YouTube Transcript:
WSDC 2025 Grand Final

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

Video Transcript

Video Summary

Summary

Core Theme

This content documents the grand final debate of the World Schools Debating Championships (WSDC) 2025, centered around the motion "This house prefers a world with a strong belief in Sarity." The debate explores the philosophical concept of Sarity, where an individual's standing is derived from their ancestors' values, and contrasts it with a world prioritizing individual agency and contemporary community values.

Mind Map

Click to expand

Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate

[Music] [Applause]

We are one.

We are ready.

we [Music]

are we are Australian.

[Applause] [Music]

These debaters have demonstrated

excellent throughout the tournament and

today they represent the very best of

what global debate has to offer. Please

give them a strong round of applause. [Applause]

[Applause]

Now to officially open the round, we

invite the adjudication team to present

the motion for the final debate. [Applause]

Fantastic. Uh we're all very excited for

what will be a wonderful final. Uh and

it's going to be a thrilling round that

I'm sure everyone will enjoy. The motion

for today's final has an info slide. It

reads, "Seri is a communitarian

philosophy found in the Satswuana,

Sisso, and Sapedi cultures. According to

this philosoph philosophy, a person's

moral, spiritual and social standing,

their ser is bestowed upon them by their

ancestors living and dead. Individuals

who abide by this philosophy

uh prioritize living in line with the

values and desires articulated by their

ancestors and maintain a relationship

with them by not ignoring, disrespecting

or dishonoring them. The motion for

today's final reads, "This house prefers

a world with a strong belief in Sarity."

Let's give another warm round of

[Applause]

Now, with the motion now announced, we

begin the debate. We invite both teams

to present their cases with clarity,

rigor, and respect. Best of luck to both teams.

teams. [Applause]

>> Thank you very much. Uh welcome to the

grand finals. Um let's start with

introductions. Uh let's do introduction.

I'm Mubarat. Uh let's do introductions

of our esteemed judging panel. Uh if you

could kindly give a warm round of

applause one by one. Starting from my

He fought really hard to be on this

panel. Um

from Germany. We have Tun [Applause]

[Applause]

from Greece. We have Alexia [Applause]

And last but not least, representing

Latin America from Peru, we have Mauricio.

Mauricio. [Applause]

[Applause] Amazing.

Before we start the debate, I know we

have clapped for all the debaters as a

collective, but I think it would also be

nice if we recognize them as

individuals. Firstly, recognizing the

debaters on stage for team proposition,

we have Veda. [Applause]

[Applause]

Going second in reply will be Agni [Applause]

[Applause]

>> We would also like to recognize the two

speakers who are not speaking this

for the opposition. Speaking first is Lucas.

>> The two speakers who are not speaking

and finally we also have Victoria. [Applause]

[Applause]

With that out of the way, if you haven't

seen the info slide yet, I would suggest

reading it if you want to follow this

round. Um, without further ado, to begin

the grand finals of the World Schools

Debate Championships where we have the

>> Uh, before I begin, that's a set of

people that team India would like to

thank. Uh first of all our coaches and

not just those who are with us right now

but those who have helped us across our

dearian careers Chris Shiram Lucia Oscar

Ana DJ Namata and Ozar for me we're so

so grateful for you guys and we would

not be here without your support. Second

I'd like to thank the Indian Schools

Debating Society ISDS for introducing me

to debate. Vshin and I'm so indebted to

you guys and forever grateful. I would

not be debating without you. Uh, last

but not the least, we'd like to thank

the people back at home, our families,

our schools, friends, everyone who's

been there, and of course, my lovely

teammates of Oda Arnav, and Manny, and

our team judge part, who really wanted a

special shout out. [Applause]

When you die, your life flashes before

you for seven minutes. In these minutes,

Team India does not want you to think of

how many figures were on your paycheck

or how many friends came to visit you in

the hospital or what your speaker rank

at WSDC was. What we want you to

remember is your community. That you

lived a life of models, a life that

generations before you would be proud of

and a life that leaves behind a remnant

of the values you cared about. What is

our stance in this debate? We prefer a

world where there's a strong belief in

sanity and we ask you panel to broaden

your minds because this is a different

world. We think serity looks like having

a unique form of respect and

appreciation for your ancestors, the

generations before you. And this is

important because serity is not about

what your grandfather wanted from you.

It's about the generations before, the

values they upheld. It looks like if

your ancestors prioritized honesty,

that's the one value you wish to carry

on to your children. that if your

ancestors valued community, you wouldn't

move out, that you'd stay within the

joint family and maintain relationships

with your relatives, for example. How

then is this conceptualized on our side

of the house? We think it's largely via

memory. So the stories your grandparents

have told you, the ones that you then

tell on to your grandchildren. And that

is why because these are values, they

tend to adapt with context as these

generations move forward. The community

back then, no thank you, could have

meant like marrying someone within your

own community. But now it's different.

It looks like for example not moving out

as early but secondly because these are

values they tend to be more vague.

They're not as specific. This is not

about the job that you're choosing but

rather they have to apply to all

generations. And that means it's about

values such as honesty, kindness,

community to take care of your elderly.

Overall then the choices you make on our

side are guided by your ancestors that

you feel validated when you stick to

their vision that you honor their wishes

that you respect them even when they're

gone. And I want to note this debate is

about where you derive your spiritual,

moral and social standing from. We

prefer sanity. Team Australia then has

to defend the status quo. Where is

capitalism that tells you how much money

you have or your appearance or your race

and other fleeting ideas where you're

primarily taking away your social

standing from. That being said, two

arguments from team India in the speech.

First on why sexy rewards people a

unique source of meaning. Second on why

we're able to revive communal values and

support systems on our side of the

house. First argument then on why serity

rewards people a unique source of

meaning. There are two parts to this

argument. The first is that serity

ensures meaning for current generations.

Second we'll show you why serity gives

the elderly meaning in the last few

years. Firstly then let's talk about the

current generations. We think that

current sources of social standing are

fleeting and external. It looks like

your source of validation to the money

you earn, the job that you're at, the

number of friends around you, and what

they tell you to begin with. Why is this

uniquely harmful? Three structural

reasons for this. The first is that a

lot of this is completely out of one's

control. That is to say, the reason

you're succeeding at your job interview

is something that is arbitrary. The

friends you have or the money you have

is often shaped by conditions that just

out of your control, where you were

born, for example, the kind of family

you grew up in. But second, a lot of

these forms of standing are

unattainable. There will always be

someone who is richer than you. Always

someone who is more popular, who is more

successful. And in most instances, you

can't strive to reach the top when it

comes to these other forms of social

standing. The third is that these are

fleeting. That is to say, you can never

continue to be liked for long periods of

time. You will not always be successful.

There are highs and lows in life and

that is something that is natural. On

the comparative then, why is a far more

meaningful way of assessing social

standing on Arthur the house? Two

reasons for this. The first thing is

that it's far more personal to you. That

is to say, this is your family, your

culture, and so you feel far more in

line with it. That your great great

mother really cared towards animals,

towards her community. And that means

when you're donating to an animal

welfare charity, you feel in line with

it. You feel as if you have purpose. But

second, you can control these kinds of

narratives. And I want to note there is

no one telling you on our side that you

aren't perfectly in line with your

sanity. That is to say, you determined

yourself the way in which you're

sticking to your ancestors values. And

that means you have the leeway to decide

what it looks like. So the way you're

finding your social standing or morality

is something you're able to control for

far more on our side when it's something

you can determine on your own. And I

want to weigh this. This is you feeling

far more reassured that you're not just

a speck in the eight in the 8 billion

people that are living out there. That

when your grandfather told you to be

confident, I am confidently speaking on

the stage today. And that's something I

feel purpose with value associated with

as as opposed to something that is so

fleeting on their side. But the second

part of this argument deals with how

sanity is uniquely meaningful towards

the elderly. That is sanity gives the

elderly a chance to leave behind a part

of themselves i.e. a legacy. And this is

important because that is unfair. It

happens so suddenly. It happens so

unfairly. When your mother passes away

at 60, you wish you could be clinging on

to her more. On our side then we give

you the ability to care about your

values to ensure that you're leaving

something for generations follow behind.

The fact that the things you care about

is something that the grandchildren in

front of you are going to be following

at the same time is something that going

to last for so much longer. There is no

other way of controlling the image you

leave behind while you were gone. Sedity

uniquely gives you the ability to do it

on our side. Before I move on to my

second argument, I'll take the POI.

>> Sure. Your social standing is determined

by what your ancestors did which you

cannot control. Is that good? We think

that the ancestors this is not about

what your ancestors did but rather what

your ancestors believed in. So things

like community honesty support systems

on our side the house and that means you

can interpret it in the ways you want.

So if your ancestors was very big on

honesty or like caring about community

that's something you interpret on our

side you carry on with a legacy you move

forward. It's not like if your

grandfather or like your

great-grandfather had one specific job

you have to do that on our side. This is

not what this debate is about. Second

argument then on why we're able to

revive communal values and support

systems far better on our side. What do

we think the values pushed down actually

look like? And we would posit that these

are far more community oriented. And

that is because with our ancestors there

were far more closed and tight-knit

communities. They had cultural ties,

festivals. These were things they

prioritized on either side of the house

because that is how our ancestors lived

in the past. Over time, however, we

would posit that we have gotten far more

individualistic and that is for two

reasons. The first is due to the

pressures of competition and capitalism

that you have to work more and more that

you have to strive to get that promotion

that that's the thing that decides your

worth. But second is due to increased

urbanization that is to say people

flocking to these cities for work

leading to nuclear families that suffer

these familiar ties. It is only done

with a strong belief in se in serity

that changes this that makes people far

more community oriented. And the impact

of this is twofold. The first thing is

that you care far more for the living

elderly. This looks like not sending

them to old age homes, spending time

with them when you're taking off work to

ensure you can spend time with them

during their last few years and that it

doesn't have to feel like a checklist on

a to-do list to spend time with them

that that you genuinely enjoy doing them

that you want to learn about the stories

they had, the kind of life they before

you. But the second thing is that you

extend far more support towards your

family and that is incredibly important

because in the status quo we lack a lot

of support systems. Our friends are

constantly changing because there's so

much competition. People prioritize

their own selves. Families have slowly

started to get diluted. It is uniquely

sanity that brings this back. That

brings your culture back. That looks

like women for example when they're

dealing with their children, other

relatives stepping in. Support systems

becoming far more important. These are

people you can rely on, people you can

trust on our side of the house because

ensures that you want to live by these

values of community that your ancestors

set out for you. And I want to weigh

this argument. The reason we are here

today is because of our ancestors. The

land we live on was once farmed by our

ancestors. These were the families that

were formed. Our parents, the ones who

took care of us throughout, put in a

life saving. We then owe a reciprocal of

obligation to abide by these values to

support these parents and generations

ahead. For all these reasons, we're

incredibly proud to propose on team India.

Before I begin, Team Australia would

like to thank everyone who has made this

moment possible. First, to the

organizers and the Panameanian

government. Uh, first to the organizers

and the Panameanian government. Your

dedication and kind hospitality have

made this a fantastic tournament.

Second, we are deeply indebted to the

Australian debating community, including

everyone who has coached us back home

and shown us your support while we've

been here. We also thank the Australian

Debating Federation and the Department

of Education for your support. Third, to

the friends that we've made here. You

guys are super awesome. And to all of

our friends and family back home, some

of whom who are waking up really early

in the morning to watch this live

stream. Thank you. Lastly, we are so so

grateful to the adults of team

Australia, to our coaches, Tom Non

Rutled, otherwise known as Nund Dog, and

Liv White, otherwise known as Livius,

and to our team manager and judge, the

Marty Max Thomas. We would have achieved

none of this without you guys. Thank you.

you. [Applause]

Unlike what team India tells you, this

isn't just a debate about community or

living by values which they are unable

to name on and which seem vague and

amorphous throughout that entire speech.

This theme traps people into living

lives that their ancestors wanted them

to live. They are shackled to customs

and values and traditions that they had

no role in shaping. Team Australia

stance is very clear. The dead ought not

control the living. You deserve agency

over your own life. One thing in setup,

the alternative is this world where

people's moral, social, and spiritual

worth are judged on their own merits and

by their contemporary communities etc.

And unlike what this team tells you,

these things are not fleeting. People

are still able to find meaning under our

side of the house, which is something

that they able to opt into rather than

being forced upon them. As this team

says, what claims are two pieces of

extraneous rebuttals before I get into

the arguments. The first thing they tell

us is the characterization that values

are likely to change over time. And I

want to observe it's quite bad when team

India tries to dodge their burden at

first because it explicitly says as the

definition of this serity thing that you

have to live in line with the values of

your ancestors but secondly presumably

that this knifes their own stuff because

presumably if values change over time

and people become more individualistic

they obviously lose their benefits on

community. Secondly they tell us ah but

you become more community oriented under

our their side. Yeah people still love

their families. they still have friends

and communities they are able to opt

into. This team never proved to you why

ex this is something a tipping point

that accesses more community. Two

arguments in the speech. First, why this

is incredibly bad for individuals.

Secondly, why this inhibits social

progress. In the first argument, there

are three parts. The first is why this

team significantly limits agency and why

that is a principal harm. Secondly, on

why this team causes extreme anxiety and

unhappiness for the vast majority of

people in the world. Finally, I'll

illustrate a series of practical bad

outcomes that this team causes. The

first part of this argument will simply

prove why this team significantly

diminishes people's agency uh and why

this is a massive constraint and

imposition on your life. It's because

this thing is something that is embedded

within your culture. This motion says

strongly believe in this sort of thing

and cultures often times self-perpetuate.

self-perpetuate.

But secondly, often times this is

something that is applied at a young age

and so you're likely to internalize this

for the rest of your life and you cannot

opt out. The final thing is people's

moral and social standing is incredibly

important for people. People crave

social worth because it is within our

biology. So this is a powerful

compulsion on people's lives. The

implication of all this is very simple.

