself being harmful. (ii)The second thing, it enables the poor in terms of a principle is that it allows them to get redress in opposition to centuries of disenfranchisement. That is to say that theft and negligence represent the stripping of the individual right to assert themselves. We're going to give you systematic reasons why you don't get reforms on their side but notice that this as a principled argument is independent from a consideration of practices - that's to say compensation or giving more money is unlike categorically what these people require in principle which is a redress from the fact that they've been taken out of the system of moral equality by theft and negligence. (iii)The last thing to say is let's take them at their best - that is let's wipe the slate clean and accept that everybody has equal rights to resources. Why then is property still oppressive and why does it represent an assault on human dignity? The (1) first reason is that competition and the premises on which it is based is artificial. That's to say it trades or morally insignificant or arbitrary factors. The fact of scarcity which allows many corporations to succeed. The fact that I was born with certain talents or certain skills that other individuals weren't - we think those are morally arbitrary from the consideration of desert and we don't think that's just grounds. The (2) second thing is a question of actors. So capital stiil continues to decide what begets it. So you get to decide as the head of a corporation who you hire and what kind of skills you have. Principally, private property assaults dignity and this second leats to good outcomes. Notice what on the other side, the reason why they need to defend the status quo is that they don't get the levers of reforms that you require. There are three reasons for this: the (1) first is the democratic system that through processes of gerrymandering which are almost irrevocable in very many parts of the world the poor are systematically disenfranchised. They don't control hegemonic media, that control media narratives about what good policy is. The're usually kept apart by racist rhetoric that accentuates other script of descriptions preventing them from coming forward. The fact of the historical disenfranchisement furthermore means that they're less likely to turn out the vote in a way that other people are. The (2)second reason why you don't get structural reform is because it's internationally imbalanced on the considerations of nations. So the Bretton Woods institutions were largely built by the West, the institution of human rights which favors civil and political rights of a socio-economic human rights. We say that those things mean that the alternative they need to defend is continued and systematic in action. What do you get under our side? One, the success cases. These are the ones in which the revolution works. - Closing, I'll take you if you have something. - Opening, despite this rhetoric, the last two decades have seen almost a billion people lifted out of poverty in Asian because private companies have an incentive to unlock an unskilled and uneducated workforce that they otherwise wouldn't. - We refuse that premise. The reason why we were able to get socio-economic rights in countries like China is through massive systems of redistribution and bringing up the poor from the public. So if you wanna claim literally the communist country for your side that is to say the people who've put it together the single biggest program of economic and social rights - yeah, okay, I think enough said. So let's say the world in which they succeed. We think that those communities will succeed for three reasons. First, it encompasses the vast majority of the global population and given that capital is dependent on labor to get any return from it we think that's beneficial. Second is the location of resources in many parts of the developing world means that they have access to those things. The third thing to say is that you get cross-pollination and you get global solidarity across racial lines where currently capital has the incentive to get them devided. Those deals with the best case scenario for their side where you get complete revolution - Fanele will also talk about why you get structural reforms along the way that are beneficial. What we need from an opposition is a comprehensive account of property. Why it's just and why it doesn't as it has continually done throughout history assault human dignity. We're very proud to propose.
The PM's speech is just so great to keep on re-watching this debate damn.. and then this guy deputy leader of opposition i love the way he started with the movie thought 😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝
+LeshyLeshy Before competitive championships begin, the debaters have to agree upon getting filmed/streamed live. Perhaps lead OP did not agree to do the same.
For some it may be a matter of personal preference. For others, it may relate to their profession or personal circumstances. E.g. at least two prominent debaters who study I know never agree to be filmed or recorded in debates relating to banking or finance in case they have to criticise the banks that they may need to employ them in the future.
