YouTube Transcript:
Panama WUDC 2025 Open Finals

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

Video Transcript

much good luck to all teams and the

house recognizes The Honorable prime [Applause]

audable before I start my

speech everything I've achieved and

everything I've done in debate is thanks

to and for my parents they are the

bravest people I know Lo this have been

the hardest weeks of my life so I want

to thank the friends who have been there

for me you kept me going and I'll text

you later speaking worlds has been in

the back of my mind for years at world's

finals and I want to thank every single

teammate coach and student on Mexico for

making me who I am today special thanks

to Mark Weber who started the dream for

all of us to Angelica Cardel who

introduced me to this activity and to

Julio who St with me for the longest

thank you to the Churchill school and to

baates for giving me the best

opportunities and shout out to the bqc

to auka who is an amazing friend and a

brilliant mind she had not debated in

two years at all came back and final

Oxford and worlds you are brilliant and

one of the best Minds I've ever met this

speech like every single one I've given

goes to the Mexican and the Latin

was it was [ __ ] hard but we made it

we're here and we had representation in

every single final finally there are

grounds to believe a genoside is being

committed in Palestine over 9 million

people have been displaced and tens of

thousands have died at the hands of a

regime that has no regard for human life

and international law standing with

Palestinians is a moral obligation we

all have you all study at some of the

most privileged universities in the

world and you can make a difference

please ask to divest ask your ask your

friends to make this a more inclusive

environment and remember even if you

stand by your principles you can still

final the world championships [Applause]