This philosophy massively limits

people's choices to only what their

ancestors expect of them and only what

their ancestors ultimately value. Why is

this incredibly bad? The first that this

is something which is wrong. The analogy

I want to draw here is that religious

coercion is viewed as wrong. Forcing

people to do something or not do

something based on the threat of heaven

and hell is something which

significantly limits people's choice. A

similar thing is applied here when

you're literally challenging like

people's social and self-moral. But

secondly, only you know your own

preferences. Only you know yourself best

and you inherit the consequences of your

own actions. Which means that you ought

to try to live your life according to

what you believe and not what your

ancestors believe and what the whatever

values they try to impose upon you. But

secondly, observe that the ability to

choose your own values shapes who you

fundamentally are as a human. This team

robs people of the chance to shape their

own identity to pick and choose the

values that they ultimately believe in

and that diminishes your personhood and

your humanity. But secondly, observe

that this just results in deep amounts

of unhappiness. You feel suffocated and

trapped by what your ancestors believe

by the values that they uphold. Uh and

that's quite bad. I'll take that POI.

>> In such a capitalistic society where

one's success measures their worth, how

do you think people judge merit in the

status quo?

>> But people still live under capitalism

under your side, right? Like your entire

case is a but we get more community. But

it doesn't like why does having your

ancestors bestow upon you a social and

moral word is something that creates

more community is incredibly unclear to

me. There are three reasons why this

causes an extreme amount of anxiety for

a lot of people. The first is that

oftent times the desires of yourself and

the desires of your ancestors often

conflict. That's for the reason that

often times people have hidden taboo

desires that they ultimately have. Or

secondly, you're just influenced by

contemporary influences that also shape

your desires and shape what you want.

And this is incredibly bad when people

feel like their social and moral and

standing is dependent on what their

ancestors believe and they are

conflicting against that. Often times

that does result in a lot of guilt and

anxiety for a lot of people. It probably

looks like if you're attracted to

someone but your ancestors like value

things such as puritanism, obviously

you're going to feel incredibly bad and

guilty about yourself. If your ancestors

value things such as like uh being

frugal or donating a lot. If you want

material possessions, obviously that

conflicts. Obviously that makes you feel

incredibly incredibly awful. But

secondly, there is uncertainty in

applying values to modern life because

the life of your ancestor looks very

different from the contemporary life

that you were existing in. These are

very different experiences that you were

living. Trying to apply those lessons

across is something which is incredibly

hard, is incredibly stressful. But

thirdly, people often times try to live

up to their ancestors and they fail. And

that's for the reason that ancestors on

their side are glorified. They are

lionized. All of their like

imperfections are ones that are wiped

clean. And so you were never able to

live up to the standards that your

ancestors put on you and that causes a

lot of stress and anxiety. It makes

people feel like they are inadequate all

the time. The impacting of the end of

this is very simple. This is about a

different world. This team subjects

billions upon billions of people to feel

shame and awful and inadequate or

they're unable to live up to this

information. The third argument will

simply prove why this is practically bad

for people. The first part of the the

first mechanism is that values passed

down are simply bad or at least

internalized badly by people who have to

internalize them. The first thing is

that the values of your ancestors

oftentimes are incredibly outdated. They

oftentimes are incredibly regressive.

Even a generation or two generations

ago, people were incredibly sexist. They

were homophobic and they were racist.

And so they're likely to perpetuate

those things across uh across

generations or at least the person who

is like younger and the child has to

internalize this because their moral and

social worth depends on this and it's

incredibly bad for you if you are a

queer individual and your desire to

those of your parents. But secondly,

observe that even good values that this

team talks about oftent times are

presented without nuance. Oftent times

these things are glorified. Obvious

obviously uh the most extreme versions

of these things are often times

presented to a lot of people. And that

is incredibly bad because extreme values

extreme versions of even good values are

often times incredibly harmful. Extreme

forgiveness is often times bad

especially for women who want to leave

relationships which may ultimately be

bad for them. But the other reason why

this is just practically bad for people

is that it gives parents and

grandparents disproportional control

over your life because even if you have

a bad relationship with them, even if

they mistreated you because you were gay

or queer or whatever or did not conform

to their standards, you cannot escape

and distance and cut ties with them for

the reason that your social standing and

moral worth diminish to the extent that

you're not seen as following what your

parents wanted. The impacting of this is

incredibly simple. Team India screws

over the most vulnerable people. People

who are queer or women who who do not

conform to societal standards. These

people suffer the most. Either they are

coerced into making choices which are

not good for them but are imposed upon

them. Things such as not entering into a

queer relationship because that is

something that your parents frowned on.

These things are ultimately very

unfulfilling and very bad for a lot of

people. The second argument will simply

prove why this is incredibly bad for

social progress. The reason is that

people are far less likely to support

progress or even having social movements

form in the first place because social

movements by nature emerge as a reaction

to the regressive customs that this team

is forced to glorify. It's much harder

to change people's minds if they fear

that they are going astray from what

their ancestors wanted. People are far

less likely to opt into social movements

if they feel like they are disobeying

the values of their ancestors and so

they fear a lot more. But secondly,

people just don't express their

dissatisfaction with the status quo

because uh because that feels like

expressing dissatisfaction with the

values that their ancestors placed upon

them. The impacting of this is

incredibly incredibly simple. One, there

are simply far less resources, far less

mobilization that social movements are

able to tap into because people are

afraid to join them because it feels

like conflicting with the values that

the ancestors put upon them. Things such

as like not supporting gay people

because you feel consider yourself to be

like, I don't know, a traditional

family, etc. people are far less likely

to donate and join etc. But secondly,

even if this team tries to symmetricize

these things by saying conservative

value still exists on the outside,

comparatively it is comparative it is

just better on the side. If we're able

to achieve social change a couple of

decades earlier, it means billions of

people access better lives, access more

fulfilling existences. I'm very proud to oppose.

oppose. [Applause]

[Applause]

Team Australia had a very utopic case in

this round that people get to decide

their own values that they live freely.

But this is a case that does not cohhere

with reality where individuals are

shackled by chains of capitalism a

feeding metrics of their appearance of

their money. That when they look back at

what gives them meaning, it is their

race. It is how other people judge them.

It is a figure on their paycheck. That

is what team India wanted to break free

from in this debate. Two questions I'm

going to ask. First, where do you get

more individual meaning? Second, how

does this change the communities we

create? After that, I'll forward a third

substantive argument on why social

change is actually far more likely on

our side. First, let's talk about

individual meaning. There are two pushes

that you hear coming out of opposition.

The first push is that this is

incredibly limiting to people's choice.

First, I think this is a unfair

characterization of what this actually

looks like because often the values that

you are asked to abide by are not

incredibly specific instructions. Think

about this. This is upholding the values

of your ancestors. Your ancestors not

just your grandparents but rather

ancestors before you, three to four

generations before you. And as a result,

it is very rarely likely to be specific

things that limit your choice, but

rather values that you are told to abide

by. Rather, it is things like being

kind. It is things like being honest

with yourself and honest to others. But

second, I think they fail to recognize

that this is a radically different

world. This is a world where everyone

grows up with a strong belief in sanity.

This is a world where people

conceptualize of their own identity

differently. So yes, it is the case that

your choice might be constricted from

having to abide by your ancestors. No

thank you. But that is not a limitation

of choice that people actually think is

bad because people have grown up with it

have not been normalized to it and is

actually something that gives them

incredible amounts of value because they

think they are being a good person if

they live by the values of their

ancestors. They think this is something

that makes them far more moral. But

finally, I think if they really wanted

to make this argument, they needed to be

comparative in this debate. that is

alternative expectations that are

imposed onto people for their social

standing. They still tell people that

need to make more money or how they need

to look. Those are all alternative

expectations that continue to exist on

their side for meaning. I'll talk about

the implication of that more later. The

second thing they then tell you is they

are values that are likely to be regressive.

regressive.

>> Ton of information.

>> I want to note we already preempt the

system first. That is these are values

that are incredibly likely to adapt. And

this doesn't really cut into our

benefits, but rather it's just a more

realistic conception of the world. If

your ancestors tell you that you always

need to be honest, you always need to

love others. Obviously, that means

different in 2025 than it did in their

time. Is this something that people

themselves are able to recognize? So, we

don't think you're going to be a raging

homophobic because you recognize that

societal context have evolved. Rather,

what you are being true to is the value

that your ancestor told you is really

important to them or the desire that

they had. But second, what is their

compulative again for this argument?

Because if it is the case that your

family is one that is incredibly

unaccepting, if it is the case the

community you grew up in will never

actually accept you, we think in their

side you still face similar restrictions

of regression. You still face the same

beliefs your parents are homophobic or

don't believe that women should have as

many rights. And therefore we think

that's why a lot of the world is still

status quo. This doesn't deal with what

this actually looks like. What was then

our very clear push to you under this

clash? This debate was where about where

you derive your moral, spiritual and

social standing from. And we thought the

alternative sources of meaning that

people had were incredibly negative to

their own perception because they were

out of your control because they were

incredibly fleeting because they were

incredibly competitive given the

capitalistic world that we see today.

There are two assertive lines we hear in

response. The first thing they say is

well people will still be able to find

meaning. But what are the alternative

values that people are turning to? We

think you have to look to the status quo

here. It is how much money you make. It

is judging people by their appearances

and that is incredibly negative because

it is uniquely something that you can

never control but even if control would

always be unattainable because there's

someone who's always making more money

than you perhaps but second they say

capitalism still exists but that's just

not good enough right because this is a

debate where we fundamentally people

conceptualize of their identity. This is

a belief this is a world where a strong

belief in serity is something that is

incredibly popular and we think

therefore far more people are looking to

this as a source of meaning. When you

think back about your life, you're

thinking about whether you were true to

the values you were supposed to be. And

that is something that is incredibly

rewarding to people. We thinking

individual meaning is great on our side.

It is incredibly damaging to their case,

but they never give you what the

alternative is on their side. We tell

you that is likely to be incredibly

damaging. It is similarly restricting in

choice, but it is one that you cannot

personalize because only how true you

are being to your ancestors and no one

does. On their side, all of the metrics

they have are ones that society gets to

judge you on. Before I move on to the

second class, I'll take a POI. But also,

if you have a timer, can I borrow that

because this has stopped working?

>> Cool. Yes. Oh, pi.

>> Why do people have to find meaning from

their ancestors? Why can they not find

meaning in communities like social

movements or clubs that they can

willingly opt into?

>> Great. I'm just going to my community

clash. That was lovely. All right.

Second clash then on community. We tell

you that this world is one that is incre

increasingly individualistic where

people live their lives at the expense

of community and therefore are not able

to find support systems, are not able to

find well-being. Their response is well

other communities still exist and you

can find them. But this is just not good

enough. Look at the world we live in

first. This is a world in which you're

far more likely to move out for economic

opportunities because you don't have the

same communal bonds. Far more likely to

prioritize your own individual success

because that is the counternarrative

that tells you to prioritize that. But

second, empirically we have seen things

like a rise in nuclear power. We have

seen things like being far moreic and

even if it is the case that people have

some communities. We think that is

incredibly different because even then

the way you are judging yourself by the

kind of community you are living in.

Maybe you have suck feeding moments of

happiness with your family, but most of

your time is being spent at work. What

we needed then was for you to have

control over how you conceptualize of

your own community and for you to think

that being with my community is

something that is I'm supposed to do

something that actively increasing your

social standing. And I want to weigh

this argument very clearly. We think

that there are many factors first that

limit people's choice. The fact they're

living in conditions of poverty or

suffering, the fact that they might not

have as many resources that is also

incredibly constricting to their life.

The one thing that is then able to give

people solace is the fact that they're

able to live within a community. The

fact that they're able to confide in

others and they have more people to rely

on around them. But second, even if we

take them at their best and assume that

this is a norm that is regressive in

some instances, it will be exclusionary

to certain communities. We think those

are still people who are able to benefit

from the fact they have closenit support

systems. They might not turn to everyone

in their family, but just having more of

a community around you is helpful.

Therefore, the benefits of community are

universalizable and therefore far more

important. I'm now going to forward a

third argument for if individuals behave

more positively, this will continue

taking down their case. Two strands to

this argument. First, individuals are

far more likely to care about the legacy

they leave behind in our world. Right

now, the idea of your legacy is

incredibly abstract. Who is looking back

on their life and thinking about the

values you had? Probably not a lot of

people because this is not an active

norm. A world with sanity makes this far

more concrete because you know that your

values will now be carried down

generations. People then are averse to

leaving a legacy of hatred or

discrimination behind and therefore are

far more willing within their own lives

to evaluate the beliefs they have to try

to be a good person who donates to

charity because they want to be someone

that they can be looked up to. They want

to be someone that is an inspiration to

the generations after them. And we think

therefore if they wanted to talk about

social change, it is on us that the

people are more likely to contribute

because they want to leave behind a

legacy of positive values that others

have to uphold. But second, values that

are propagated by serity are

structurally broad-based. They are not

ones that restrict agency. First, this

is because often people have multiple

ancestors and therefore if they are not

braced broad-based, you risk them being

contradictory. People are propagating

different values and as a result you

want to default to things like love or

things like honesty. But second, people

themselves are willing to recognize that

society evolves and changes over time.

You know that your life is very

different from the life of your parents

or the life of your grandparents and

therefore you avoid being overtly

specific. This is incredibly important

because this means the non- values that

are incredibly likely to be regressive

or incredibly likely to be constricting

but rather are positive values that

people are expected to abide by. This

means that people are much more likely

to do things like be less

discriminatory, donate to charity, help

out strangers. This is a world in which

people are far more likely to be moral.

They try to say that even too much of

extremely good values is bad. But that's

just weird panel. Like no one's asking

you to go overboard with these values,

but rather embrace them more within your

lives. So serity then is incredibly

unique because often being moral is

hard. It requires you to self be

selfless. It requires you to be it

requires you to sacrifice. We want

people to have an active impetus to

this. At the end of the day, we are

shaped by our past. We must honor our ancestors.

ancestors.