The Mighty Silverback I question your claim that he's not "a debater" but instead purely a "rhetorician", but I do agree with you that his reponse to closing was a well toasted waffle. Break it apart, and you get nothing but a hollow crust. I respect the hell out of Fanele though, considering that I'm also a DPM. :'(
retheply hey man, I don't mean it in absolutes, simply that his debating style is packed with rhetoric when in comparison to literally all the other panelists, I shouldn't be so general in my statements lol glad you got what I meant though :)
I wonder why it is usually only men at BP, as seen here. Are they just more attracted to the idea of debating, and why is it uncommon to see a BP team with both sexes represented?
@@alphaweeb5195 maybe this is just a time thing but many of the best speakers at the moment in the British BP schools circuit are girls. SPGS is an absolutely dominant school, for example.
@@alphaweeb5195im a woman and i agree; its not about sexism, the women probably just aren’t interested in debating but the ones that are HAVE been put on the team
Bo’s proposal may have won and it may sound good but not good enough to convince me to become a marxist revolutionary. I refuse this “I will own nothing and be happy” and “I’m oppressed therefore I must oppress the oppressor” mentality.
It's not about "owning nothing and being happy." This completely misrepresents the foundations in which Marxism exists for in the first place. The only posited stance is that simply put, stolen riches are given back. We take a cut away from the capitalist giants that have been monopolizing the global economy. No one asked you to own nothing, resources are simply meant for everyone and not a single entity. Capitalism, by definition, envisions an infinitely increasing rate of growth and therefore pulling others down as an expense. Infinite growth cannot be expected in a world of finite resources. If the world itself is finite, resources must be shared equitably.
The guy debater from africa, speaks Way too fast,,, omg… gives me headache sounded like noise instead of ideas. Slow down man. If this is the finalist, oh my… were done in this world of debate.
PM's speech:
Madame chair, the global poor, all around the world and no matter what country in which they live, currently live under in a system of dictatorship. They live under a dictatorship known as no alternative, shackled by capital that have been unjustly acquired, constrained by landed gentry that have no incentive but to pursue they own interests and chained by the fact they can´t do anything but to look at the question of their own subsistence, they are unable to reach out the right to liberty and the self-determination that we think inheres in the human condition.
How are we going to define a Marxist revolution in this debate?
We say that in all its forms it shares the feature of wanting to break down the system of private property, that’s what a Marxist revolution means. It can take place in one of two ways. One, it can happen through internal systems, that is to say you voting Marxist governments who support things like mass redistribution and the abolishment of private property, or it can exist externally in the instance of forcibly bringing down governments that for far too long have treat in this people lives.
The first thing that I am going to note just on account of the model is just a picture of what we think this world looks like, that is to say that we accept that this attempt to revolution won´t succeed in all instances, that in many just lead to the rise of Marxist parties but in the world succeed we encourage you to use your imagination, that is to say, just notice how chrono centric our vision of civilization is that is a system of private property emerged out of the enlighten that is the las 300 hundred years of human existence, prior to that people lived in sharing economies where they defined themselves as something greater than their labor and their productive force, that is the kind of world that we support.
Two things then I'm going to begin with this speech,
First, private property constitutes a fundamental assault in human dignity in three key respects,
First, it is found and in has been acquired unjustly. In the vast majority of instances, the reason why wealthy countries are wealthy is trough processes like colonialism, through slavery, through patriarchy, it represents plunder when you refuse to give any representation or resources to whom and from whom you money but even if it wasn´t in those direct instances of theft in many instances it was negligence, that´s to say the creation of vastly constrictive intellectual property rates that means that individuals don´t in the poor have proper access to things like medication, its refusal to tax properly. We think negligence is morally culpable. The fact that it is unjustly acquired in and of itself gives the poor a claim to that property and its institution that is itself being harmful.
The second thing it enables the poor in terms of a principle is that it allows them to get redress in opposition to centuries of disenfranchisement, that is to say theft and negligence represent the stripping of the individual right assert themselves. We are going to give you systematic reasons why you don´t get reforms on their side but notice that this as a principle argument is independent from a consideration of practices, that’s to say compensation or giving more money is unlike categorically what these people require in principle which is a redress from the fact that they´ve been taken out of the system of moral equality by theft and negligence.