for far too long populations have been

failed by politicians and political

groups that through the veils of

identity politics have told them that

they are represented when in reality

they are not when in the vast majority

of instances a policies contradict the

very thing individuals believe their

party represent and when in many

instances it is about a dichotomy which

lies to you strips you of your taxes and

instrumentalizes you to put politicians

in office that do not represent you or

you and I believe that the shift that

we've had where individuals are number

one rejecting their affiliation in many

instances to particular like like sides

of the political Spectrum I.E I am not

necessarily A leftist or a right-wing

but I'm rather like an issue voter for

example or I believe that climate change

matter or I believe that abortion

matters still you can you can obviously

have a history of voting for a

particular party because you might

prefer the particular politicians or the

policies but not to be Affiliated fully

or for this to decrease over time is

what we support so what does this look

like yes first of all it looks like

identity politics it looks like having

more things in the middle it fact it's

having more types of identification

within political parties it's the fact

that people within the left for example

or within parties such as the Democrats

in the United States say I do not work

in the same way that others do I am not

a traditional leftist politician because

while I do support for example abortion

and the environment I just believe that

we should be fiscally a little bit more

conservative and the same is true across

the other side of the aisle so it is

more specific representation it is also

more parties because I think that when

you have more like of our discourse that

says it is not just the left and the

right people who have been historically

abandoned by the political establishment

like female parties like indigenous

parties are a lot more likely to arise I

come from a country where the like with

where the S an indigenous group from

from like like an indigenous like

Community from chapas who had been taken

out by the political establishment who

wasn't allowed to join the political

forces for far too long believed that

they just couldn't be represented

because it was something that only

people who looked a certain way could

participate in or only people who

historically had a for example like like

a trajectory with the Catholic Church

could participate in but saying it is no

longer that allows for more individuals

to enter in the first place and I think

this is more democratic most importantly

I think that this looks like past

elections where individuals for example

in Mexico or in the United States have

rejected particular political parties

and in interviews to politicians or in

Democratic debates where they get to ask

politicians they say I do not have an

affiliation to a party but I just want

to know who the [ __ ] is finally going to

solve climate change who's actually

going to help me with abortion the first

argument I'm going to make is that this

is a lot better and creates a lot more

incentives to reach across the aisle

because note one of the main reason why

governments aren't ever forced formed

and why in many instances there are

government lockdowns where you literally

don't have a government for [ __ ] days

and the and the country has like

inflation and the country has many

issues that have to be resolved or

security issues can't be addressed or

not necessarily just not forming

government but just not compromising

across the political spectrum is when

you believe that within your party there

is a historical thing that you have to

do and I think this is a lot more likely

to happen on opposition side when you

believe that historically we never vote

in favor of abortion because we are the

historically right country such as pan

in Mexico or such as the Republic an in

the United States but I do genuinely

think that when you identify that this

is possible you're number one a lot more

likely to reach across the aisle which

is good for voters but it is also better

for social discourse because I think one

of the biggest issues is that when you

go to a like like a meal have a meal

with your uncle during Christmas when

you're actually building politics in

your University you reject individuals

from the other side of the political

spectrum because you believe that they

represent a whole host of different

things that they might not necessarily

represent individuals for example who

were abandoned by Obama because they

were not giving the appropriate economic

policies but who do so support actually

having climate change policies but they

are consistently pushed out of

universities because they are not woken

off or the opposite being true right

where I just think some individuals

where I just think some individuals on

the left are not allowed in some

positions of power in corporations in

financing for example because they seem

to be representing different things I

Envision what will happen in 5 to 10

years which is that the youth is no

longer as Affiliated to political

parties it is about specific issues and

I think identity politics false this is

broadly what this debate starts to do

the third thing I I want to note here is

you have a lot more challenges to the

political establishment and this happens

for a host of different reasons but

first is clearly because you have more

faces and parties who that are likely to

arise you gain political capital from

distinguishing from the political

establishment both in saying I am not X

and Y but also in saying here are the

new things that I can offer I think it

is frankly ridiculous that the average

American leftist in the United States

beli that a Kamala Harris a person who

was literally funding bombs to children

and the non redistribution of resources

and the non like like significant non

and enough like uh liberalization of

healthcare was the only option for them

and I genuinely think that when I sat in

my dining hall at like the most like

woke [ __ ] liberal college in the

United States I would talk to people and

they would be like how dare you even

remotely support the green party you're

just stealing votes from the actual

party even though it was the only real

option that was actually going to solve

climate change to an extent or actually

you know not support a genocide all I'm

trying to say here is individuals have a

lot more incentives of pushing

politicians to become a lot more issue

issue like like voting and whatnot and

maybe opposition says like oh these

parties just like divide the vote and

that's why Trump won for example that is

just empirically not true and I think

everyone knows that but also I think

most importantly I think what ends up

happening is that on your like like on

in these types of instances the

Democratic party has to go more to the

middle so the end goal of this is you

also have less radicalization instead of

you tapping into the things that you as

a political party or politician identify

as the most representative of the

political party you go towards the

middle which is more representative of

individuals less radicalizing I think

it's better for democracy

yeah why don't we see this collaboration

you speak of things seem pretty

difficult to get done in Congress these

days no I think this is literally true

in the last Mexican elections basically

the main political party once it won

included many of the policies from the

second party because they realized that

if they didn't in the next elections

since people are no longer just party

based but they were policy based just

supporting some of those policies was

useful I do genuinely think that in the

vast majority of the developing world it

is happening like I'm trying to use the

example of the us cuz it's the most

comparative one but obviously it's not

necessarily like like like it's just not

the most representative of this I think

in the vast majority of the world you do

have these types of policies where

there's a lot more coalitions in Europe

that talk about the environment it is a

lot more in poopular to be radically

anti-environment in Europe precisely

because of this because they have

realized that it is something that it is

not just an issue of the right and the

left I also believe that just in general

the degree to which individuals have

less information on their parties is

affected by by identity politics I.E I

think it is there there are some

individual like I think the vast

majority of IND individuals when they

vote on religious lines for example when

they vote on things like who their

parents voted for or just believe that

there is a party that is intrinsically

the only leftist option that party has

this incentives from actually

representing them in policy because they

can just count on those votes always

being there and the issue is on our side

of the house you have to be a lot more

explicit about having debates that

explain particular policies you have to

question other politicians on their

policies themselves and not just

question on who they historically

represent it is no longer a class war

where you're like oh you represent the

poor whereas I represent in like sorry

you represent the rich whereas I am a

revolutionary but it is about more

political specificity which I think is

better for voters to be better informed

at the end of this debate you just have

to remember from opening government that

this is not a full shift in the

political environment all we require to

win this debate or like like just it's

not like everyone is doing this but that

there is a continuous diversification of

ideas there is a lot more diversity for

individuals in terms of options in terms

of preferences and I think that is what

matters the most we are incredibly proud

[Applause]

thank you very much for that speech now

I'm very happy to welcome the leader of the

the [Applause]