>> Thank you very much. And we now have the

Every individual in the affirmative

team's world spends their one fickle

hour on the stage living out as a

hollowedout version of themselves. Their

own preferences are crushed by the

overwhelming weight of ancestral

morality overrun by a communal doctrine

of servitude. We wouldn't support a

world where people are coerced in

supporting one religion. And that's for

the reason that even the religion may

give you consolation and hope. It is a

form of violence. We do not cop. We do

not support religious coercion. We never

support moral coercion. And that is

because the most the most inherent thing

to humanity is bodily autonomy. It is

agency. I'll do three things in the

speech. Firstly, I'll talk about a which

side is better for individuals.

Secondly, I'll talk about communal

values and social prog and then social

progress. Firstly, on which side is a

unique source of value for individuals.

Their first claim is that there are

current sources of social standing that

are temporary and that is bad. They give

three reasons for this. The first reason

is that meaning is out of one's control.

But firstly, there are obviously sources

of meaning that are not. You do not need

money. You do not need privilege to make

friends, to make art because all you

need is love and values and qualities

you can learn by yourself. You do not

need privilege. Those are all in your

control. Secondly, I note that people on

outside find sources of meaning they can

control. That's for the reason that

humans are always trying to find sources

of meaning. That's why I say artwork is

universal across all societies. People

can obviously find meaning under their

side. People in the status quo have

empirically. The second reason is that

some sources of meaning are un

unattainable. Such as the fact you

cannot strive to reach the top. But the

problem with this mechanism is that

people do not care about unattainable

sources of information. It's

psychologically less painful to get and

value achievable goals. And goals are

often born out of a comparative goal

which is better than where you started

out. For example, if you were born in a

country with low social mobility, then

you wouldn't strive to be the CEO. You

would strive to go to university and get

a good job. If you were born in a

country with lots of mobility, then you

would strive to be a CEO. Obviously, it

is comparative. People do not set

unattainable goals for themselves

because their families won't, their

society won't, they won't because it is

psychologically painful. The third thing

they say is that meaning is fleeting.

But firstly, I note that you often

derive satisfaction from many sources of

meaning, such as your own value, such as

your friends, such as just spending time

with yourself, such as reading books.

So, you usually have some way to find

meaning in your life. This is a

cherrypick, even if some sources of

meaning are temporary. But secondly, I

can't just many parts of your life. Your

family is often permanent. You often do

have lifelong interests. You have a job

at the very very least and usually have

some friends. Maybe some friendships die

out over time, but I don't think it's

unlikely that all friendships will die

at the same time. And we know that when

some people start losing some source of

meaning, people often rush and urgently

replace it. So, I think it's very

unlikely. What do they say? They say

they actually have sources of meaning

for two reasons. Firstly, uh serity is

personal, so you can feel more aligned.

But the problem with this is they had to

prove that families and individuals are

aligned. And obviously they are not.

They have incredibly different

experiences. They have incredibly

different personalities and they have

incredibly different needs. Even if you

want to claim that you have good general

values such as honesty under their side,

that still factors in for different

personalities. Maybe someone is

naturally quite kind and then when their

mom is like, "You should be forgiving."

Then they that then that turns into

subservience. Maybe someone is naturally

quite assertive and their dad is like,

"You should be assertive." Then that

turns into bossiness. People have

incredibly different personalities from

their parents. And that explains why

they do internalize this in bad ways.

and it certainly isn't personal. Their

second reason for why serity is personal

is that they say that you are in control

of the narratives and therefore you have

leeway to decide what it looks like.

Conversely, there this is such a strong

imposition that I would just say you

cannot pick and choose. And that's for

the reason that if you say take a plain

English reading of the motion, it says a

strong belief. And I would analogize

this to God looking over you to religion

where people do often commit choices

that are bad for them because this is an

overwhelming philosophy. And

importantly, I know that this isn't just

listening to your parents and deciding

what to pick and choose. The info slide

says you cannot dishonor them. You

cannot disrespect them. Otherwise, your

relationship is broken. So, you can't

just pick and choose the parts that are

good. you must not contradict anything

that they ever say. They're like, "No,

but values can adapt to context, but

this is asserted and status quo biased

and the status quo values have adapted

to context. You guys can't claim that."

We note that often people do believe

values are true and therefore timeless.

Homophobia isn't a specific value, but

it is something that can be very strong

at and can actually persist under your

side. But secondly, I know that people

assume all things are good things under

your under their side. That's for the

reason that they think that their

ancestors empowered them with this. They

think that all of those values are good

because this is the main philosophy. And

I know that it's often easy to frame bad

things as good if you only tell your

side. It's often easy to frame violence

as being justified. It's often easy to

say submissiveness allows you to

maintain friendships or allows you to

tame marriages. All of which explain

that this is a bad philosophy. And I'd

make the general observation that if

people can pick and choose and if

there's so much leeway then they cut

through their very benefits of people

having good values in the first place

because someone who is a bad person is

unlikely to pick up the good values from

their mom or from their grandma because

they like I can just pick and choose.

The next claim they give is that this is

good for the elderly but because they

can leave a legacy. The problem with

this is that this isn't specific. You

can leave a legacy because of you as a

good person. A legacy does not come from

people following you. It comes from

people cherishing you and remembering

you. Secondly, many people do not care

if they leave a legacy or not. Many

people just care about the experiences

we have that they have with people. What

do we explain? We explain that this is

just terrible for the individual. And

the first thing I want to do is just

metricize the fact that people will pick

up good values for two reasons. Firstly,

we know that there are already strong

social media applauding good values

because they benefit society such as

kindness, such as selflessness.

Secondly, I know that you often learn

good values because you get rewarded.

You figure out through experience that

honesty allows you to maintain

friendships. You get rewarded by

popularity. You get rewarded by feeling

good. And the implication of that

analysis is that if your ancestors

taught you good uh values that were

good, that is symmetric. So their

benefits are symmetric. What isn't

symmetric is the harms of their bad

values. Cuz we explained values are

likely to be outdated, values are likely

to harm you. And values at the very

least are likely to cause you huge

amounts of anxiety and huge amounts of

uncertainty. They give a few responses.

Their first response is this is

symmetric because there are social

pressures. So for example, there your

family would be homophobic under either

word. Firstly, empirically, this is not

a credible claim. Feminism has made

phenomenal strides in the last tens of

centuries. People have stood out and

rebelled against their family. Secondly,

the structural reason for this and why

we exclusive is because your

relationship to your family is one of

the most focal parts of your life. And

often your family will still love you

under our side, but under given

philosophy, this necessitates the ending

of your familial relationship. You

didn't have to have the same values

under our side for your family to love

you, but you did under their side.

Thirdly, we know that often people hide

their rebellion from their family under

our side. But under their side, you feel

internally guilty even if you're hiding

it because you feel like you are

severing a connection ancestors. So that

also stops you. So it isn't symmetric.

Before I move on, I'll take a point.

>> Ancestors cannot come back from the dead

and tell you that you aren't living up

to them. Why will you interpret this in

a way that is so regressive?

>> Because on your side, you feel like you

are dishonoring and disrespecting your

ancestors and it is a universal

philosophy. You think that it is

something important. In the same way

that say God or deities you may not ever

meet. You still think they important.

You think they are ever present. You

think that they are looking over you.

Next on communal values. There are a few

problems with this. Firstly, there are

already incentives to love your

grandparents and love your parents. You

love your family. You love spending time

with them. You want to make the most of

your time with your grandma who might go

soon. It is not a checkbox to not spend

time to spend time with your grandma.

But secondly, in the cases that you do

not spend time with family on our side,

that is fine. Many people do not get

along with their relatives who are

chosen by chance and not connection with

their friends. So that social that

argument was out of the debate. Next on

social progress, they claim that they

get more social progress because people

care about their legacy being good. I

think the problem with this is that

people in your world don't want this

legacy and that's for the reason they

want to follow their parents' legacies.

And that's because people don't know

what a good legacy is, right? Like

people don't know that social progress

is a good legacy under your world

because their legacy and their whole

belief system is social conservatism.

It's what happened before them. So they

do not think that rebellion is a good

thing because they think that rebellion

is something their grandma would have

said no to. is something their mother

would have said no to. So you never

explain that premise. Secondly, I know

that they actually do not get a lot of

social progress. That's for the reason I

think people are just likely to be have

far more inertia in their beliefs.

People are likely like people are

there's likely to be far more social

division under their side. That's for

the reason that if people change their

views over time, if conservative people

or regressive people change their views

over time, they think that they are

letting their ancestors down, they think

that they fundamentally cannot do this,

which means that it is much much harder

to forward social progress when you

cannot actually change people's views

because they think that their family

will hate them. For those reasons, vote negative.

[Applause]

Thank you very much. May we now have the

third proposition speaker here here. [Applause]

I think team Australia might benefit

from a closer read at the motion because

according to the info slide, this is

about your social standing and how you

view yourself in relation to society. So

at the end of the day, it was not enough

for second opposition to talk about

clubs. It was not enough for them to

come up and give flippant responses

about the art you view. At the core of

it, it was that you assessed your worth

and you judged how valuable of a person

you were on the basis of how much money

you earned, on the basis of how good you

looked, on the basis of how many friends

you can form. Crucially, second

opposition can tell you all they want

about other sources of meaning, but they

don't engage with the core of the case

from team India and it loses them the

round. There are three things I want to

talk about in the speech. First, what

are the kinds of values that are passed

down by sanity? Second, which side

provides better meaning and improves the

self-worth of individuals? And thirdly,

and finally on social change. First,

let's talk about the kinds of values

that are passed down via sanity because

I think more broadly this

characterization clash makes or breaks

the debate for either side of the

opposition's case down the bench is that

serity means that ancestors will guide

your every single choice, literally

every moment of your life. But this

simply wasn't realistic and we gave you

reasons down the bench. The first is

that ancestors would clearly know that

context would change. They would not be

aware of the kind of life you would be

leading or their great grandchildren

would be leading or what the world would

be look like. And so the values would be

broad-based, which means they're not

specific guides about specific

situations, but rather instructions like

honesty, instructions like kindness,

which were generally important for

people to follow. But secondly and

crucially, these are things that are

shaped by memory. Which is to say, when

I remember my grandfather, I remember

his one core ten kindness. I may not

remember his specific on everything, but

the one thing that sticks. The one story

that keeps getting told again and again

is about specific value. This has two

implications. First, that these are in

fact actually broad-based. But second,

that the interpretation of these values

is uniquely personal. That's to say that

you get to decide whether you're in line

with these values or not. No one else

knows your thoughts. No one else can

control your daily actions on a

day-to-day basis. It is only you that

can interpret these values because you

have the most approximate understanding

of it. That's why unlike what second

opposition would want you to believe, it

is very different from religion where

there's a religious leader and a

religious text giving you a strict

doctrine to follow. These are

broad-based guidelines we want people to

personally interpret and live their

lives through. The final attack they

levy on this is well oh you know values

are broad-based and conflicting it cuts

through our benefit but this doesn't

actually engage with the nuance of the

case that we gave you which is to say

it's not to say that the values are

conflicting rather that individuals have

flexibility in how they apply them but

they still follow the broad guidelines

as a whole. The implication of all of

this analysis is clear. The clash give

you on choice not really relevant in the

round because we actually think that

people still do have significant degrees

of flexibility as long as they stay

within the broad guidelines of these

values. But second, we actually think

that people find significant meaning in

listening. You actually remember panel

that this is a radically different world

where people have always believed in

these values from the first place.

That's why they actually do find value

in listening to what their ancestors

believe. proposition would want

opposition would want you to think it is

people today being told tomorrow that

they have to listen to everything their

ancestors said. No, in that sense we

would say it's true many religious

people do find so much order and value

in the structure. That's why people

voluntarily choose to wear hijabs.

That's why people voluntarily choose to

follow strict religious practices even

if it might come as a personal

inconvenience to them. They find meaning

in it. They find salvation in that. They

view their own selfworth as an extension

of that. And I think it is frankly

demeaning for second opposition to

dismiss that as nonsense. Before I move

on to the clash about meaning, I'll take

the point.

>> Yeah. So you can't pick and choose.

There are values that are broad-based

that are both good and bad. You had to

explain why good values don't exist

under our side, but bad values do to

make your case exclusive.

>> Okay. One, we think that individuals

want to leave a really good legacy

behind. They don't want to be remembered

as someone who proliferated hatred, who

proliferated violence. So that's why

values like love your neighbor, be kind

to everyone and the kinds of things they

promote as a part of this philosophy.

But second, it's just true that without

this being model is incredibly

difficult. It is so difficult to make

the moral choice in every instance. It's

often easy to choose convenience. We

want people to have that force that

reinforces them to make the right choice

in more instances. Second, let's talk

about meaning because we were clear.

Your meaning is tied to your self-worth.

And in status quo, selfworth is

fleeting. There's the crisis where

people do not know what their impact on

the world is. They do not know amongst

the 8 billion people on this planet whe

they will ever leave a change behind.

What were the responses we heard to this

idea down the bench? The first thing we

hear at first opposition is well you

know capitalism still exists. Obviously

this doesn't engage with the broad parts

of our case which is suggest that maybe

you're in a capitalist society but you

don't derive your meaning from how much

money you earned. You derive it from how

you're living in line with the values of

your ancestors. The second thing, and

these are just a list of responses from

second opposition that are just lies.

You don't actually need money or

privilege to be reassured in your

selfworth at all. Blatantly untrue. The

vast majority of people feel incredibly

bad about the fact that they look around

and see people that have nicer things

than them, live life on nicer than us.