The last thing to say is let´s take them at their best, that is, let´s wipe the slate clean and accept that everybody has equal access to resources. Why then is property still oppressive and why does it represent an assault on human dignity?
The first is that competition and the premise on which it is based is artificial that´s to say it trades on morally insignificant arbitrary factors. The fact of scarcity which allows many corporations to succeed, the fact that I was born with certain talents or certain skills that other individuals weren´t. We think that those are morally arbitrary from the consideration of deserve and we don't think that´s just ground.
The second thing is a question of actors so capital continues to decide what begets it so you get to decide as the head of a corporation who you hire and what kind of skills you have. Principally private property assaults dignity … leads to good outcome. Notice what´s on the other side, the reason why they need to defend the SQ is that they don´t get the structural reforms that you require.
There are three reasons for this,
The first is the democratic system that trough processes of gerrymandering which are almost irrevocable in many parts of the world the poor are systematically disenfranchised, they don´t control hegemonic media that control media narratives about what a good policy is, they usually kept apart by racist rhetoric that accentuates other a script of descriptions preventing them from coming forward, the fact of historical disenfranchise furthermore means that they´re less likely to turn out the vote in a way that other people are.
The second reason why you don´t get structural reform Is because it´s internationally imbalanced on the consideration of nations so the … institutions largely built by the west, the institution of human rights, which favors civil and political rights of a socio-economic human rights. We say that those things mean that the alternative they need to defend is continued and systematic in action.
What do you get on our side?
One, the success cases, these are the one in which the revolution works, closing I will take you if you have something, opening.
POI: Despite this rhetoric, the last two decades the last two decades have seen almost a billion people lifted in Asia because private companies have an incentive to unlock an unskilled an uneducated workforce that they otherwise wouldn´t.
We refuse that premise, the reason why we were able to get socio-economics rights in countries like China is through massive systems of redistribution and bringing up the poor from the public, so if you want to claim literally the communist country from your side is to say the people who´ve put it together the single biggest program of and social rights, yeah, I think enough said.
So, let's say the world in which they succeed, we think that those communities will succeed for three reasons. First, it encompasses the vast majority of the global population and given that capital is dependent on labor to get any return we think that´s beneficial. Second is the location of resources in many parts of the developing world mean that they have access to those things. The third thing to say is that you get cross-pollination and you get global solidarity across racial lines what currently capital have the incentive to get them divided, those deals with the best case scenario for their side where you get complete revolution, Fanele will also talk about why you get structural reforms along the way that are beneficial.
What we need from an opposition? Is a comprehensive account of property, why is just, and why it doesn't, as it continually done throughout history assault human dignity.
Un grande
POG
THANK YOU SO MUCH THIS WAS SO HELPFUL!!!!
thank u so much, it helps me a lot!!! I CAN'T DESCRIBE HOW HAPPY AM I WHEN IM SEEING THIS
Thank you Joaquin, very helpful
It's very wholesome how they all just hugged each other in the end
Watching Bo PM this motion is all I've ever wanted from life.
+Sans his PM speeches are remarkable!
+k23 where can i find his other pm speeches?
what does PM mean?
@@abrarchowdhury2679 Prime Minister or 1st speaker of Government (affirmative or proposition)
@@thumaido264 ahhh i see i see thank you. i figured this out a little while after watching this vid because im making my way thru all the debating vids on YT lmao.
bo seo's diction and his body languages are remarkably phenomenal..he's one of the best presenter in the world
Bo's speeches are like fine art, but Fanele's contribution was equally (if not more) compelling. Their rhetorical skills only rival that of Shengwu.
Which one's fanele?
@@ezadnotfoundd9713opposition’s third speaker
Actually, he was the Second Proposition speaker
Transcript of the CO extension because he's the Johnny Lawrence of this debate:
Honorable Speaker, the poor of the world have two choices before them in this debate. The first is to engage in a revolution that will either fail, or, more terrifyingly, succeed; or, work within the system to improve their influence and their situation within the world both domestically and internationally today. We will show you how the latter is significantly better.
