1994 World Universities Debating Championships (WUDC) Grand Final

[@4r4efgvfd]

if anyone's wondering about the opening of the PM's speech, it is: "Sorry to keep you waiting folks, the queue for the toilet was extremely long. Mr Speaker, it gives me considerable pleasure to open the case for the Proposition here tonight, particularly as Sir Edward Woodward is the presiding judge, a man for whom I have great respect, I hear he's a lovely lovely lovely man--really lovely."

[@victorledesma5911]

The manner, argumentative structure, etc. are really different from what is done now

[@remmeenon6260]

I did debating, starting 2006. I didn't think structure or style was much different in my time from this video. But in terms of quality, the arguments are quite vague and the analysis missing. The correct team won though.

[@nintendo2000]

@@remmeenon6260 I don't know about that, at least for BP. Debating in the late 2000s had much denser and more structured argumentation. Comparing this or any round in the 90s to, say, the WUDC 2009 final will give this impression.

[@remmeenon6260]

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

[@andrianusmanalu4211]

anyone can help me, what is the motion about this video debating?

[@MightyRoys]

TH believes that Machiavelli is the way to go. They interpreted this as meaning that the ends justifies the means.

[@remmeenon6260]

@@MightyRoys And they further clarified it was this house would negotiate with terrorists. This seems like an open motion debate style that went out of fashion, in which proposition can define the motion as they like, within reason. Not sure if it has come back into fashion now.

[@MightyRoys]

@@remmeenon6260 It could be called squirreling, except that with a motion like this there are so many potential definitions so it is hard to accuse any definition of being a squirrel. Plus you'd have to be confident to challenge a squirrel in a Worlds final.

[@jamessnell4756]

i think many excellent points were raised but they were let down by the girl at the end

[@remmeenon6260]

There was no proper extension argument from her partner. That was the problem.