opposition the greatest B attle that

politics ever fought was against poverty

it was against the crushing blow of

hunger the crushing blow of homelessness

the slow death of uneducation of illness

and of hopelessness that battle

liberated millions of people across the

developed world and the developing World

from those conditions but it is a battle

that is unfinished and because of this

shift it will remain unfinished because

this shift has meant a shift from

primarily economic positioning around

the political access to primarily social

ones social ones that do not achieve

Liberation from poverty and social ones

that do not even achieve their own ends

I'll first explain setup then I'll

explain why this led to the abandoning

of the working class then I'll explain

why this was very bad for social change

finally I'll talk about stability first

on setup the most important

manifestation of this shift has been a

shift from primarily economic based

positioning that is where both parties

Define themselves around being left or

right for redistribution or against it

toward positioning on social issues that

is because of educational polarization

because Elites took control of both

parties and oriented themelves around

cultural issues that shift has involved

the deprioritization of Economics it's

why Biden and Trump largely agree on

tariff policy it has involved the

prioritization of social issues that is

the kinds of things they describe things

like the rise of women and Indigenous

parties in Mexico the rise of

immigration as a key issue in Germany

and France the rise of Hinduism as a key

issue in Indian Politics the rise of

indigenous rights as the poing issue in

my country that is the primary shift of

this debate why has this shift led to

the abandoning of the working class

firstly this is by far the most

important part of this debate the

working class should matter most for

three reasons firstly numerically they

are the majority compared to every other

minority that will be discussed in this

debate the workingclass constitute the

vast majority of most countries secondly

oppression on all axes manifests through

class oppression on Race oppression on

sexuality oppression on gender manifest

themselves through Act access to class

access to money access to wealth access

to education so redistributive policies

help all of the groups that are

described in this debate but thirdly

because class is a fungible term class

is something that you can change over

time and that means everyone believes

it's your fault if you are poor everyone

believes it's very hard to unionize it's

not like something you can identify in

everyone else it's not something you can

see in the color of another person's

skin it is a fact that about yourself

you believe often because of

internalized classism is your fault so

why did this Norm lead to the

abandonment of the working class for

three reasons firstly it took away an

enormously important way for the working

class to mobilize and vote for parties

that supported them it led to the

decline of parties like labor parties

parties that supported things like

unionization supported things like

redistribution you can observe this

empirically in the rates of unionization

and the rates of inequality which have

increased as this shift has taken place

and you can observe it in the fact that

these parties are ones that are easy to

access if you are someone that is low

information if you are someone that is

tired of after a long day at work these

are the kinds of parties you can join

and maybe they say these parties are

imperfect but the parties that we

replacing them are certainly worse the

parties of the Republicans the parties

of the BJP are far worse for

redistribution secondly the existence of

a leftist party created an incentive for

the other parties to position themselves

around the middle class that is if you

cannot win the Poor's votes you must win

the votes of other groups in society so

rather than the perverse American style

Elites work with the poor you had a

positioning around middle class and

positioning around poverty which me both

sides were ultimately advocating for

things like upwards Mobility the cross

fested the benefited one another thirdly

because economics shifted from and was

no longer at the Forefront of politics

people no longer thought about economics

as the primary goal of politics focus

groups are no longer conducted on the

way to Best analyze how voters responded

to economics people no longer conducted

studies on which economic policies would

be the most successful because

politicians knew the positioning around

their rights positioning around abortion

positioning around democracy was far

more important far more able to win

elections far more likely to matter in

the minds of Voters which meant they no

longer thought about economics as a

mechanism to change yes despite this

rhetoric the Tories just suffered their