Okay, we are going to deal firstly with the principle of the debate. Because we get that the principle that "this is what you deserve", "it's better to fight even if you are going to fail". Okay, it is principally deplorable to choose an option that will not only condemn millions of global poor to live in a post-revolution society where the people who control the economic and political leaps of power are now prejudiced against them, but to subject the poor to enconomic, politic and violent destruction, right? If you have two choices before you, and you choose to endanger the lives of billions of the most endangered people in the world, that is principally abhorrent. So we're going to take it on that basis.
Okay, let's talk about how this revolution looks when it fails, because they admit that it'll fail in almost all countries. In the United States, this is going to fail; Europe, this is going to fail. What are the harms of a failed Marxist revolution? It puts the interests of the poor diametrically opposed to the interest of the wealthy; this revolution threaten the property rights of the people who have power in society; political power, economic power; it threatens the lives that they have built for their family; it is based on the rhetoric that you don't deserve to have the things that you have, that you feel that you worked your whole life to obtain, the generations of wealth that you intend to pass on to your children; you threaten to take away everything from the people who have power. This will lead to a hatred, or at least an opposition, to the poor. Secondly, what will this do to the rich? It will cause them to act in self-defense; so the biggest risk isn't that people lose some stuff. The biggest risk is that this revolution fails and the people who have political power in the open world turn against the poor domestically and internationally.
What does this look like domestically? Look at how tenuous any welfare policy is in the United States currently. Look at how thin a margin Obamacare passed to give basic medical care to the poor of the United States. The reason that you got this kind of support is on a broad based rhetoric that the poor deserve our help; that their interest are in line with ours, that they deserve help and that we can help in this way. If you make it so that the poor are a threat to the wealthy and the economic powerful in these countries, those policies will certainly fail.
There will also be harms to any form of international support. Donations to the World Bank, to the United Nations Development Fund, those all depend on development will in the developed countries to give their money to help the poor. If the poor are set to take away everything they worked for and they loved, that is awful to them. So that's why it's bad if it fails.
POI: You spend ten seconds on the principle. Colonialism and slavery were themselves acts of war. Given that the capital was unjustly acquired, disenfranchisement requires reparations, and at best, property (...)?
A: The poor of the world, if they are made significantly worse off, if they are oppressed violently and economically and politically, will not take solace in your principled victory. We are fine to stand on practice here.
Next, what if it succeeds? Which is the real danger in this scenario. Where is it likely that this will succeed? In countries that there is a State that can be overthrown by anomaly; in the places where the poor are the most vulnerable. First, the gov gets up and says that Bangladeshi factories are currently very bad; imagine if the country was thrown in a state of rebellion, what would be made of these people both economically and politically? Economically, all investment from the West in the development world that suffer a violent Marxist revolution will immediately disappear; given that a Marxist revolution will likely fail where the capital is globally, people will withdraw and not have any jobs and investment in this country, and it will lead to a huge period of economically instability that will take away the livelihood of literally millions of people - this is the serious harm.
Next, it will lead to a complete shutdown of government. Who pays the police in this State, where you will completely disarm the government and remove them of any sort of legitimacy? Who oversees the electoral mecanism by which this new communist party is brought to power? They give no reason to believe that a State that it's violently converted to Marxism will be a utopia for the poor - in fact, we think that these States will likely lead to incredible perversion incentives for state capture; these kinds of revolutions are usually a very narrow military movement that were not brought by basic publics of poor. There's usually one strong militant group in these countries that will take power under the guise of Marxism - look at the massive Marxist revolutions in South Africa and South America, and look how they did not lead to a great redistributive State that help the poor, but instead led to a concentrated military government that oppress the poor and its opposition to maintain political power. It's perhaps the most dangerous to give these sorts of bodies absolute power over the developing world. It is a narrow movement that will not lead to a better outcome, and will in fact disinfranchise the poor and desestabilize States that need it the most.