Second, they tell you that people

actually don't care about reaching the

top because, you know, poor people just

don't have dreams and aspirations that

they never want to make it high up the

ladder. I think these responses are

incredibly unrealistic and devoid of any

relation with reality. The final thing

they say is, well, oh, you know, people

will still spend time with their

relatives. Of course, again, this is yet

another assertion from second

opposition. Incredibly flippant

responses given we've proven to you down

the bench that people don't have the

time and in the kind of society we live

today, they're forced to make trade-offs

that come at the expense of their

family, at the expense of their

community. But let's take them at their

best. Let's say that maybe people do

ascribe some level of meaning on their

side of the house. The unique difference

is this is a meaning that gives people a

broader purpose. That's to say that

you're living the life of your

ancestors. You're leaving a real legacy

behind. Any of the meaning they do get

is fleeting. Any of the meaning they do

get depends on your context for where

you are. This is one thing that

universally persists for all

individuals. So just on scale given it

impacts everybody in the world and also

the extent to which it gives them

satisfaction and fulfillment. This is

independently the round-winning issue.

Second, finally, let's talk about social

change because the main push we get is

ah well these values are very regressive

and they're going to cause large degrees

of discrimination. But we actually

flipped this at second proposition to no

response. Which is to say that many of

these values do oppose discrimination.

That values like love and kindness are

easy justification to take stance for

feminism. values like pursuing what you

believe in, working hard, the pursuit of

excellence are all things that are

likely to be passed down and we have no

reason to suggest that the specific

conservative practices which we've

already proved to you are unlikely the

ones carried down undermine that what

then are the responses we heard to this

idea the first thing we heard as well a

lot of these good ideas will come up

anyways I don't think this engages with

the majority of our case which is to say

that it's very difficult to make good

decisions in most instances at the end

of the speech I just want to weigh these

two issues, which is to say that a lot

of the discrimination they talk about

happens anyways. Until the past 50

years, we did live in an incredibly

conservative and regressive society

across the world. It is only now that

we've seen trends of liberalization

increasing. There are still other

factors like religion. There are still

other reasons to discriminate like

feeling like you have a like a feeling

of superiority that still exist on their

side of the house that they don't do

much to solve to begin with. So it is

unclear how much discrimination or how

much targeting might actually increase.

But what is clear and certain benefit

that you should vote on is the idea that

people are finally able to find a sense

of meaning that they finally feel like

they have a purpose in their life.

That's something that team India wants

to protect and it loses team Australia

the round. [Applause]

India's strategy is to minimize their

own impacts in the way that they are

able to get any change. They try to

outframe everything we say, but they

don't give a single reason why things

like homophobia or hating interracial

marriage are not also values. Why people

don't believe things that aren't also

true because there is a group of people

up there above you who is not living

your life and not understanding your

specific context. But they do hold

beliefs that you don't agree with

anymore and that you now have to listen

to. When you mess up, someone is

watching you above you on their side.

Someone who knows and believes you are a

bad evil person. You internalize that

too. They cannot get away with

minimizing their own impacts and trying

to outframe the bad one. The first way

I'm going to win is explain why bad

values do persist and what that easily

wins us this debate. But second, I'm

going to talk about why even if only

exclusively good values exist, we are

still the ones who win. And first on

those bad values because India only

focuses their case on good values. So

try to do that as a time thing. Try to

have this on their ground. But this is a

debate about values and desires and some

of those are bad and things some people

don't believe in anymore. What do they

say on why bad values or things that

people don't agree with anymore that are

regressive aren't passed on? First they

say they adapt well and they are vague.

No, they don't. The comparative is

things that adapt well cuz you learn

morals from things like film and media

from scriptures that are constantly

re-evaluated like religion but they just

do not change over time on their side

because they ask you to imagine a

radically different world. And that

radically different world is one where

someone learns something from the

previous ancestor before them. They give

no example of how this is able to

change. If every single person is

learning what the previous person told

them, I'm unclear where the change

happened. They need to tell you

specifically why that was something that

was able to happen. These are vague, but

a lot of these things are preserved

really well and they are not vague.

These things are turned over time and it

is really easy to say that you should

not marry someone of a different tribe.

It is really easy to say that you should

not be gay or that you should suppress

any desire you have. That is damning for

their side. Then they say that people

are able to recognize societal context.

So those bad things aren't passed down.

But like why in this radically different

world I think the person who is your

great great grandmother who is up there

in the sky actually does not understand

that things change. Maybe has never met

a queer person. They don't explain why

this actually changes. This is a person

who is judging you. The people up there

have not seen change. But we also give

you another line of analysis which gets

a very thin response. We tell you that

even if there are good values passed on,

they are internalized very very badly.

And if people suspect there is something

that says they should not do something.

for example, they should not be gay.

That is something they do believe in.

They just tell you that no one is asking

you to go overboard. You get to decide

what your value is. But no, this person

is up there dictating your life,

dictating your social standing,

dictating who you are as a person. You

take that to be absolute. That is

incredibly terrifying because the entire

content of your self-worth, something

you likely really care about, something

that gives you a sense that you deserve

to live on the planet is entirely

dependent on that thing. That means

people are incred like incredibly likely

to feel incredibly scared of

overreaching and stepping out of that.

But second, we explain that these can be

co-opted by bad actors who want you to

believe certain things, who are really

homophobic, that makes you believe you

need to follow. So maybe no one is

asking you to go overboard, but you do

go overboard because you think that you

need to, that explains then that even if

you only got a few situations where

someone held on to those terrible

beliefs, that is horrible. It means that

you can't do things like come out to

your family. You can't divorce your

hateful partner. You can't get into a

relationship with a person you love.

That is the biggest impact in this

debate and one that the response is so

incredibly thin. First, because this is

massive in your life and your severity,

you cannot make decisions that would

have been good for you. But second, this

is massive on scale. Cuz if you believe

their characterization, that we live in

a world where no one can ever change,

where everyone believes this from birth,

then obviously that is something that

affects many, many, many individuals.

That is something that stops you from

being able to live out your life. We

then explain that that's just stopped

social progress. Then one response is to

say that like kindness is something that

will make you likely to accept social

progress. First, this is contingent on

their earlier characterization, which I

told you was untrue. But second, that

doesn't respond to anything we tell you

at first. Or second, because we tell you

that people are unlikely to consider

other opinions because you are more

beholden to your ancestors than the

people around you. That gets no

response. That explains uniquely why

people are unlikely to accept social

change in any situation. But the last

thing to say is that we told you this

was a principled obligation. The people

had a right to control their own lives.

Though you give no response to this

principle, it's independently debate

winning for all the weighing we give you

at first. Yes.

>> If your entire family thinks it's a sin

to be gay, how are people coming out on

your side of the house either? What's

the margin here?

>> Because maybe your family thinks you

shouldn't be gay, but you think it's

okay. You understand that feeling. You

understand there are other people out

there on your side. Your entire

selfworth is determined by the people up

above. your ancestors who existed many

many years ago who do not understand

that and do not understand that belief

that is independently debate winning us

that is a thing that massively on scale

affects people's lives on severity and

even if it only was a small number of

people who slip through that is massive

for their lives that ruins them next I'm

going to talk about their path to

victory why even if it is only good

values that are passed on it's still bad

for your life claim is that you need

this to have good values but capitalism

is symmetrical on both sides they don't

explain why it doesn't exist but second

I just think this is argument is an

exaggeration because yeah I do not live

by probably no one or very few people in

this room does. I do not think we are

evil people. I think we do have a sense

of community. We explain why that's

true. First, because often morals serve

us as well because if I give you a

birthday present, I expect one back.

That was a nice thing to do, but morals

do serve you on the long term. Second,

there are just plenty of ways that

people receive these morals, but they

change over time. They learn from things

like film or TV because people learn

things. They push them out into the

world. That is something that is able to

change and able to adapt to certain

situations. But second, even if you

thought people were slightly less moral,

they never explain why that is the

massive impact in this debate. Because

the only thing they're able to say is

that you don't prioritize individual

success. So you are like better to the

people around you. You prioritize your

community. First, they never explain why

this is individually a good thing.

Because the worst actors slip through on

both sides. The worst actors who don't

have a sense of selfworth and who don't

care about things, who h are like

morally corrupt and have no moral

compass still get through on their side.

The difference is the good people who

cared about their self-worth and cared

about their morals never prioritized

success. the bad people were them

running in the world. But second, we

explained that sometimes you do need to

put yourself first over your own values

because maybe on their side you never

leave your partner because that would

disappoint your family. That's really

bad for you. You stay in abusive

situations. We would give people a right

to be slightly morally discerning. That

is really really good for them. We

explained that community is something

that's independently good. It gives you

a chance to be with the people around

you and love them. Though the benefits

you get, the differences, the way it is

enforced on their side is particularly

bad. the last next then on how people

feel because they just say that current

generations need this because social

standing is so fleeting and so external.

So you just focus on capitalism and how

much money you have. First, many of

these things aren't arbitrary that they

describe. Many people are happier if you

do have more friends and you put in the

effort to make more friends. But second,

in order to get any of this benefit of

meaning, you have to follow everything

your ancestors say perfectly. And people

cannot do this. And when you stay on

your deathbed at the end of your life on

their side, you focus on the things that

you did badly that your ancestors looked

on and said that that gave you no sense

of self worth. People feel much much

worse on their side. But second, we

explain to you the unique set of harms

that exist on their side. That your

happiness like is dependent on every

single time you mess up. Every single

time you have an urge to do something

bad, every single time you make a little

mistake, which all of us do every day,

that attacks your self-worth as a

person. you know, are incredibly scared

to make any mistakes, any issues. Every

time you think something bad, you are

scared of that. Why then is the fear of

messing up much worse than the benefit

of hope they might be able to give you?

First, we explain that is a much bigger

impact because feeling bad is a lot

worse. But second, not know that people

just focus on the bad that they feel

more than the good that they feel.

You're likely to be able to feel good

from a lot of different external

sources, which are probably much bigger

like senses of happiness like they tell

you themselves. But when you did

something bad and you were focused on

that, that was something that deeply

messed with your selfworth and your

happiness. that mean you were just more

unhappy on their side. Then they tell

you about elders that these people get

to leave behind a legacy and you can now

care about your values and you leave

something behind. But this is not a

material legacy because maybe people

would be happier if they made an impact

in the life that they lived. Maybe too

many people do go like out of this world

without saying I'm proud of you or I

love you because things like this make

them feel like they are able to have

control over lives otherwise. They are

able to leave a legacy that is

independent from them. We would prefer

that people did this themselves. At the

end of this debate, you should just

believe that the bad values that are

passed down are the worst things. They

ruin people's lives. They're a massive

scale. But second, the good values they

pass down are at least very much

mitigated. But secondly, they don't

explain why that is the most good thing

they can bring. We were the ones who

made people happier. They could make

choices that served them rather than

people who existed 100 years ago so so

proud to oppose. [Applause]

[Applause] First on the principle, we explain that

First on the principle, we explain that this is an unjust imposition on one's

this is an unjust imposition on one's agency regardless of the

agency regardless of the consequentialist outcomes India stands

consequentialist outcomes India stands behind. And we note that this is an

behind. And we note that this is an analogist to any other good constraints

analogist to any other good constraints of agency because this controls the

of agency because this controls the entire way you structure your life. It

entire way you structure your life. It controls the lens through which you

controls the lens through which you decide your ancestors or through decide

decide your ancestors or through decide your actions. And the weighing of this

your actions. And the weighing of this principle was simple. It was debate

principle was simple. It was debate winning. It was absolute because firstly

winning. It was absolute because firstly in a debate where some good values

in a debate where some good values existed, some bad values existed, human

existed, some bad values existed, human psychology was different for every

psychology was different for every individual. Everyone had different

individual. Everyone had different ancestors. This was an incredibly

ancestors. This was an incredibly certain harm that cut through human

certain harm that cut through human psychology. But secondly, this principle

psychology. But secondly, this principle is all-encompassing and absolute. It

is all-encompassing and absolute. It isn't just an extra harm for us. It is a

isn't just an extra harm for us. It is a harm you must not take regardless of any

harm you must not take regardless of any practical consequences because we let

practical consequences because we let people partake in dangerous activities.

people partake in dangerous activities. Because we realize people ought make

Because we realize people ought make decisions. because they know themselves

decisions. because they know themselves best and they live the through the

best and they live the through the consequences of it. Moral violence cuts

consequences of it. Moral violence cuts through every practical harm because

through every practical harm because having choices in life is what makes us

having choices in life is what makes us human. It is what makes us individual.

human. It is what makes us individual. This principle was the most important

This principle was the most important thing that stood under the at the end of

thing that stood under the at the end of this debate. Affirmative also never

this debate. Affirmative also never responds to the principle. So you should

responds to the principle. So you should take our characterization and weighing

take our characterization and weighing as true. Next, let's talk about the

as true. Next, let's talk about the individual. The first important thing I

individual. The first important thing I want to note is that we symmetricize

want to note is that we symmetricize people valuing good values at second

people valuing good values at second which means that people can find their

which means that people can find their source of meaning on our side as they do

source of meaning on our side as they do on their side. So all of their benefits

on their side. So all of their benefits in their first argument is completely

in their first argument is completely symmetric. So what you should focus on

symmetric. So what you should focus on is our harms. The first and most

is our harms. The first and most important and certain claim that we

important and certain claim that we explain is that regardless of whether

explain is that regardless of whether these values are good or bad, the choice

these values are good or bad, the choice to make them instills anxiety and

to make them instills anxiety and uncertainty in into people when they

uncertainty in into people when they feel guilty for rebelling when they do

feel guilty for rebelling when they do not know what choice to make. And it

not know what choice to make. And it doesn't matter if these were good or bad

doesn't matter if these were good or bad values because you are different to your

values because you are different to your mother. You had different relationships

mother. You had different relationships to her. You have a different personality

to her. You have a different personality to her. You grew up in a different

to her. You grew up in a different world. So her values are not applicable

world. So her values are not applicable to you. Which means there will be a

to you. Which means there will be a point in your life where you do not know

point in your life where you do not know how to follow or match up her values or

how to follow or match up her values or the values of your ancestors into your

the values of your ancestors into your daily life. There will be a point in

daily life. There will be a point in your life where you have to evaluate

your life where you have to evaluate whether loyalty is actually good for

whether loyalty is actually good for your relationship. And you will have a

your relationship. And you will have a gut instinct that tells you you

gut instinct that tells you you shouldn't be loyal. But you will also

shouldn't be loyal. But you will also know that your grandmother and your

know that your grandmother and your mother were loyal and it worked out for

mother were loyal and it worked out for them. And that causes huge amounts of

them. And that causes huge amounts of anxiety in an individual. Secondly, we

anxiety in an individual. Secondly, we explain that values are bad, values are

explain that values are bad, values are aggressive, values are sexist, and

aggressive, values are sexist, and values are homophobic. And they try to

values are homophobic. And they try to symmetricize the harms of this. And they

symmetricize the harms of this. And they claim that we don't respond at third ne

claim that we don't respond at third ne at third affirmative. But the problem is

at third affirmative. But the problem is we do because we explain that you can

we do because we explain that you can get away from your family and not feel

get away from your family and not feel guilty under our side, but you do feel

guilty under our side, but you do feel guilty under their side. We explain that

guilty under their side. We explain that your family is far more accepting under

your family is far more accepting under our side, whereas it is far more less

our side, whereas it is far more less accepting under their side. when your

accepting under their side. when your family believes that your philosophy

family believes that your philosophy should be shaped by those values. The

should be shaped by those values. The last claim we explain is that good

last claim we explain is that good values are not universal. They are bad

values are not universal. They are bad in extremes and you should allow

in extremes and you should allow individuals to figure out their lives.

individuals to figure out their lives. This team is incredibly paternalistic.

