Thessaloniki WUDC 2016 - Finals | Open Final

[@ArrestMe-k5l]

BO Seo outcast everyone in public speaking, he is flawless, no repetition, no confusion, no error, perfect balance of stress, extension and pitch. in terms of actual content, i felt both parties were good

[@joaquinowo3204]

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.

[@Rupy-nm1ml]

Wth

[@chelseaxoxo784]

Thank you❤❤❤ I'm new to BP so this helped out. Please can you write out the other speeches?

[@deathlover7386]

Longer than my whole syllabus

[@weouthere6902]

China's system of redistribution led to the death of 40 million people during the great famine lol

[@muhammadomer764]

THANK YOU

[@bilinguru]

It's not a fair fight. Bo Seo is a legend

[@muhammadfadhlycaesario4997]

Honestly, this was probably the last time ever debate feels like a proper debate, the last one that can be followed by everyone who listens to it, even if they are new to the world of debate, the last one that feels like every speaker portrays the motion discussed clearly, and probably the last debate that had every speaker deliver their speech with cadence, elegance, and clarity. Their persuasiveness lies not only in the heart of the argument but also in the way they deliver their speech. Nowadays, debate feels more like a competitive rap battle, of who can speak the fastest. For a non-English speaker like me, sometimes it's hard to follow those Eminem debaters. Though I get it, in order to win, you need to contribute more than any team in the chamber, but I feel like this is how debate should play out. The world of debating lost its soul each and every day.

[@grandieredelhecate6055]

YES 100% wholheartedly Agree, competitive debate should be persuasive not only to those who understand the fundamentals, but also to public audience who listens. Speaking fast may cover tons of material, but sometimes its hard to follow. Like Bo Seo here, he gave speech like a public speaker addressing world problems, the way he speaks make us understand what the motion about

[@stevemanminecraft6748]

Debating has lost the class it used to have sadly- it is getting better though

[@cheeseboi8769]

yea u dont see speeches like wills 2009 abortion one or this one by bo anymore

[@nakki_jp]

I agree that debates today often resemble rap battles, with speakers tending to talk faster, but I think this is honestly better for non-native speakers (myself included), as our evaluation is primarily based on content rather than rhetoric. If style and eloquence were valued more, as they used to be, it would significantly be much more difficult for those of us from non-native backgrounds. Just my personal opinion tho. (When it comes to watching debates, I definitely agree with you in that debates from the past are more enjoyable with fire rhetoric and styles which you can rarely see nowadays)

[@vanessaabazie3049]

'Closing I really encourage you to ask me a question'😂😂💔

[@samuel.ojile.]

🤣🤣

[@patrlcksreaLView]

Definitely a South African 😂

[@gamelover8968]

Bo seo is the best debater of all time.

[@frankhuang4767]

Gamelover Which country was he from?

[@gamelover8968]

@@frankhuang4767 south korea I think.

[@harishankaran1776]

@@frankhuang4767 Australia

[@michaelbalabala1076]

yeah, hes the best, aristotle and cicero had nothing compared to him

[@pauljohnson3317]

But he got wrecked by Opposition Leader. Bo argued that impoverished citizens of China were improved though Communism. Only when they embraced Capitalism (and stayed fake Communist) were the lives of the impoverished improved.

[@nwajahlebechi5067]

Member of opp, I like his simplicity. I'll apply it to my first speeches. Also Bo Seo.

[@HKG432]

Which one?

[@ZacharyCMWaage]

Closing opposition was the most compelling, but the rest of opposition was somewhat weak.

[@manngandhi5237]

The second speaker was completely crushed by OG. You could see his struggle in his speech.

[@BZETheStig]

hear hear

[@oscarbiance421]

Felt that he defended much on whether a revolution would succeed or whether such a revolution would result in a net loss of lives and welfare. The most important crux here is whether such revolution is justified - whether it theoretically could lead to a better counter narrative or could be justified principally. He focused too much on whether such revolution is needed at all or that such revolution would succeed at all.

[@BILLLI2288]

@@oscarbiance421 "Self Defence, even when you are guaranteed to fail is a justified thing" really sealed the deal for those guys

[@Nihongoru-x2g]

​@@oscarbiance421because little people are against living in a communist Utopia. People are against the idea that Utopia can be implemented. You will never get support from the masses when you are daydreaming

[@jvonortiz-cedeno1290]

I feel for him. He had to follow what might be the greatest recorded debate speech ever. Imagine being at a karaoke bar and you have to sing after Beyoncé? Bad luck lol.

[@christopheremmanuel1213]

I thought CO had a very strong case too for the crown.