Okay, let's talk about our alternative. Why it is better for people to work within the system? How can the poor make things better? We think that there have been huge steps forward in the international system; things like the World Bank, the United Nations. The United Nations gives millions of food/day to the entire world. And even the WTO is making huge steps forward; the recent agreement in Nigeria led to an agreement to reduce agricultural subsidies from the developed world to the developing world by 65% over the next five years. This is a huge economic win for the developed world. Why is this happening? Firstly, growing social awareness and vocal criticism of oppression of the West of the global poor in the developed world; from scholars that come from Harvard [nice shade, man] that say "this is bad, and we shouldn't oppress people like this". Secondly, growing economic influence of these countries. Regional trade blocks, like MERCOSUL, like the upcoming African Trade Union, are giving a more equal economic footing for the global poor to negotiate equal rights with the global powers and this is improving the situation. Lastly, domestically, the poor in democratic countries and even in countries like China that are less democratic, have a substantial ability to pressure their government to do things that are better for them.
If you have a global poor that is able to unite for a Marxist revolution, clearly they can enact some sort of democratic change to give themselves better policies within the country. It is significantly better. We think that this is not a round about machines, right? The machination point, I'll spend the last fifteen seconds dealing with, mechanization is not what this round is about. This round is about economic destruction and political disparity for the developing world. We think that if you have principally the choice that leads to growth or deplorable destruction, then the latter is unprincipled and unjust choice for the global poor.
We are proud to oppose. [you're alright, larusso]
Thankyouu!!!!!!!
what is his name?
@@nintendo2000 it's literally a principle debate, that's a concession not a win
@@nintendo2000 not what I'm saying but anyway, just to be clear, if the motion contained the word practical instead of the word justified, would you say the same thing and if not why
what do you mean by johnny lawrence?
Never had a final better than this one for a long time now...
We miss you Bo:(
i have to watch this as a assignment for my debate class, i was suppous to watch only 7 minutes but ended up watching the whole thing! its alot more intresting than i thought
1. OG 2. CO 3. CG 4. OO
Bo Seo's speech is more than enough to convince someone to convert their religion.
this is my first in my entire life watching WUDC, my reaction? Speechles
? how , i found this boring as shit
*DPM stands to POI for 2-3 solid minutes*
DLO: And now, before I go on, I'll take closing.
Savage.
engage with closing has nothing wrong??
A
2:39 the holy speech that is sacred and used by communists
And all WSDC speakers who need to borrow a quote
@@saifalimuhannad2807 bro literally i have the first 2 minutes of bo's speech memorized for my wsdc debates 😭
Somebody needs to transcribe the PM's speech.
titanpad.com/vanD8qTUba
Isn't there a transcript for the rest of the speeches? The subtitles are awful
Thabiso Gumede justseoyouknow.com there are many transcripts
Madam chair,
The global poor all around the world and no matter in what country in which they live currently live in a system of dictatorship. They live under a dictatorship known as no alternatives shackled by capital that's been unjustly acquired, constrained by landed gentry who have no incentives but to pursue their own insterests and chained by the fact that they can't do anything but to look at the questions of their own subsistence. They're unable to reach out for the right to liberty and to self-determination that we think inheres in the human condition.
How are going to define a marxist revolution in this debate? We say that in all its forms it shares the feature of wanting to break down the system of private property - that's what a marxist revolution means. It can take place in one of two ways: (1) one is it can happen through internal systems that exist presently - that is to say that you vote in Marxist governments who support things like mass redistribution and the abolishment of private property - or (2) it can exist externally in the instance of forcibly bringing down governments that for far too long have tread on these people's rights. The first thing that I'm going to note just on account of the model is just a picture of what we think this world looks like - that is to say we accept that this attempt at revolution won't succeed in all instances, that in many instances it'll just lead to the rise of Marxist party but in the world in which we do succeed we encourage you to use your imagination - that is to say just notice how chronocentric our vision of civilization is. That is a system of private property emerged out of the Enlightenment that is the last 300 years of human existence. Prior to that, people lived in sharing economies where they define themselves as something greater than their labor and their productive force - that's the kind of world that we support.