This team is incredibly paternalistic. They think that individuals cannot do

They think that individuals cannot do not have the capacity to find meaning in

not have the capacity to find meaning in their lives. But for 2,000 years, we

their lives. But for 2,000 years, we have as humans. For millennia, we have

have as humans. For millennia, we have as humans. We have found meaning in art.

as humans. We have found meaning in art. We have found meaning in interest. We

We have found meaning in interest. We have found meaning in friends. All of

have found meaning in friends. All of which we can control. Maybe you cannot

which we can control. Maybe you cannot control your economic and social

control your economic and social mobility, but you can control whether or

mobility, but you can control whether or not you work hard enough to maybe get a

not you work hard enough to maybe get a little bit of a better job. This team

little bit of a better job. This team underestimates the power of humanity,

underestimates the power of humanity, and for that they must lose. Lastly,

and for that they must lose. Lastly, I'll talk about social progress. And the

I'll talk about social progress. And the key problem with their claim here is

key problem with their claim here is that it is extremely circular. Their

that it is extremely circular. Their logic is status quo biased because maybe

logic is status quo biased because maybe now we think that homophobic homophobia

now we think that homophobic homophobia is unkind. But the problem is back then

is unkind. But the problem is back then people thought it was a sin. So they

people thought it was a sin. So they thought it was bad to be homophobic. So

thought it was bad to be homophobic. So their logic that you want to be kind and

their logic that you want to be kind and therefore you will not be homophobic

therefore you will not be homophobic does not stand. They are trying to

does not stand. They are trying to co-opt the good parts of the status quo

co-opt the good parts of the status quo and let themselves have it. That's not

and let themselves have it. That's not how it works. We get the status quo. Our

how it works. We get the status quo. Our characterization is far more likely

characterization is far more likely because we explain that people are far

because we explain that people are far likely to have more inertia under their

likely to have more inertia under their side. When people think that an attack

side. When people think that an attack to their values is also an attack to

to their values is also an attack to their ancestors when people are

their ancestors when people are empowered by their ancestors values. And

empowered by their ancestors values. And because under our side people are just

because under our side people are just far braver to stand out. People are far

far braver to stand out. People are far braver to disagree with their families.

braver to disagree with their families. And maybe this only sped up social

And maybe this only sped up social progress by 10 or 20 years, but that

progress by 10 or 20 years, but that impact was huge on scale, on magnitude.

impact was huge on scale, on magnitude. So you should let us win the debate on

So you should let us win the debate on all three fronts.

Thank you very much. And now for the final speech of the round and in fact

final speech of the round and in fact the tournament, may we have the

the tournament, may we have the proposition reply speaker here.

proposition reply speaker here. [Applause]

[Applause] Thank you.

Team Australia hinges their case on these being the most regressive values,

these being the most regressive values, but that fundamentally does not engage

but that fundamentally does not engage with the way serity is propagated. This

with the way serity is propagated. This is not oneliners and instructions that

is not oneliners and instructions that your ancestor has left behind, but these

your ancestor has left behind, but these are values that they tell you to live

are values that they tell you to live by. These are values that are positive.

by. These are values that are positive. These are values that are often vague

These are values that are often vague and therefore you have the ability to

and therefore you have the ability to interpret. This is living a good life.

interpret. This is living a good life. This is being honest. This is being

This is being honest. This is being integral. At the end of the day, that

integral. At the end of the day, that gave you immense value. Friends and

gave you immense value. Friends and clubs never determined social standing.

clubs never determined social standing. On their side, they had to deal with the

On their side, they had to deal with the fact that shackles of capitalism made

fact that shackles of capitalism made people feel worse about themselves. And

people feel worse about themselves. And it's horrific that they drop this in

it's horrific that they drop this in their third opposition. I'm in this

their third opposition. I'm in this speech going to talk about how people

speech going to talk about how people conceptualize of their own identity and

conceptualize of their own identity and how they find meaning in social standing

how they find meaning in social standing on either side because we were clear is

on either side because we were clear is unique because it is a source of

unique because it is a source of thinking about your social standing that

thinking about your social standing that you are able to control and interpret

you are able to control and interpret and they can point to alternative

and they can point to alternative sources down the bench in terms of your

sources down the bench in terms of your friends in terms of your standing or

friends in terms of your standing or community. But one those were sources of

community. But one those were sources of meaning that were incredibly hard to

meaning that were incredibly hard to access given the way the status quo

access given the way the status quo works. The status quo is one where we

works. The status quo is one where we have an overemphasis of individualism

have an overemphasis of individualism and capitalism that forces you to pursue

and capitalism that forces you to pursue success and money to be able to gain

success and money to be able to gain social standing and that often takes

social standing and that often takes away from your other communities. But

away from your other communities. But second, even if these other sources

second, even if these other sources existed, it never translated to anything

existed, it never translated to anything as grand as your purpose and standing

as grand as your purpose and standing because hanging out with your friends as

because hanging out with your friends as we tell you is fun in the short term,

we tell you is fun in the short term, but when you get home, you feel empty

but when you get home, you feel empty from not being able to higher access

from not being able to higher access access higher social standing or not

access higher social standing or not having a sense of purpose or what your

having a sense of purpose or what your life is based upon. And that is a unique

life is based upon. And that is a unique thing that we were able to give people

thing that we were able to give people on our side. And I want to weigh this

on our side. And I want to weigh this against the claims that they bring you.

against the claims that they bring you. First, I think this is a clash that is

First, I think this is a clash that is independent of whether these are good

independent of whether these are good values or bad. We've given you reasons

values or bad. We've given you reasons down the bench for these are more likely

down the bench for these are more likely to be values that are good. But even if

to be values that are good. But even if that is not the case, even if it is

that is not the case, even if it is imperfect, that doesn't negate the

imperfect, that doesn't negate the benefits that people are able to derive

benefits that people are able to derive from it or the value they get from it.

from it or the value they get from it. And I want you to intuition this. Think

And I want you to intuition this. Think about religion. Religion occasionally

about religion. Religion occasionally propagates incredibly conservative

propagates incredibly conservative values, but people still find incredible

values, but people still find incredible solace within it. We understand that

solace within it. We understand that this is exclusionary to certain people,

this is exclusionary to certain people, but those are people that still have the

but those are people that still have the ability to disagree with their values of

ability to disagree with their values of their ancestors because this is a strong

their ancestors because this is a strong belief and there are always people who

belief and there are always people who will be outcasts to social norms. Strong

will be outcasts to social norms. Strong doesn't translate to absolute. You can

doesn't translate to absolute. You can still find alternative communities. But

still find alternative communities. But for most people, this was something of

for most people, this was something of incredible value and this was something

incredible value and this was something that gave their life a purpose that it

that gave their life a purpose that it otherwise lacked. But second, they have

otherwise lacked. But second, they have a claim on restriction of choice. I

a claim on restriction of choice. I think that claim doesn't recognize how

think that claim doesn't recognize how this changes the world because even if

this changes the world because even if it is the case this is incredibly

it is the case this is incredibly restrictive to your choice. People are

restrictive to your choice. People are largely fine with that because this is

largely fine with that because this is how they've grown up. This is

how they've grown up. This is normalized. The restriction of choice is

normalized. The restriction of choice is not something that feels incredibly

not something that feels incredibly harmful. In contrast, what they're able

harmful. In contrast, what they're able to uniquely get is meaning. Third, we

to uniquely get is meaning. Third, we think this is something that is uniquely

think this is something that is uniquely accessible to most people because it is

accessible to most people because it is easy to abide by. These are often

easy to abide by. These are often incredibly vague values that this is

incredibly vague values that this is characterization they have not engaged

characterization they have not engaged with on the bench. We have no reason why

with on the bench. We have no reason why your ancestors are giving you incredibly

your ancestors are giving you incredibly specific instructions. It is often very

specific instructions. It is often very hard to do. So they don't want to be

hard to do. So they don't want to be contradictory and they don't want to

contradictory and they don't want to have values that don't evolve with time.

have values that don't evolve with time. And what that means is it is often

And what that means is it is often really easy for people to stick to these

really easy for people to stick to these values. Even in the instance that you

values. Even in the instance that you think you're not being imperfect, it is

think you're not being imperfect, it is you who gets to interpret it and

you who gets to interpret it and therefore you are likely to interpret

therefore you are likely to interpret this in a way that is far more positive.

this in a way that is far more positive. In contrast, their benefit in this

In contrast, their benefit in this debate was one of social change. One, I

debate was one of social change. One, I think there's a benefit that is of far

think there's a benefit that is of far lower margin because it is true that

lower margin because it is true that people are still conservative. It is

people are still conservative. It is true that people are still regressive

true that people are still regressive and that is largely because often you

and that is largely because often you still have conservative values that will

still have conservative values that will be predominant in families and that will

be predominant in families and that will still restrict agency for people that

still restrict agency for people that they care about. That is a lower margin

they care about. That is a lower margin claim. Second, it is a claim that

claim. Second, it is a claim that probably only accesses in the short term

probably only accesses in the short term because in the long term we think the

because in the long term we think the reasons for why we get liberalization

reasons for why we get liberalization are quite distinct to this norm and we

are quite distinct to this norm and we have the ability to be able to adapt. We

have the ability to be able to adapt. We have the ability to change our

have the ability to change our understanding of these values and apply

understanding of these values and apply them in a way that is more positive. So

them in a way that is more positive. So even if it is the case that this harm

even if it is the case that this harm occurs for some time, we think this is a

occurs for some time, we think this is a harm that we have the ability to correct

harm that we have the ability to correct for going into the long term. But

for going into the long term. But finally, at the end of the day, social

finally, at the end of the day, social change was always going to be

change was always going to be speculative. It was always going to be

speculative. It was always going to be hard for people to contribute to

hard for people to contribute to movements, go out of their way to

movements, go out of their way to donate. If anything, we thought that was

donate. If anything, we thought that was more likely in a world where you told

more likely in a world where you told them to abide by positive values that we

them to abide by positive values that we told you in our second speech. This is a

told you in our second speech. This is a benefit they could not guarantee. What

benefit they could not guarantee. What we could guarantee you was this was

we could guarantee you was this was something that gave people incredible

something that gave people incredible amounts of meaning. And that is why you

amounts of meaning. And that is why you bought Team India.

bought Team India. [Applause]

Thank you. Thank you very much. Could we have one

Thank you very much. Could we have one more round of applause for our grand

more round of applause for our grand finalists?

[Applause] We congratulate both finalist teams on

We congratulate both finalist teams on such an outstanding debate. You have

such an outstanding debate. You have shown skill, depth, and passion. And

shown skill, depth, and passion. And your performance is a source of pride

your performance is a source of pride for your delegation and for all of us.

for your delegation and for all of us. At this moment, the panel of judges will

At this moment, the panel of judges will now withdraw to deliberate. We

now withdraw to deliberate. We appreciate your patience to wait inside

appreciate your patience to wait inside of the room while they make what we know

of the room while they make what we know will be a very difficult decision.

We are grateful for your presence and participation in this historic edition

participation in this historic edition of the tournament.

of the tournament. More than just a competition, WSDC is a

More than just a competition, WSDC is a space where young people from across the

space where young people from across the world come together in the pursuit of

world come together in the pursuit of truth, dialogue, and mutual respect.

truth, dialogue, and mutual respect. Thank you for making this vision a

Thank you for making this vision a reality.

Now to begin the final segment, we once again invite the president of the

again invite the president of the Panameanian Association of Debate, Mr.

Panameanian Association of Debate, Mr. Alejandra Spino, to share a few words.