[@Sibusiso-h6w]

Me too

[@blueberrysponge42]

PM 3:27 introduction 4:06 Give Definition DPM (20:11) roadmap 20:58 Refutation 21:41 rebuilding 22:13 (23:02) OW/GW (59:53)

[@merrraki_music]

People are so smart😢

[@ayusekarrini3654]

CO has a great arguments

[@saetwo3078]

I feel like CO should have won this debate

[@Haqueip]

Bo Seo Winning Debate Speech: Madame chair, the global poor, all around the world and no matter 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 have been unjustly acquired, constrained by landed gentry who have no incentive, but to pursue their 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 for liberty and to 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 it's form 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 exist presently, that is to say that you voting Marxists government wh-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 tread in this people's rights. The first thing that I am going to note just on account of the model e-is just a picture of what we think this world looks like, that is to say we accept that [gibberish] this attempt to revolution won't succeed in all instances, that in many instances just lead to the rise of Marxist parties, 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 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 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, it's refusal to tax properly. We think negligence is just morally culpable. Thr fact that it is unjustly acquired in and of itself gives the poor a claim to that property and it's institution that is itself being harmful. The second thing it enables the poor in terms of 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 to 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 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 a 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-let's wipe the slain pleat, uhhh, 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 in 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 or arbitrary factors. The fact of scarcity which allows many corporation 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. If this second leads to good outcome. Notice what on the other side they the reason why they need to defend the status quo is that they don't get the levers of structural reforms that you require. There are three reasons for this. The first is that the democratic system that through 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 good policy is, they usually kept apart by racist rhetoric that accentuates other ascripted of descriptions preventing them from coming forward, the fact of historical disenfranchisement 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. Continue.

[@I_Love_Chess_]

Bo Seo"(hears crowd cheering) Enough said😂😂

[@jasonjew5949]

Could someone please explain why Bo Seo keep on waving to the opposition who stands up every once in a while?

[@mohanabhagat4805]

They are standing up to ask a question (point of information), and he is waving them down, essentially stating he will not take a POI at that moment

[@fardinazimi573]

It was quite good

[@seb.evidente7328]

As someone who without knowing the outcome, adjudicated this debate on my own with a pen and paper. I genuinely believe Opposition would have won if only their first speaker hadn't been incoherent.

[@rubenhernandez8449]

Does anyone have de tournaments tab?

[@brianschwarm8267]

Can’t believe how disingenuous the opposition was. They used strawmans, and low brow bumper sticker slogans mostly.

[@SB-py5iu]

What strawman was used?

[@LeonardoGPN]

@@SB-py5iu assuming things about them. For instance, that the only way for external interference would be war, might as well be poor countries imposing trade sanctions on developed countries. Just as an example.

[@exocet8834]

@@LeonardoGPN Youre talking about the first opposition though, who was extremely nervous as well. The other opposition speakers made much more empirically coherent arguments.

[@jigglypig]

​@@exocet8834the guy at the end said "Communist Russia was hardly known for its good working hours". But as soon as they became communist they were one of the first countries in the world to implement the 8 hour day... so many of the arguments are relying on people's existing prejudices which is an unfortunately powerful debating tactic.

[@ZxMoonLightxZ]

​@@LeonardoGPN¿didn't they say "forcibly bringing down the government"?

[@sunaymusic]

Hello, can we use it to publish the video with Turkish translation?

[@dragosrs8527]

You can add turkish captions to this video

[@callista4990]

Well done. I’m done

[@ropi_brian9219]

Best debate ever :D

[@christopheremmanuel1213]

PM🔥🔥🔥🔥 DPM 🔥🔥🔥

[@udontknowme154]

if people wont have incentives, productivity will be low, funds will not be sufficient for all if divided equally which would lead to a dull society. IN The initial stages of socialism, we would distribute money of capitals but thats bound to end sometime and then the real problem would arise. We talk of injustices, but what is injustice is getting the same thing irrespective of how you work. your talents hardwork and journey lead to the same path as someone not as dedicated as you. This aims to fundamentally snatch our individuality and surrender ourselves to the state. The state where you can control nothing. THIS IS ANARCHY. disguised as EQUALITY. is this a good argument?? can someone pls review. I am working on my debating skills which are currently v poor

[@LeonardoGPN]

No isn't a good argument because none socialist or communist defends equal pay. To make good arguments you need to be at least well read on the thing you are criticizing. Is like people that mistake communism and socialism as the same thing or people that think that ending the property of the means of production means ending the right to property... You can't make good arguments on a subject you don't understand.

[@thezeronelite]

Marxist Socialism is not founded on the left-liberal principle of "equality of outcome", nor on a totalizing equality of waged paid for labour. The aim of Marxist Socialism is the abolition of private property as a whole, which to be clear does not and never has meant personal property.

[@nwajahlebechi5067]

Gov whip too was lit.

[@captainrocket7187]

that's Harish Natarajan

[@konekokaru]

Holy crap, I'm pretty dumb. Most of Bo Seo's speech went past my head HAHA.

[@anilogo682]

Why would you not consent to live streaming?

[@darinhiwa5072]

Because being in favor of marksist ideologies can be harmful to your career. Imagine applying to a job at a very pro capitalist organization and they pull up the video of you fiercely debating against all capitalistic values 😅😅😅

[@anilogo682]

@@darinhiwa5072 But the positions (pro/against) are randomly

[@frasermcconachie9879]

the member of government whose speech wasn't streamed was working for Goldman Sachs at the time lol - he didn't want to be seen as promoting values which Goldman Sachs doesn't exactly stand for haha

[@lemon9389]

@@frasermcconachie9879 oh cool, just curious how do you know? (Would you mind telling me his name haha)

[@tessemo]

@@frasermcconachie9879 no wayy😂😂😂

[@tengis.batsaikhan]

I struggle to understand the first speaker because he does not do any signposting

[@Wesker10000]

I don't understand: Why do some of the people stand up during debates?