Two things then I'm going to begin this speech with. (1) First, private property constitutes a fundamental assault in human dignity in three key aspects: (i) first, it is found and it has been acquired unjustly. In the vast majority of instances the reason why wealthy countries are wealthy is through processes like colonialism, through slavery, through patriarchy. It represents plunder when you refuse to give any representation or resources to whom and from whom you took money. But even if it wasn't in those direct instances of theft, in many instances it was negligence - that's to say the creation of vastly constrictive intellectual property rates. That means that individuals don't in the poor have proper access to things like medication its refusal to tax properly - we think negligence is just as morally culpable. The fact that it is unjustly acquired in and of itself gives the poor a claim to that property and to the institution that is itself being harmful. (ii)The second thing, it enables the poor in terms of a principle is that it allows them to get redress in opposition to centuries of disenfranchisement. That is to say that theft and negligence represent the stripping of the individual right to assert themselves. We're going to give you systematic reasons why you don't get reforms on their side but notice that this as a principled argument is independent from a consideration of practices - that's to say compensation or giving more money is unlike categorically what these people require in principle which is a redress from the fact that they've been taken out of the system of moral equality by theft and negligence. (iii)The last thing to say is let's take them at their best - that is let's wipe the slate clean and accept that everybody has equal rights to resources. Why then is property still oppressive and why does it represent an assault on human dignity? The (1) first reason is that competition and the premises on which it is based is artificial. That's to say it trades or morally insignificant or arbitrary factors. The fact of scarcity which allows many corporations to succeed. The fact that I was born with certain talents or certain skills that other individuals weren't - we think those are morally arbitrary from the consideration of desert and we don't think that's just grounds. The (2) second thing is a question of actors. So capital stiil continues to decide what begets it. So you get to decide as the head of a corporation who you hire and what kind of skills you have. Principally, private property assaults dignity and this second leats to good outcomes. Notice what on the other side, the reason why they need to defend the status quo is that they don't get the levers of reforms that you require. There are three reasons for this: the (1) first is the democratic system that through processes of gerrymandering which are almost irrevocable in very many parts of the world the poor are systematically disenfranchised. They don't control hegemonic media, that control media narratives about what good policy is. The're usually kept apart by racist rhetoric that accentuates other script of descriptions preventing them from coming forward. The fact of the historical disenfranchisement furthermore means that they're less likely to turn out the vote in a way that other people are. The (2)second reason why you don't get structural reform is because it's internationally imbalanced on the considerations of nations. So the Bretton Woods institutions were largely built by the West, the institution of human rights which favors civil and political rights of a socio-economic human rights. We say that those things mean that the alternative they need to defend is continued and systematic in action. What do you get under our side? One, the success cases. These are the ones in which the revolution works.
- Closing, I'll take you if you have something.
- Opening, despite this rhetoric, the last two decades have seen almost a billion people lifted out of poverty in Asian because private companies have an incentive to unlock an unskilled and uneducated workforce that they otherwise wouldn't.
- We refuse that premise. The reason why we were able to get socio-economic rights in countries like China is through massive systems of redistribution and bringing up the poor from the public. So if you wanna claim literally the communist country for your side that is to say the people who've put it together the single biggest program of economic and social rights - yeah, okay, I think enough said.
So let's say the world in which they succeed. We think that those communities will succeed for three reasons. First, it encompasses the vast majority of the global population and given that capital is dependent on labor to get any return from it we think that's beneficial. Second is the location of resources in many parts of the developing world means that they have access to those things. The third thing to say is that you get cross-pollination and you get global solidarity across racial lines where currently capital has the incentive to get them devided. Those deals with the best case scenario for their side where you get complete revolution - Fanele will also talk about why you get structural reforms along the way that are beneficial. What we need from an opposition is a comprehensive account of property. Why it's just and why it doesn't as it has continually done throughout history assault human dignity. We're very proud to propose.