Alejandra Spino, to share a few words. [Applause]

>> Here we go. Good night, everyone. It filled us with immense joy to have so

filled us with immense joy to have so many incredible people here today and

many incredible people here today and especially to have you here at the

especially to have you here at the Panama Canal. To us Panameanians, the

Panama Canal. To us Panameanians, the canal is more than just a marvel of

canal is more than just a marvel of engineering. It's a living symbol of

engineering. It's a living symbol of connection. And tonight, you're part of

connection. And tonight, you're part of the symbol of what it means that bridges

the symbol of what it means that bridges cultures to open doors with the fear of

cultures to open doors with the fear of pre privileges and to share to share the

pre privileges and to share to share the very best of who we are with the world.

very best of who we are with the world. We are proud to of our spirit. A spirit

We are proud to of our spirit. A spirit that is warm, hardworking, resilience

that is warm, hardworking, resilience and always ready to serve you with a

and always ready to serve you with a smile. The same spirit is reflected in

smile. The same spirit is reflected in the war in the work of the Panama Canal

the war in the work of the Panama Canal Authority who has not only support this

Authority who has not only support this event but embrace us with open arms. We

event but embrace us with open arms. We want to express our deepest gratitude to

want to express our deepest gratitude to the Panama Canal, to its administrator,

the Panama Canal, to its administrator, the vice presidents, to the amazing team

the vice presidents, to the amazing team that had that has worked with us the

that had that has worked with us the whole week, social responsibility team.

whole week, social responsibility team. You have shows patience, dedication, and

You have shows patience, dedication, and excellences at every step. Your

excellences at every step. Your commitment was never just about

commitment was never just about logistics. It was about creating the

logistics. It was about creating the best possible experience, representing

best possible experience, representing Panama at its finest, and helping us

Panama at its finest, and helping us share our culture in the most genuine

share our culture in the most genuine way. And that brings brings me to

way. And that brings brings me to another thing that we are proud of here

another thing that we are proud of here in Panama. Debate. At Aspade, we believe

in Panama. Debate. At Aspade, we believe in the power of worlds. Not just to win

in the power of worlds. Not just to win arguments, but to build bridges. Our

arguments, but to build bridges. Our mission, it is to take debate to every

mission, it is to take debate to every corner where it's needed most. Debate is

corner where it's needed most. Debate is not just for podiums. It for classrooms,

not just for podiums. It for classrooms, communities, and countries. It teach us

communities, and countries. It teach us to listen before we speak, to challenge

to listen before we speak, to challenge with respect and to disagree with

with respect and to disagree with purpose. Now, I know you might have

purpose. Now, I know you might have heard certain things about the Panama

heard certain things about the Panama Canal, maybe even from the most powerful

Canal, maybe even from the most powerful microphones in the world. But this last

microphones in the world. But this last week, you have seen it for yourself. You

week, you have seen it for yourself. You have walked, it holds, med people, heard

have walked, it holds, med people, heard it stories, not the headlines, but the

it stories, not the headlines, but the heart. And I hope that now when you go

heart. And I hope that now when you go back home, you become ambassador. Yes,

back home, you become ambassador. Yes, you become those new connections not

you become those new connections not just for debate but to Panama itself.

just for debate but to Panama itself. May you carry with you a piece of our

May you carry with you a piece of our warm, our pride and yes, even our

warm, our pride and yes, even our weather hot which we now consider part

weather hot which we now consider part of our cultural exchange. In this space

of our cultural exchange. In this space where global minds met and great ideas

where global minds met and great ideas are born, we plant seeds of

are born, we plant seeds of understanding, of tolerance, and of

understanding, of tolerance, and of connections. Seeds that we hope will

connections. Seeds that we hope will keep growing whenever you go next. Thank

keep growing whenever you go next. Thank you. Thank you for debating. Thank you

you. Thank you for debating. Thank you for listening. And above all, thank you

for listening. And above all, thank you for being here. Let's let us keep

for being here. Let's let us keep building bridges word by word, round by

building bridges word by word, round by round, story by story. Thank you very

round, story by story. Thank you very much.

much. [Applause]

Thank you Alejandro for reminding us the lasting in impact this tournament has on

lasting in impact this tournament has on generations and students worldwide.

generations and students worldwide. Next we are pleased to welcome the

Next we are pleased to welcome the person who led the organis the

person who led the organis the organizational efforts for this edition

organizational efforts for this edition with vision tenacity and heart. Please

with vision tenacity and heart. Please welcome the convenor of WSCC Panama,

welcome the convenor of WSCC Panama, Miss Danella Noria.

Miss Danella Noria. [Applause]

[Applause] I'll be a little bit impolite and honest

I'll be a little bit impolite and honest when I tell you that I didn't really

when I tell you that I didn't really want to give this speech.

Not because I don't have anything to say, alas. As you know, I'm a yapper,

say, alas. As you know, I'm a yapper, but because I am a little sad and a lot

but because I am a little sad and a lot tired.

tired. The truth is that I feel immensely

The truth is that I feel immensely responsible for every single person who

responsible for every single person who had even a moment of discomfort or

had even a moment of discomfort or disillusionment

disillusionment because no part of me feels like

because no part of me feels like standing up here just wrapping it up in

standing up here just wrapping it up in a neat little bow.

a neat little bow. I opened this tournament talking about

I opened this tournament talking about resilience and hope.

resilience and hope. And even then, despite knowing that the

And even then, despite knowing that the ground that we were standing on was

ground that we were standing on was shaking, I still had no real idea what

shaking, I still had no real idea what was coming.

was coming. What awaited us was harder, more

What awaited us was harder, more humbling, and more human than I could

humbling, and more human than I could have ever imagined.

have ever imagined. And yet, despite it all, I feel so

And yet, despite it all, I feel so deeply grateful. I've been overwhelmed

deeply grateful. I've been overwhelmed by the presence, patience, and power of

by the presence, patience, and power of this community. I want to thank the

this community. I want to thank the people who didn't walk away when things

people who didn't walk away when things got hard. To Geneva, a quick, kind

got hard. To Geneva, a quick, kind problem solver at heart. To Scott, who

problem solver at heart. To Scott, who always had a big hug and a kind word for

always had a big hug and a kind word for his checkin. And to Gita for her

his checkin. And to Gita for her frankness and her warmth and her

frankness and her warmth and her support.

support. This has been the hardest event I've

This has been the hardest event I've ever run. Logistically,

ever run. Logistically, emotionally,

emotionally, personally,

personally, I've felt weary. I felt embarrassed

I've felt weary. I felt embarrassed and I felt worried down to my bones.

and I felt worried down to my bones. But I've also felt held by a thousand

But I've also felt held by a thousand small acts of kindness, by notes of

small acts of kindness, by notes of encouragement, by people offering grace

encouragement, by people offering grace when I least expected it and maybe when

when I least expected it and maybe when I felt like I didn't quite deserve it.

I felt like I didn't quite deserve it. If I had to leave you with one lesson,

If I had to leave you with one lesson, it would be this. If I made it through

it would be this. If I made it through this week, it is because of debate and

this week, it is because of debate and the person he taught me to be. Debate

the person he taught me to be. Debate gave me what I consider the greatest

gave me what I consider the greatest lesson of my life.

lesson of my life. That your input doesn't quite always

That your input doesn't quite always match your output.

match your output. You can prepare endlessly, work

You can prepare endlessly, work tirelessly, and still lose the round,

tirelessly, and still lose the round, but there's always a next round. And in

but there's always a next round. And in that round, you have to choose to show

that round, you have to choose to show up again fully anyway. You can't

up again fully anyway. You can't decrease your effort based on your

decrease your effort based on your results.

results. And so I hope between the struggles that

And so I hope between the struggles that you had fun.

you had fun. I hope you made friends. I hope you

I hope you made friends. I hope you learned. I hope truly that we managed to

learned. I hope truly that we managed to keep alive even a piece of the space we

keep alive even a piece of the space we wanted to build for you. At the TC

wanted to build for you. At the TC meeting, Geneva referred to me as sunny

meeting, Geneva referred to me as sunny today, and I was caught quite off guard

today, and I was caught quite off guard because I haven't felt particularly

because I haven't felt particularly sunny or cheery.

sunny or cheery. If I'm being honest, I would spend this

If I'm being honest, I would spend this entire speech apologizing if I could.

entire speech apologizing if I could. But instead, I'm going to do something

But instead, I'm going to do something much harder for me, which is trying to

much harder for me, which is trying to take a moment to appreciate what went

take a moment to appreciate what went well and what was good about this week.

well and what was good about this week. I loved seeing how much fun you had at

I loved seeing how much fun you had at socials. I'm proud that food, always

socials. I'm proud that food, always such a point of stress, turned out to be

such a point of stress, turned out to be something people enjoyed and that any

something people enjoyed and that any missteps that we had were were promptly

missteps that we had were were promptly were promptly fixed. I'm thankful for

were promptly fixed. I'm thankful for every person who came to me with a

every person who came to me with a concern or a word of support. Thank you

concern or a word of support. Thank you for trusting us to try. I am in awe of

for trusting us to try. I am in awe of my team who've heard me say just one

my team who've heard me say just one more big push one too many times this

more big push one too many times this week and still kept going and going and

week and still kept going and going and going.

going. I'm thankful to the OAS team at the

I'm thankful to the OAS team at the school who took our last minute schedule

school who took our last minute schedule changes

changes with empathy and grace to the canal

with empathy and grace to the canal authority for a beautiful opening

authority for a beautiful opening ceremony and a break night I will never

ceremony and a break night I will never forget to Jason's optimism barini's

forget to Jason's optimism barini's cleared eye solutions to Theo Janso

cleared eye solutions to Theo Janso Tankin Reya Andrew Muku you carried us

Tankin Reya Andrew Muku you carried us your brilliance your consistency and

your brilliance your consistency and your presence were a buoy in the storm

your presence were a buoy in the storm to Valeria Eten Ali who always had a

to Valeria Eten Ali who always had a sweet compliment

sweet compliment uh to hand out and to care her

uh to hand out and to care her volunteers with all the care and all the

volunteers with all the care and all the patience to Eduardo Alexis Gino Oidio

patience to Eduardo Alexis Gino Oidio and Ariel of the canal for being a

and Ariel of the canal for being a highlight in experience for being

highlight in experience for being patient effective and caring working

patient effective and caring working alongside the canal authority

alongside the canal authority administrator Kathine and you all has

administrator Kathine and you all has been a highlight of our event we We are

been a highlight of our event we We are so proud that at a time of constant

so proud that at a time of constant misinformation, the canal has opened its

misinformation, the canal has opened its doors to dialogue. In a time of

doors to dialogue. In a time of polarization, it has opened its home to

polarization, it has opened its home to tolerance and connection.

tolerance and connection. We cannot wait to continue building

We cannot wait to continue building global bridges with you.

global bridges with you. I have to give a shout out to the host

I have to give a shout out to the host team for all the weekends and months and

team for all the weekends and months and years of dreaming and hard work, our

years of dreaming and hard work, our pow-wows and our sparkles, and all the

pow-wows and our sparkles, and all the gratitude that allowed us to keep going

gratitude that allowed us to keep going day after day. And I cannot possibly

day after day. And I cannot possibly name them all.

Finally, to the World Debate Consulting team who've ditched our office for two

team who've ditched our office for two entire weeks to be here, I love you. I

entire weeks to be here, I love you. I love that if I have to be a corporate

love that if I have to be a corporate girly, it is at least with you.

girly, it is at least with you. Yesterday, I ran into the same three

Yesterday, I ran into the same three children riding the elevator. And by the

children riding the elevator. And by the third time that I ran into them, I had

third time that I ran into them, I had to ask. And they told me this that I now

to ask. And they told me this that I now share with you. One, riding the elevator

share with you. One, riding the elevator was apparently the most fun they were

was apparently the most fun they were having at that moment in time.

having at that moment in time. And number two, they said it's a great

And number two, they said it's a great way to meet people.

way to meet people. Right. Right. That was also my vibe. And

Right. Right. That was also my vibe. And I said, it cannot possibly be that

I said, it cannot possibly be that simple.

simple. I might be quite past the age where

I might be quite past the age where escalators are fun on their own, but

escalators are fun on their own, but their laughter did in fact bring me to

their laughter did in fact bring me to tears. In a week that's felt so heavy.

tears. In a week that's felt so heavy. It was like a single light turning on in

It was like a single light turning on in the dark. When you're in organization

the dark. When you're in organization committee and things don't go your way,

committee and things don't go your way, when you're the one who carries the

when you're the one who carries the complaints, the breakdowns, and the

complaints, the breakdowns, and the disappointments, it can be hard to see

disappointments, it can be hard to see the joy. It can feel like nothing is

the joy. It can feel like nothing is good enough and like your best always

good enough and like your best always comes a little too late.

comes a little too late. But then someone makes a friend, someone

But then someone makes a friend, someone dances, someone laughs. Three kids

dances, someone laughs. Three kids riding an escalator like it's an

riding an escalator like it's an amusement park ride. And you remember

amusement park ride. And you remember that maybe despite everything, something

that maybe despite everything, something did work.

did work. Something clicked. some little part of

Something clicked. some little part of what we hope to build, connection,

what we hope to build, connection, courage, care, actually got through.

courage, care, actually got through. I'm nowhere near the hard things, but

I'm nowhere near the hard things, but maybe story by story, memory by memory,

maybe story by story, memory by memory, I'll be able to see through them. And

I'll be able to see through them. And maybe if we're lucky, there are enough

maybe if we're lucky, there are enough elevator moments to carry through us

elevator moments to carry through us all. Thank you so much for your time

all. Thank you so much for your time this week.

this week. [Applause]

Thank you Daniela for your leadership and for being the logistical and

and for being the logistical and emotional core of this tournament.

emotional core of this tournament. Now we invite Jason Shiao and Vini

Now we invite Jason Shiao and Vini Venitates, key leaders within the WSC

Venitates, key leaders within the WSC global community to offer their

global community to offer their reflection on this year's tournament.

