the miley cyrus example blew my mind; the opening discussion argument is such a cool idea

Debate was high-quality but PM was so goated

Guys pls watch the video along with the captions to get the best of it as its recorded so its hard for u to get without the captions but to be honest this is a blast of informations! Good Luck!!

Iiiibbiiiiiiiiiiijiiiii 😊

dang this vid is old old

old but gold

where da the presentation por favor

So its law and order versus sexual perversion, in a nutshell.

thx

This has to be the best IR session out there!

Omg those pronouns stop complying.

5-6.20

🐐🐐🐐

Is there any principal arguments can see in WUDC?

This was insightful

So relevancy

i love aiden woo!!!!!!!

why are you guys thirsting over aidan woo in the comments smh get it together

Hey there, really enjoyed the video - I would love to get these as audio only, are you on audea?

𝓟Ř𝔬𝓂𝔬𝐒ϻ 💕

I believe in Devlin supremacy

What we can and should do with that liberty is engage and understand each other

Gan on rupert

What is society anyway? The people who linhabited your country for over 40,000 years with barely any environmental impact, no harm there, live in ghettos drinking themselves to death because you stole their children to "prevent harm" and inhibited their form of society? Your country's on fire

I think the tendency to casually associate animal cruelty, pornography, prostitution, sado masochism and homosexually in these debates is simply insulting. However I do agree that repression and prescriptive morality and natural tendencies such as homosexuality being criminalised leads to a generalized moral belief that it is perverse. Here the law reinforces a bias, a bias that believes it is morality because that position enjoys the power that comes from demonization and repression. The law is reluctant, particularly as the scion of righteousness to admit it's terrible blind spots and failings. I think what you mean by generally held private morals is " most people are normal ie heterosexual". What possible thing do they have to fear from two other people in an identical position being of the same sex? It's predjudice. The extension of that is "we are right because they are less right (or just wrong)" what on earth will they be if they have no one to condemn?

The atomised individual and society "over and above" are not the only forms where society exists. There is family, local community, religious community, friends, work life, sport, wider society, local government, many different settings and spheres for different purposes. A common set of values could include shared recognition and respect for variety and differing values privately held. One of those values could be the privately held tolerance of multiple values. People can coexist and communicate and benefit society without being totally integrated morally, that's more akin to assimilation.

Funny, 9 years later, how much law is required to enforce the lack of laws.... there is a natural law argument there for the next debate

Aidan Woo has by far the best hair in this final and I think that should very much be reflected on speaker scores

Nice 👍 🤭

Is there anyone who could work out a transcript?😍A bit difficult for me to understand.

super... great debate, please post more of these debates their quite interesting

What in the world is the Guy (Abrar Muhit) sayinggg????

Devlin's daughter's revelations that the legal moralist was also a pedophile, sheds an interesting light on the whole debate...

😒 ᵖʳᵒᵐᵒˢᵐ

Came here hoping it was the one with Ted Cruz. That was 1995.

PM : 0:30 LO : 10:41

Gov PM : 5:00 DPM : 23:25 Whip : 42:25 Reply : 1:07:00 Opp LO : 14:09 DLO : 32:40 Whip : 53:20 Reply : 1:02:10

If Gaulke has a youtube channel, I'd be the first to subscribe!

The Clash and rebuttals were great

Not even good

Beautiful workshop, thoroughly enjoyed

Thank youuuuu

Would've loved to see some discussion on the existence of morality and goodness and how they play into self deception and rationale. It would've also been interesting to talk about self deception vs other deception.

Welcome Mnlu Students.

DLO/2nd Negative is the best hype person you can get

The only justification for mandatory universal health measures would be if a high risk health problem existed, like a war or a significantly deadly virus. The latter has NOT been proven by any data. There are thousands of Phds in virology and pandemics etc who disagree with mandatory vax (e.g Harvard Prof Martin Kuldorf), which is precisely why Govts can only get a higher than 50% uptake by mandates threatening livelihoods. This is a total hysterical pandemic of unscientific Woke authoritarianism (e.g. your hateful 3rd speaker)

Pm characterization did the job

Do Australians Support Coercion?

what's the motion?