I might be able to give a speech like any one of them after 100 years
you know they are the anime main character when they have their hands in their pocket
Lmao
Two minutes into video and im already rooting for closing opp. The guy who gave the wave just endeared me so much to him.
PM speech is very good, reminds me of last year WUDC Chennai Final PM
Just miss debating 🥺
Feel like shit just want it back 😩
The second speaker, who spoke was so *hyper* in his whole speech.
Yay, HH got 2nd! I actually have a crush on their 1st speaker now.
watching this before state debating trials, any semblance of my confidence is destroyed
this is the *world* grand final.. you wont be going against anyone like these people anytime soon
@@SpiceNuggetz exactly why confidence has been destroyed 🤣
@@SpiceNuggetz thanks for further destroying her ego
Hart House is University of Toronto BTW
I just finished Bo’s book! This is awesome! Best of luck in future endeavors!
I love how these pros low key throw shade to other teams' universities.
It's getting rarer to have pros like these in the finals. Subsequent finals are getting much crappier and crappier.
That Vietnam remark was just ridiculously funny.
that intro from PM was godly
Amazing debate from PM
No one:
Bo Seo: tHE GLOBAL POOR
The PM's speech is just so great to keep on re-watching this debate damn.. and then this guy deputy leader of opposition i love the way he started with the movie thought
😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝
Can anyone please explain why the first speaker, keeps waving his hands to prevent other from speaking? ?
Are the other oppose or support his motion?
those were his opposition, offering to ask a question (POI). he can choose to accept or wave them down
Bo is the best. Eloquent too , ideas are relatable and logical. Thumbs up 👍💜
LO why you no consent?? 😭
wow,I'm on my way guys. be ready
Weird to ask considering this is Bo seo’s most infamous speech (to my knowledge) but did OG win first on this one??
yes, they did
@@nintendo2000 good to know, I was going to say CO does pretty good in this debate.
DLO WAS FUNNY IN HIS INTRO
This is under rated😗
Can anyone tell me the name of closing opp's second speaker?
Veenu Goswami
@@kimvancouver thank you! I learned a lot from his speech
I have class debat at mu Univ , but this is amazing
Why was opening OPs speech edited out?
+LeshyLeshy Before competitive championships begin, the debaters have to agree upon getting filmed/streamed live. Perhaps lead OP did not agree to do the same.
For some it may be a matter of personal preference. For others, it may relate to their profession or personal circumstances. E.g. at least two prominent debaters who study I know never agree to be filmed or recorded in debates relating to banking or finance in case they have to criticise the banks that they may need to employ them in the future.
StNick119 fair point
At 10:15 at the bottom of the screen, it says "Speaker does not consent for the live streaming."
anyone who can link me up to more videos with Bo?
just search up Bo Seo in youtube
Do anyone know the name of all speakers in the competition?
Does anyone here have an outline of the debate? its for our Speech class (Debate) Thank you in advance :)
nice bes hahaha
The LO's speech?
Not consented to by the speaker (LO I suppose)
I'm new to this. Why are they raising their hands?
To POI
very impressive
well -done
daym bo. maybe i could have understood what you said if I brought a thesaurous
what a great debate:D
After all the US election craziness, kpop, and the other 2020 madness, I come back here to say CO has won
Not even slightly
OG won tho'
an Australian as deputy leader of opposition!!!
please add the subtitle
bo at 4:01 sounding like Winston Churchill
Awwwww Saddiq is just an adj 😫
Fanele so good LMAO
What is the result
26:53 bookmark
Wait where is LO speech
They didn’t consent
Who got edited out?
Almost temps you into giving communism a shot. Almost.