[Applause] We've come to the end of 10 days, which

We've come to the end of 10 days, which I think we can all say sometimes felt

I think we can all say sometimes felt like it went by in the flash of an eye

like it went by in the flash of an eye and sometimes like it was a million

and sometimes like it was a million years. And I think it felt so quickly

years. And I think it felt so quickly because of the intensity of WSDC, but

because of the intensity of WSDC, but slow because of the unforgettable

slow because of the unforgettable memories that we are left with. memories

memories that we are left with. memories of disappointments, our greatest

of disappointments, our greatest elations, that one speech that you loved

elations, that one speech that you loved giving. Experiences that have developed

giving. Experiences that have developed our resilience, our curiosity, and our

our resilience, our curiosity, and our growth. And I think that speaks to the

growth. And I think that speaks to the core mission of WSDC that unites all of

core mission of WSDC that unites all of us here today. The core value of

us here today. The core value of education, not just as people who learn

education, not just as people who learn about international relations or

about international relations or economics, but as people who continue to

economics, but as people who continue to develop our character and who we are.

develop our character and who we are. Debate is a powerful tool of dialogue, a

Debate is a powerful tool of dialogue, a way for us to all equip ourselves with

way for us to all equip ourselves with the ability to make a change in the

the ability to make a change in the world in the way that we see fit. But

world in the way that we see fit. But this tournament and this community is so

this tournament and this community is so much more than that. It's about the

much more than that. It's about the lasting friendships, that odd feeling

lasting friendships, that odd feeling that you have if you've been in this

that you have if you've been in this activity for a long time. And it seems

activity for a long time. And it seems like no matter what country you go to,

like no matter what country you go to, you have a friend that you can meet for

you have a friend that you can meet for dinner. It's about the sense of service,

dinner. It's about the sense of service, that community, the feeling that we want

that community, the feeling that we want to give back and help to develop this

to give back and help to develop this community even further and help us all

community even further and help us all to see the beauty of debate in the

to see the beauty of debate in the future. And in facilitating that, I want

future. And in facilitating that, I want to offer thanks to all of the incredible

to offer thanks to all of the incredible people who have helped to make this

people who have helped to make this possible, including our wonderful TAB

possible, including our wonderful TAB team, the volunteers, our DCAs, the

team, the volunteers, our DCAs, the board, the Minister of Canal Affairs,

board, the Minister of Canal Affairs, the Minister of Education, the Minister

the Minister of Education, the Minister of Security, the Minister of Foreign

of Security, the Minister of Foreign Relations, and the Office of the First

Relations, and the Office of the First Lady. our brilliant organizational

Lady. our brilliant organizational committee including our convenor Danny

committee including our convenor Danny and especially to Varsny someone who has

and especially to Varsny someone who has been an incredible force who has helped

been an incredible force who has helped to make this community so much better.

to make this community so much better. So what I want to say as a cap is that

So what I want to say as a cap is that it has been a great honor for all of us

it has been a great honor for all of us to serve the community and to be part of

to serve the community and to be part of the enduring legacy of WSDC that goes

the enduring legacy of WSDC that goes far beyond just the people standing here

far beyond just the people standing here today but will continue to ripple on in

today but will continue to ripple on in the future. So, thank you to everybody

the future. So, thank you to everybody and I hope that you've all enjoyed the

and I hope that you've all enjoyed the tournament.

We also welcome Geneva Roy, a valued voice in our community to share a few

voice in our community to share a few words with all of us gathered here

words with all of us gathered here today.

today. [Applause]

Good evening everyone. Okay. As chair, it is a pleasure to stand here to say

it is a pleasure to stand here to say some words of thanks on behalf of the

some words of thanks on behalf of the board of directors. Over the past week,

board of directors. Over the past week, we've seen some extraordinary speeches,

we've seen some extraordinary speeches, some lightning fast POIs, and enough

some lightning fast POIs, and enough documents on deep sea mining to crash

documents on deep sea mining to crash Google Drive.

Google Drive. But let's be honest, debating

But let's be honest, debating competitions are an unexplainable

competitions are an unexplainable phenomenon.

phenomenon. You travel the world. You spend a week

You travel the world. You spend a week arguing with people that you've just

arguing with people that you've just met. You stay up till 2:00 a.m. on a

met. You stay up till 2:00 a.m. on a case that you left far too late, only to

case that you left far too late, only to return home, fail to explain what you've

return home, fail to explain what you've been doing for the last two weeks to

been doing for the last two weeks to anyone else, and to begin the process

anyone else, and to begin the process all over again.

all over again. Yet here we are, some of us far too many

Yet here we are, some of us far too many times to count. And although we continue

times to count. And although we continue to deny it, we do really love it. But

to deny it, we do really love it. But beyond motions, beyond draws,

beyond motions, beyond draws, what makes this competition is what

what makes this competition is what happens outside the debate rounds. the

happens outside the debate rounds. the friendships that you make, the

friendships that you make, the conversations that you have, the pins

conversations that you have, the pins that you exchange,

that you exchange, and the feeling that wherever you come

and the feeling that wherever you come from, here you belong.

from, here you belong. But above all, we've seen a community

But above all, we've seen a community come together,

come together, one that refuses to let what is

one that refuses to let what is happening out there stop the

happening out there stop the conversations from happening in here.

conversations from happening in here. So I want to take a moment to thank

So I want to take a moment to thank those who have dedicated the last two

those who have dedicated the last two years to this competition. The amount

years to this competition. The amount immense amount of time, effort and love

immense amount of time, effort and love that they have given to this community.

that they have given to this community. We won't be able to thank everyone but

We won't be able to thank everyone but these five individuals we could not have

these five individuals we could not have run this tournament without.

run this tournament without. Firstly to the two complaints officers

Firstly to the two complaints officers to Scott and Salom.

Thank you for always being willing to help, to make this competition

help, to make this competition inclusive, and to do so with such grace,

inclusive, and to do so with such grace, such American humor,

such American humor, and a genuine desire to make this

and a genuine desire to make this competition incredible.

competition incredible. >> Let's go.

>> Let's go. [Applause]

Secondly, to our chief adjudicators, Jason and Vashini.

Jason and Vashini. I speak from experience when I tell you

I speak from experience when I tell you that being a chief adjudicator is one of

that being a chief adjudicator is one of the hardest jobs in front of this

the hardest jobs in front of this community. You are the focal point, the

community. You are the focal point, the name that they recognize, and the one

name that they recognize, and the one that people often blame when things go

that people often blame when things go wrong. We ask a lot of our chief

wrong. We ask a lot of our chief adjudicators, and we do so because we

adjudicators, and we do so because we know they can deliver and these two have

know they can deliver and these two have not at all failed to live up to that

not at all failed to live up to that expectation. the hours that they have

expectation. the hours that they have given here at this tournament and also

given here at this tournament and also in advance they will never get back but

in advance they will never get back but we will always remember. Thank you so

we will always remember. Thank you so much to Jason and Vashini.

much to Jason and Vashini. [Applause]

[Applause] All right. So they're off working. All

All right. So they're off working. All right. Finally then, um, to Danny, who

right. Finally then, um, to Danny, who I'm assuming is here and is not, can

I'm assuming is here and is not, can please be called. Maybe she's not. All

please be called. Maybe she's not. All right, we're going about to put that

right, we're going about to put that out. All right. Uh, to Danny, thank you

out. All right. Uh, to Danny, thank you uh, for your incredible work and your

uh, for your incredible work and your incredible leadership of this orcom.

incredible leadership of this orcom. I know that it hasn't always been easy

I know that it hasn't always been easy and as a community, we haven't always

and as a community, we haven't always been kind. I know we demand a lot of you

been kind. I know we demand a lot of you and we expect the utmost.

and we expect the utmost. Thank you for sticking with us, for

Thank you for sticking with us, for hearing our complaints, our concerns,

hearing our complaints, our concerns, and for listening and willing to stick

and for listening and willing to stick with this competition and with this

with this competition and with this community.

community. You will forever, now officially be a

You will forever, now officially be a member of the WSDC community, even if

member of the WSDC community, even if this is your hardest tournament. Thank

this is your hardest tournament. Thank you incredibly much for all the work and

you incredibly much for all the work and dedication that you have given uh and

dedication that you have given uh and the soul that you have put into this

the soul that you have put into this competition. Uh this really is your

competition. Uh this really is your tournament. Thank you very much.

debaters, you have now had the privilege of

you have now had the privilege of participating

participating in what I believe is the best debating

in what I believe is the best debating competition on Earth. An experience that

competition on Earth. An experience that will last with you a lifetime,

will last with you a lifetime, regardless of whether or not at this

regardless of whether or not at this moment you want it to.

moment you want it to. an experience that you have earned and

an experience that you have earned and one that no one will take away from you.

one that no one will take away from you. But please realize that whether you lift

But please realize that whether you lift a trophy this evening or the only thing

a trophy this evening or the only thing you lift at this competition is your

you lift at this competition is your team spirit at 2:00 a.m. in the morning

team spirit at 2:00 a.m. in the morning when the hotel brinter breaks for the

when the hotel brinter breaks for the 10th time that evening.

10th time that evening. That this community is now yours. It

That this community is now yours. It doesn't belong to the board. doesn't

doesn't belong to the board. doesn't belong to the CAP, the TAB team, or even

belong to the CAP, the TAB team, or even to the host alone.

to the host alone. Or it doesn't belong to my favorite

Or it doesn't belong to my favorite document, the WSDC rules.

document, the WSDC rules. It belongs to you.

It belongs to you. So, please come back as speakers, as

So, please come back as speakers, as judges, or as coaches.

judges, or as coaches. Please continue to contribute to this

Please continue to contribute to this space

space because this conversation

because this conversation doesn't end here and it is so much

doesn't end here and it is so much better with you in it. Thank you.

better with you in it. Thank you. [Applause]

Thank you so much for your kind words, Geneva. Now what everyone is expecting.

Geneva. Now what everyone is expecting. We now move to the award presentation

We now move to the award presentation where we recognize the individuals

where we recognize the individuals delegations that have distinguished

delegations that have distinguished themsel throughout this championship.

themsel throughout this championship. For this we invite once again the CA

For this we invite once again the CA team to present the awards.

team to present the awards. [Applause]

[Applause] >> Yay. Nice. Okay. So first we would like

>> Yay. Nice. Okay. So first we would like to invite all partial double octo

to invite all partial double octo finalists to please line up near the

finalists to please line up near the entrances of this uh of audit stage.

>> Okay. So starting off the procedure will be I

So starting off the procedure will be I will call upon a team they will come up

will call upon a team they will come up they will receive their certificates

they will receive their certificates and we will congratulate them.

Next up, we have team Thailand.

we have team Thailand. [Applause]

Thank you very much. Next up, team Taiwan.

team Taiwan. [Applause]

Thank you very much. Next, we have the Republic of Korea.

Next, we have the Republic of Korea. [Applause]

Thank you very much. Next up, team Kenya.

Kenya. [Applause]

[Applause] >> Thank you very much. Next up, team

>> Thank you very much. Next up, team Japan.

Japan. [Applause]

And last but not least, team Canada. [Applause]

Let's give a round of applause to all the auto finalist teams.

All right. A partial double autofinalist. Excuse me. Now are the

autofinalist. Excuse me. Now are the autofinalist teams. I will please ask

autofinalist teams. I will please ask the autofinalist teams to line up as the

the autofinalist teams to line up as the previous competitors did. And

we will start with team Mexico. America

America [Applause]

[Music] [Applause]

go. [Applause]

Thank you very much team Mexico. Next we have team Pakistan.

Thank you very much team Pakistan. Next up

Thank you very much team Czecha. Next up Aoa New Zealand.

Thank you very much, team New Zealand. Next up, China.

Next up, China. [Applause]

Thank you very much, team China. Next up, Romania.

Thank you very much, team Romania. Next up, England.

up, England. [Applause]

Thank you very much, team England. Last but not least, team Slovenia.

Last but not least, team Slovenia. [Applause]

Thank you very much team Slovenia and to all our auto finalists. Congratulations.

all our auto finalists. Congratulations. [Applause]

[Applause] We move on to the teams reaching the

We move on to the teams reaching the quarterfinals and I will again ask you

quarterfinals and I will again ask you to line up in the corridors.

This clicker requires determination. Okay.

Apologies. This Okay. South Africa.

[Applause] Congratulations team South Africa. Next

Congratulations team South Africa. Next up, Bangladesh.

up, Bangladesh. [Applause]

Thank you very much, team Bangladesh. Next up, the United States of America.

Next up, the United States of America. [Applause]

Thank you very much, USA. And last but not least for

And last but not least for quarterfinalist teams, we have team

quarterfinalist teams, we have team Bulgaria.

And I will also ask team Bulgaria to stay on the stage because they are the

stay on the stage because they are the best EFL team of WCC.

best EFL team of WCC. 2025

2025 Adelina Gorgva Galabinova Ko Yan

Adelina Gorgva Galabinova Ko Yan Casemiro of KF Valentine Vetan of

Casemiro of KF Valentine Vetan of Katarov and Marin Marino Marino.

Katarov and Marin Marino Marino. Congratulations.

Congratulations. [Applause]

Thank you very much. [Applause]

Next up, our semifinalists.

our semifinalists. Let us welcome first

Let us welcome first team Singapore.