worst electoral defeat in a century

because British voters were enormously

dissatisfied with their mismanagement of

the British economy clearly

working-class voters still have strong

incentives to punish incumbent parties

that mismanage the economic situation

certainly they obviously have incentives

to punish parties whose economic

policies underperform but the problem is

that is no longer at the Forefront of

the debate that is no longer the thing

that is primarily discussed for the

reasons that the opening government team

set up and the closing cannot knife this

is a debate about social positioning it

is a debate about the role of women and

Indigenous minorities in Parliament

their role as representatives of

politics that is what this shift has

encompassed why is this shift enormously

bad for social change firstly because

it's led to polarization on social

issues whereas in the past many

political parties engaged in forms of

consensus building that is for instance

both Republicans and Democrats supported

immigration as a social policy because

it wasn't really debated it wasn't

really the focus or the Croc of their

debate now it has changed now e social

issues are the focus of political debate

that has led to three things firstly

forms of sporadic violence are far more

common things like violence around

people that you perceive to be

immigrants people that are discussed in

media and extremist ways is more common

second people position themselves

against it right-wing parties or parties

that call themselves right-wing and now

far more against social issues far more

against immigration far more against gay

people than they were 10 or 20 years ago

thirdly it makes them seem like the Le

issues these issues are less compelling

to other people because parties are

identified with the elite are now the

ones pushing social change they're now

the ones advocating for social change

secondly this is bad for social change

because this shift has encompassed a

shift towards extremism there are three

reasons that is the case firstly there's

a broader spectrum of politics that is

there are many more ways you can

position yourself on a social axis they

don't line up neatly almost all

economics lines up on the line of due

support redistribution or not things

don't line up neatly on an axis of do

you support gay marriage or immigration

those things are causally unre related

so there are far more parties in

politics secondly it's far easier to

[ __ ] you about politics an enormous

amount of what people believe about

social issues comes from social media it

comes from their feelings about Society

but policy is far more based on

statistics even if Tik Tok is bad there

still need to be statistics on those Tik

toks to convince people thirdly in many

cases this has led to a shift towards

ethnic and religious messaging in India

this shift away from Left Right

positioning did involve a greater

prevalence of Hindu messaging in theing

of both the BJP and the Inc finally this

shift has has led to enormous disruption

necessarily as this team countenance

this shift was a disruptive one and do

not devalue the value of stability in

these countries firstly it provides

investment stability when you know that

countries are likely to be stable over

time that the change in political power

is like to be stable over time that

there will not be new parties popping up

that is when you're certain your

investments will stay you're certain you

can negotiate with both parties which

creates wealth it creates generation

secondly secondly political

accountability is far superior when

parties change power often when parties

have incentives to hold one another in

check then when new parties are arriving

old parties are dying they're not being

held to account thirdly parties no

longer get the time to implement

policies under their system many

incumbent parties died in 2024 those

parties did not have the time to

implement their policies they did not

have the time to pass things to see

those changes manifest and that led to

enormous numbers of people becoming far

worse off very very proud to [Applause]

POS thank you very much for that nice

speech and to continue the government

case a warm welcome to the Deputy Prime Minister

Minister [Applause]

am I

Audible for my speech I have a few quick

words of gratitude first and foremost

I'd like to thank my high school debate

coach Nimo for jumpstarting my debate

career and being the first to believe in

me to my friends anuka oer and Mishka

who are on team Mongolia with me I love

you and thank you for fostering my love

for this activity they were all

instrumental in team Mongolia breaking

in W usdc for the first and only time in

2021 despite the lack of a circuit

development opportunities or

institutional knowledge I am extremely

proud to have represented Mongolia on

the world School stage and now here at

the finals of WC most importantly i'