Who won
Horrifying and deceptive. Great speaking. Pure wickedness.
2:38
24:56 *COOL* (ear rape)
48:04 *Now*
Is this impromptu
They messed up as soon as they started arguing in favor of capitalism.
02:41
omf third opposition speaker slapped hard
I thought opening opposition was really good.......
Who won?
OG (Harvard)
+Agrim Singh Thanks :)
wow...
Opp whip is great
Bo!
쩐다
2nd government speaker... on your example of the Warskau ghetto uprising...um no the luftwaffe was not involved.
Doesn't matter as long as the jury believes it and he sells it reasonably ;)
@@heladar the jury doesn't even have to be oblivious to the fact, as long as the view is not challenged by the opposition
wow
wew
Vietnam's gorverment can relative
debate me lee vs neji i got lee
What was the call for this?
1. OG
2. CO
3. CG
4. OO
@@tahmeedchowdhury0007 what is the source for this?
what's the decision?
Clyde Myca OG won
28:39 Europe isn’t a country
Very ironic lmfao
Why do they speak so fast?
They also have a lot of arguments that they can't compartmentalize in just 7 minutes.
To overwhelm their opponents by only allowing limited time for them to find blind spots.
@@ken5200 no, it’s because they have a lot to say
CO should have won. Change my mind
Speaker does not concent
hmmmm
7:02 does he say dessert or is it just me
I think he meant 'moral desert'.
Deserving something in moral terms.
Lets wipe the slane clean
OMG ARTINYA APA? 👉👈
PEP A? More like Pepe! AHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAA
im so funny. yea. laugh NOW. YOU BETTER BE LAUGHING... LAUGH.
creepy. evil.
2nd guy was a rhetorician not a debater.
The Mighty Silverback well he is a former world debating champ; and you're a troll on UA-cam. I wonder who's winning.
Lebeko Matabane Mastering rhetoric is a key component of some debating styles but his refute to the POI he took was a nonanswer that sounded nice
The Mighty Silverback I question your claim that he's not "a debater" but instead purely a "rhetorician", but I do agree with you that his reponse to closing was a well toasted waffle. Break it apart, and you get nothing but a hollow crust. I respect the hell out of Fanele though, considering that I'm also a DPM. :'(
retheply hey man, I don't mean it in absolutes, simply that his debating style is packed with rhetoric when in comparison to literally all the other panelists, I shouldn't be so general in my statements lol glad you got what I meant though :)
I wonder why it is usually only men at BP, as seen here. Are they just more attracted to the idea of debating, and why is it uncommon to see a BP team with both sexes represented?
Because women aren't as good? Why is it a requirement to have women there? The importance is skill, not gender.
@@alphaweeb5195 maybe this is just a time thing but many of the best speakers at the moment in the British BP schools circuit are girls. SPGS is an absolutely dominant school, for example.
@@alphaweeb5195im a woman and i agree; its not about sexism, the women probably just aren’t interested in debating but the ones that are HAVE been put on the team
Bo’s proposal may have won and it may sound good but not good enough to convince me to become a marxist revolutionary. I refuse this “I will own nothing and be happy” and “I’m oppressed therefore I must oppress the oppressor” mentality.
It's not about "owning nothing and being happy." This completely misrepresents the foundations in which Marxism exists for in the first place. The only posited stance is that simply put, stolen riches are given back. We take a cut away from the capitalist giants that have been monopolizing the global economy. No one asked you to own nothing, resources are simply meant for everyone and not a single entity. Capitalism, by definition, envisions an infinitely increasing rate of growth and therefore pulling others down as an expense. Infinite growth cannot be expected in a world of finite resources. If the world itself is finite, resources must be shared equitably.
is that all they bark whole day
The guy debater from africa, speaks Way too fast,,, omg… gives me headache sounded like noise instead of ideas. Slow down man. If this is the finalist, oh my… were done in this world of debate.
Should've been the LOML up there :(
2:38
2:35