Thank you very Arch team Hong Kong [Applause]

[Applause] for this next award. May I please call

for this next award. May I please call up Tenku from Indonesia.

up Tenku from Indonesia. [Applause]

>> Um, good evening everyone. My name is Omar. I'm from Indonesia. Um, long-term

Omar. I'm from Indonesia. Um, long-term friend of Bobby, long-term teammate as

friend of Bobby, long-term teammate as well. basically almost everything. So,

well. basically almost everything. So, um, thank you everyone for ensuring this

um, thank you everyone for ensuring this award lives on. We owe you. Indonesia

award lives on. We owe you. Indonesia owes you. EFL and ESL speakers owe you.

owes you. EFL and ESL speakers owe you. To those who don't know, Bobby is a

To those who don't know, Bobby is a figure of hope for us Indonesians.

figure of hope for us Indonesians. Without Bobby, Indonesia wouldn't be on

Without Bobby, Indonesia wouldn't be on the map of international debating quite

the map of international debating quite literally. They were among the first to

literally. They were among the first to reach the WDC ESL final. They were our

reach the WDC ESL final. They were our first to break as a judge in

first to break as a judge in international and major tournaments and

international and major tournaments and the list goes on. What people don't see

the list goes on. What people don't see is how hard Bobby fought for EFL and ESL

is how hard Bobby fought for EFL and ESL representation in the global debating

representation in the global debating stage. They knew how hard it is to even

stage. They knew how hard it is to even be considered to be told that we need to

be considered to be told that we need to speak more clearly to be told that we

speak more clearly to be told that we could be more efficient in our

could be more efficient in our sentences. Never mind the fact that we

sentences. Never mind the fact that we have to do the double work by

have to do the double work by translating our thoughts in our mother

translating our thoughts in our mother tongue to English to be told that

tongue to English to be told that examples from our parts of the world are

examples from our parts of the world are not as persuasive.

not as persuasive. So Bobby did their work to make sure we

So Bobby did their work to make sure we get represented. We get judges who will

get represented. We get judges who will not penalize us. We get the privilege to

not penalize us. We get the privilege to be heard. To those who don't know, Bobby

be heard. To those who don't know, Bobby passed away in 2021 by mere few days

passed away in 2021 by mere few days before there were um the their supposed

before there were um the their supposed DCA ship in WSDC that year. There was

DCA ship in WSDC that year. There was also the first Achor ship they got

also the first Achor ship they got through an appointment rather than

through an appointment rather than election. So they were beyond elated to

election. So they were beyond elated to be deemed worthy by the community to

be deemed worthy by the community to represent not just Indonesians but also

represent not just Indonesians but also EFL and ESL speakers from all over the

EFL and ESL speakers from all over the world. But Alice Delta variant took them

world. But Alice Delta variant took them away from all of us. I could not think

away from all of us. I could not think of better ways to honor the legacy than

of better ways to honor the legacy than through this award. On the stage that

through this award. On the stage that every school debaters aspire to be on,

every school debaters aspire to be on, Indonesia is honored to have our hero

Indonesia is honored to have our hero being named as the pillar of this award

being named as the pillar of this award and memory. And may their spirit, work,

and memory. And may their spirit, work, and legacy live on. With that, I'm

and legacy live on. With that, I'm honored to make this announcement and we

honored to make this announcement and we wholeheartly congratulate the best ESL

wholeheartly congratulate the best ESL team this year and may your legacy live

team this year and may your legacy live on more than I'm sure it already does.

on more than I'm sure it already does. So, congratulations to team India.

Aia Kawara Udosla Va Carla Manvir Pratabra and Arnav

Va Carla Manvir Pratabra and Arnav Agarwal. Congratulations

Agarwal. Congratulations [Applause]

Next up, the best new team award for this year

this year is given to team

is given to team Guatemala

Mariana Ariano Alvarado, Fatima Sophia Gomez Morales, Anna Sophia Velasquez

Gomez Morales, Anna Sophia Velasquez Peters,

Peters, Pablo Alberto Lavanino Sanchez,

Pablo Alberto Lavanino Sanchez, and Jose Roberto Kosik Galysia.

and Jose Roberto Kosik Galysia. Congratulations

Congratulations [Applause]

And I will also ask you to stay on the stage because

stage because the best new team speaker award for this

the best new team speaker award for this year is presented to Anna Sophia

year is presented to Anna Sophia Velasquez Peters from Guatemala.

Velasquez Peters from Guatemala. [Applause]

Carolina, [Applause]

>> Guatemala. [Applause]

Okay, we are now moving to best speaker awards starting with the EFL category

awards starting with the EFL category where we award speakers for for whom

where we award speakers for for whom English is a foreign language. We're

English is a foreign language. We're going to start with the 10 best EFL

going to start with the 10 best EFL speaker

speaker which is from Czecha Christian.

Going to the ninth best EFL speaker which is from Bulgaria,

which is from Bulgaria, Koya Casimo.

Koya Casimo. [Applause]

Next we have the eighth best EFL speaker from Bulgaria, Marin Marino Marino.

from Bulgaria, Marin Marino Marino. [Applause]

[Applause] Hello.

>> The seven best EFL speaker from Romania,

from Romania, Shin Title.

[Applause] [Music]

[Music] Next we have the six best EFL speaker

Next we have the six best EFL speaker who is from Czecha, Peter Kosichka.

who is from Czecha, Peter Kosichka. [Applause]

Moving to the fifth best EFL speaker

the fifth best EFL speaker from Slovenia,

from Slovenia, Alex off.

>> All right, moving on with the rest of the EFL speaker awards. The fourth best

the EFL speaker awards. The fourth best EFL speaker from Japan is Si Kanagai.

Thank you. [Applause]

The third best speaker in the EFL division from team China is Bobby Louu.

The second best EFL speaker from team Romania is David Antonio Bagasian.

Romania is David Antonio Bagasian. [Applause]

And finally, the best speaker in the EFL division of WSDC 2025 from team Romania

division of WSDC 2025 from team Romania is Drago Christian Mate.

>> Right. We now move on to the top 10 English as a second language ESL

English as a second language ESL speakers.

speakers. Ninth best ESL tied

Ninth best ESL tied from Pakistan

from Pakistan is Ali Naser. Also

tied for ninth best ESL speaker from New Zealand is Alan Chen.

Zealand is Alan Chen. [Applause]

Eighth best ESL speaker from China is Sophia Seong.

Seventh best ESL speaker from Malaysia is Andrea. Their only way

sixth ESL speaker from Malaysia is Daphne Du Daid.

Daphne Du Daid. [Applause]

Hello. We now move on to the fifth best ESL speaker. The fifth best EL speaker

ESL speaker. The fifth best EL speaker from team Sri Lanka is Savat Mindit

from team Sri Lanka is Savat Mindit Vijasundura.

[Applause] The fourth best ESL speaker from team

The fourth best ESL speaker from team Pakistan is Muhammad Daniel Hassan.

Pakistan is Muhammad Daniel Hassan. [Applause]

The third best ESL speaker from team India is AI Kada.

The second best ESL speaker also from team India is Ba Calva.

also from team India is Ba Calva. [Applause]

And finally, the best ESL speaker of WSDC 2025,

WSDC 2025, also from team India,

also from team India, is a day.

is a day.

>> I have returned. Congratulations to the vests speakers.

vests speakers. And now we move on to the top 20

And now we move on to the top 20 speakers of WSDC.

speakers of WSDC. Starting with the 20th best speaker

Starting with the 20th best speaker in a tie. The first is from team

in a tie. The first is from team Australia,

Australia, Lucas Lou.

Tied for 20th best speaker, also from Australia,

also from Australia, Harry Tong.

19th best speaker from team Canada, Lucas Le.

>> 17th best speaker. >> Uh, my bad. 18th best speaker from

>> Uh, my bad. 18th best speaker from Malaysia,

Malaysia, Daphne Newin.

If I haven't forgotten how to count again. 17th best speaker now from New

again. 17th best speaker now from New Zealand,

Zealand, Sebastian Hine Shyre.

Sebastian Hine Shyre. [Applause]

[Applause] [Music]

16th best speaker from team Hong Kong, Advik Sharma.

Advik Sharma. [Applause]

The 15th best open speaker from team Sri Lanka, Sabath Mind Widget Sandara. Ah,

the 14th best open speaker from team Canada, Jingu Way.

Canada, Jingu Way. [Applause]

The 13th best open speaker, also from team Canada, Sarah Lee.

The 12th best open speaker from team Singapore, Zan Shiau.

The 11th best open speaker also from team Singapore, Hshi Chad.

I'll also ask the 11th to 20th best open speakers to stand stage, take a photo

speakers to stand stage, take a photo before walking off.

before walking off. [Applause]

[Applause] The 10th best open speaker from the

The 10th best open speaker from the United States,

United States, Anojodia.

Anojodia. [Applause]

[Applause] The ninth best speaker

The ninth best speaker from Australia, Maya Gard.

The eighth best open speaker from Singapore, Rupakara.

Singapore, Rupakara. [Applause]

[Applause] The seventh Best open speaker from the

The seventh Best open speaker from the United States, Anthony Babu.

United States, Anthony Babu. [Applause]

[Applause] The sixth best open speaker from

The sixth best open speaker from Pakistan, Muhammad Daniel Hassan.

Fifth best speaker at WSDC from the US, Valerie.

from the US, Valerie. [Applause]

at fourth best from India. of me. [Applause]

At third, also from India, Veda [Applause]

And last but certainly not least, your best speaker at WSDC 2025

best speaker at WSDC 2025 from the US, Kalin.

Uh, congratulations to all the speakers. A large round of applause for them.

A large round of applause for them. [Applause]

Thank you guys. All right, because we have make made you

All right, because we have make made you wait for so long, I'm going to call up

wait for so long, I'm going to call up Mubarak to come deliver the OA for the

Mubarak to come deliver the OA for the final and the results.

final and the results. [Applause]

[Applause] >> Don't touch the next time.

All right. I'm sure when you guys got dressed up, the thing you were most

dressed up, the thing you were most looking forward to was an oral education

looking forward to was an oral education that didn't give a result when it was

that didn't give a result when it was talking. Um, but alas, we have tradition

talking. Um, but alas, we have tradition and we must not dishonor our our WSDC

and we must not dishonor our our WSDC ancestors. Okay,

ancestors. Okay, so

so three things. First, social change.

three things. First, social change. Second on the principle and thirdly on

Second on the principle and thirdly on contentment.

contentment. First on social change. Oh, if this is

First on social change. Oh, if this is your first time, we wait till the end to

your first time, we wait till the end to give the results. Okay.

give the results. Okay. Social change.

Social change. One team believes that we need more

One team believes that we need more additional good reminders so that people

additional good reminders so that people behave. The other believes that bad

behave. The other believes that bad values will be taught and so or will be

values will be taught and so or will be stuck and so there will be impediment to

stuck and so there will be impediment to positive social change. The tipping

positive social change. The tipping point pushed by both teams are as

point pushed by both teams are as follows. one but other bad things exist

follows. one but other bad things exist in this world which would be an

in this world which would be an impediment in your world anyway and then

impediment in your world anyway and then the other team goes ah but there are

the other team goes ah but there are other good things that would also make

other good things that would also make positive change possible in my world

positive change possible in my world anyway. So

anyway. So we felt neither of those were

we felt neither of those were particularly convincing in tipping one

particularly convincing in tipping one way or the other

way or the other and as a consequence felt that the

and as a consequence felt that the original root of this argument is about

original root of this argument is about whether or not we believe good values or

whether or not we believe good values or bad values are taught in the first

bad values are taught in the first place.

place. Now before we head into that discussion,

Now before we head into that discussion, opposition did have an indiv uh separate

opposition did have an indiv uh separate push on the principle of agency.

push on the principle of agency. However, we did feel that this was a

However, we did feel that this was a contingent principle, i.e. that they

contingent principle, i.e. that they would have to prove that they would

would have to prove that they would indeed get more choices and agency in

indeed get more choices and agency in their world for that principle to be

their world for that principle to be able to stand. Then the panel felt that

able to stand. Then the panel felt that this would this debate boiled down to

this would this debate boiled down to the issue of contentment. Under which

the issue of contentment. Under which side are people more content? And there

side are people more content? And there are three things we had to consider.

are three things we had to consider. First, do we buy the claim that in

First, do we buy the claim that in propositions world we have a world where

propositions world we have a world where people have access to an additional

people have access to an additional meaningful source of meaning that is

meaningful source of meaning that is unique and different from other sorts of

unique and different from other sorts of meaning by virtue of the motion or do we

meaning by virtue of the motion or do we feel that opposition is correct in

feel that opposition is correct in saying that this is something that would

saying that this is something that would be too strenuous. People would struggle

be too strenuous. People would struggle to adhere to the values put forth by

to adhere to the values put forth by their ancestors and therefore not be

their ancestors and therefore not be able to find contentment and meaning.

able to find contentment and meaning. Second, what is the comparative? And in

Second, what is the comparative? And in that comparative, do we believe that it

that comparative, do we believe that it is a situation where the overwhelming

is a situation where the overwhelming nature of capitalism means that we have

nature of capitalism means that we have no real choice that we end up buying

no real choice that we end up buying into a sense of this capitalist uh you

into a sense of this capitalist uh you know treadmill essentially where we

know treadmill essentially where we never find level of contentment and

never find level of contentment and compare ourselves to things that we

compare ourselves to things that we cannot cannot achieve and feel

cannot cannot achieve and feel incomplete. Or even if it is fleeting,

incomplete. Or even if it is fleeting, do we have sufficient choices and

do we have sufficient choices and sufficient different things that we can

sufficient different things that we can adhere to? And do we believe in

adhere to? And do we believe in humanity's ability to continue and

humanity's ability to continue and succeed and succeed and find different

succeed and succeed and find different sorts of contentment in friends and in

sorts of contentment in friends and in other forms of things and identities?

other forms of things and identities? Third,

Third, is it malleable?

is it malleable? Are values sticky? Do we keep on looking

Are values sticky? Do we keep on looking to our ancestors in the skies and keep

to our ancestors in the skies and keep thinking about what they would think of

thinking about what they would think of us? And in an attempt not to dishonor

us? And in an attempt not to dishonor them, do we keep on sticking to bad

them, do we keep on sticking to bad values? Or is it that stories are told

values? Or is it that stories are told to us and our memories are the ones that

to us and our memories are the ones that uh that are sticking with us and as a

uh that are sticking with us and as a consequence do those things end up

consequence do those things end up meaning that we are able to go ahead and

meaning that we are able to go ahead and find the better values more consistently

find the better values more consistently as opposed to the negative ones. The

as opposed to the negative ones. The panel eventually reached a consensus

panel eventually reached a consensus decision

decision on those issues and the champions of the

on those issues and the champions of the World School Debate Championships 2025

World School Debate Championships 2025 is the team

is the team drum rolls.

Is the team in proposition India? [Applause]

Yeah. [Applause]

[Applause] I'm sure

Thank God. I need [Music]

[Music] [Applause]

[Applause] Not forgetting the incredible efforts

Not forgetting the incredible efforts the runners up of the competition,

the runners up of the competition, Australia.

Australia. [Applause]

Okay, I'll wait for that. >> And

>> And with that, we now conclude the World

with that, we now conclude the World Schools Debating Championships 2025.

Schools Debating Championships 2025. Thank you all.

Thank you all. [Applause]

Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube TranscriptPreparing your results…

YouTube Transcript:WSDC 2025 Grand Final

Video Transcript

Summary

Core Theme

Paste YouTube URL

Transcript Extraction Form

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube Transcript:
WSDC 2025 Grand Final