[@lukamaksic4349]

To let the speaker know they have a POI(Point of information), which is a 15 second speech they get to hold within the current speakers speech if the speaker let's them

[@RandyKnight-p9g]

Names of all speakers? From PM to OW?

[@angelrenlacec.cornejo6255]

Ain't no way the whole opposition bench put democracy in a very high pedestal despite how democracy is very much costing the people their freedoms and dignities.

[@mlunguomnyama5518]

i watched this to fall asleep, mission almost completed, easy from here

[@yuojastrogboxcollegeadnu2023]

22:50 - 23:07 tell that to China on disrespecting the decision of the UN regarding ownership of Spratly islands OWNED BY Philippines pls

[@Ninjamonkeydrummer]

everybody needs to chill

[@adhepradipta6558]

anyone here knows the result of the debate? the ranks?

[@Sachii-o2d]

OG CO CG OO

[@张轩诚-q6e]

Love u BO

[@mattiasduransantis]

CO won clearly

[@MsMorality]

35:58 what a clown

[@XxGreatestyouknoWxX]

Without a doubt a super clown

[@HowardWimshurst]

I don't know what his reasons for that were, but because of that he really let his team down I. My eyes and the eyes of thousands of people across the world

[@marioilea6801]

Have you ever debated in a wudc final?

[@thomaskeen3582]

The reason he didn't consent to be streamed is because he worked for an investment bank. They really don't like it when you get up on stage and start peddling communist ideas and it could have been harmful to his career.

[@ethernity7577]

chill out we don't know why that even happened

[@KiTkAt0_0]

is this a prepared debate?

[@hugholaoide]

They had 15 min to prepare

[@bohanwithb1546]

@@hugholaoide seriously? That's impressive

[@uriargaman7241]

It's not the Wourld Universities Debate Championship Open Final for nothing​ @@bohanwithb1546

[@HKG432]

Sorry. CO won

[@addanashraf]

how much time did they have to prepare?

[@superheropimp7039]

Considering its a Worlds template of debate, it might be at least 15 to at most 30 minutes of prep time.

[@captainrocket7187]

@@superheropimp7039 In WUDC (BP format), only 15 mins prep time

[@ThunderKat]

This might be the last time I listen to this things, all point to be a contest to see who run out of oxygen first more than a mental challenge.

[@chelseaxoxo784]

How so?

[@ThunderKat]

@@chelseaxoxo784 Rap Battle o/ & I don' like rapping. They should set a speed and tone when speaking to avoid what do I know...

[@coolj7086]

Listen to Hadar Goldberg's last speeches, see has a very reasonable rate of delivery while keeping a contentful speech. But nonetheless debate is a game of maximising efficiency in your 7 minutes. If you manage to cram as much info as you can without having the panel lose you, good for you, you have a talent that puts you in front of the competition.

[@thecat293]

its not a contest to see who run out of oxygen first, its how you say your arguments with a strong logic to back it up with 7 minutes.

[@ThunderKat]

@@thecat293 :)

[@ayusekarrini3654]

Who won?

[@syedhamza7796]

og

[@abdulwassay00001]

@@syedhamza7796 Caught in 4k

[@tonchimatta]

@@syedhamza7796 Lmaooooooo

[@anusharas4123]

where funny?

[@jaimeXDgo]

I don't dig this format much; for the sake of introducing more and more of their scripted speech into their timing they speak too fast. Not that I'm an expert in debating, but I believe that, in order to express your point of view, you should be clear and concise. Select the right words and expressions and use them in the right moment. Even if shorter expositions lead to more turns, the debate is more clearly exposed. Furthermore, perhaps because I'm ignorant of this championships, I'm not sure if they're actually defending a marxist regime truthfully or if it's just an exercise. But if it's the former, the utter hypocrisy of defending such a system while being a 1 percenter, and an educated person, knowledgeable of statistics regarding death, hunger, poverty and opression of the countries that tried to apply such model is mindboggling.

[@changedcj007]

Bo isint a 1 percenter, he had to earn where he got in life. Are you saying that the capitalism system dosent bring death, hunger, poverty, or oppression? Because im sure I dont need to bring any examples of that not being the case.

[@jevillena3775]

You do know people are assigned the side they have to defend right? Their rhetoric doesn’t immediately tell what political stance they have.

[@nodrinkfortequila]

It’s clear that people who love debate choose to embrace diversity of thought - that’s not to say that they are communists, but that they offer useful beneficial arguments that make us reflect on the flaws of the current system.

[@RoaringRon]

This is very clear and concise already. Google "Spreading in debate" and you'll get a chuckfull of creamy "rap" blasted right onto your face.