would like to thank Manuel for being an

amazing friend and a lovely partner I'm

immensely proud of him for all that he

has said and for staying true to himself

and his morals and finally I would like

to send my love and immense gratitude to

my lovely friends and family for

supporting me in every way and also a

shout out to Bates and all the

me opening opposition's case is

dependent on the fact that there are

certain people in in our world who have

economic interests that will not be

voting on those economic interests we're

going to flip that on their side for

three reasons first of all on our side

if this is Mo if this is the most

important issue for you in a democracy

it's actually extremely unclear why this

is not going to be the most proximate

issue and therefore the most like top

issue on your ballot and secondly now on

our on our side you actually have a

diversity of choices on their side what

you force them to do is have the one

major party or two major parties that

tell you that your culture is directly

tied to the party and therefore the

economic policies of that party as well

on our side we maximizes the we maximize

the choices you have because not not

only do you have one Hindu nationalist

party that claims to have these set of

economic policies you also have another

Hindu nationalist party another Hindu

party that defends a certain other set

of economic policies that may be more

beneficial for you and therefore since

you fulfill the fact that you are are

able to meet your religious priorities

and also your economic priorities we are

far better for these people on our side

therefore benefiting like therefore we

flip all the benefits that oo wants to

claim additionally if they want to say

that the shift will be more of a shift

towards nationalism I think it's

actually extremely unlikely that the

shift towards nationalism will be will

be the case in the first place because

you already see extremely nationalistic

rhetoric in places like India that they

want to talk about and secondly if you

have more diversity in politics and

diversity in discourse this is far more

likely to be a more like productive

conversations a few reasons on why we

take this debate first of all on their

side of the house they what they have is

radicalization that gets more and more

radical as time goes on because now it's

an Us Versus Them policy and a

demonization like tactic throughout the

entirety of your politics when you have

a trump you have someone worse and like

in the next election secondly when you

we tell you that we replace the identity

politics with more of an issue based

politics no response from o on this part

thirdly we tell you that we actually

improve the discourse that exists in

these democracies because now in the

status quo in on our side people are

more willing to engage with you and

start the conversation with you in the

first place because in the status quo a

trump supporter is going to be

automatically dismiss dismissing a

leftist based on the fact that their

identity is a leftist and vice versa

right secondly when you engage in these

conversations the discussions themselves

are far more likely to be productive

because it's not about the individual

it's not about changing someone's mind

it's more likely to be towards reaching

a concession no thank you secondly on in

terms of policy creation we are far more

productive because currently when you

have major parties that are

diametrically opposed to each other they

make make it so that when you have a

member in Parliament and when you have a

representative in the H in the house or

Senate they necessarily have to be loyal

to the party in in order to be like in

the next elections in order to be

elected through the primaries in the

future to protect their career and

therefore you get things like voting on

issues based on your loyalty to the

party rather than the actual Merit of

the issue itself you're far more likely

to feel free to vote to like to choose

based on like the Merit of the issue on

our side of the house second of all you

increase the likelihood that people

reach across the aisle which oo does not

respond to at all mo on in the status

quo the biggest problem for policy

creation is the fact that you have a lot

of democratic deadlock where you can't

actually reach a consensus or a decision

or can actually fulfill the policy and

can create the change we change that and

we make sure that people are actually

able to make actual real life change in

their lives thirdly we are far more

representative this is perhaps the most

important thing in this debate because

we give more representation to a lot

more people this looks like people who

in the stat in the US elections that

just happened who wanted to but didn't

vote for Jill Stein because of their

disagreements with Harris on things like

Palestine on the environment and they

were forced to vote for Harris because

the other vote seemed like a non-vote we

give them more of an option on our side

when it's not bipartisan like

polarization and Party politics and

second of all you have more of an

mixture of policies it's more likely in

the US now that you see a woman running

for elections who is fiscally

conservative but pro-choice so as a like

a Republican woman you don't always have

to vote against your like bodily

integrity and fourthly we tell you that

there's going to be more challenges to

the political institution that exists as

it is why is this important because the

current political institution in places

like the US in like in the West in

general they have historically like

historically marginalized the most

certain communities and these

disenfranchised communities now have the

opportunity to like have a part that is

willing to capitalize on them and

represent them in a previously like

unseen way and therefore this is

something you care a lot in this debate

because these are probably the most

vulnerable people before I move on I'll

take a p from closing what is the point

of discussing social issues the point of

discussing social issues to create is to

create change and on our side we we are

able to do that best why is that we win

on a few things firstly we win on the

fact that we create more change and in

progress and we make that easier for

five reasons firstly senators are not

voting on Party politics you're voting

on the actual issues and therefore the

Democratic deadlock is broken this is

perhaps the most important because even

if opposition can talk about the fact

that they may care about good policies

if they don't prove that they actually

get those policies passed they cannot

win this debate secondly we tell you

that you are more able to reach

concession like that isn't dependent on

like your party and thirdly you're more

informed on a particular on your

particular policies because you care

about the issues rather than someone

like Trump telling you that I represent

you because I am part of the people

fourthly we tell you that we have better

discourse on our side which leads to

people being more likely to be

empathetic towards each other and

discussing each other's like needs and

we also have less polarization and which

means that parties are able to cooperate

with each other more lastly and most

importantly we give you a more

representative democracy in which people

have more of an option of an option when

you actually want to create change why

does this matter because on our side

what we prove to you is that we actually

create change on the ground and when we

create this change it reflects the needs

of the people the most and it reflect

historically disiz

people also what this creates is that

you create less political violence if

people feel as though their voice is

represented and if they don't have to

resort to extra legal measures to make

make sure that your voice is represented

you're far more likely to be trusting of

the political establishment we give a

lot more people the agency and voice

very very proud to stand in [Applause]

[Applause]

OG thank you very much for that nice

speech and to conclude the top half of

this debate a warm welcome to the deputy

when the rangeri puts Hindu nationalism

at the front of the bjp's policy

platform instead of economic development

that is bad it is bad because Hindu

nationalism is exclusionary it divides

people on the basis of religion and it

otherwises Muslims but it's also bad

because it sucks air away from the need

to pull 1 billion Indians out of poverty

and that is our contention the BJP

doesn't need to focus on economics

because it can use religion to get votes

when otherwise it would need to deliver

economic policy and it also changes the

incentives of the opposition who now

need to talk about Hindu nationalism

coopt Hindu nationalism or reverse Hindu

nationalism rather than focusing on

economics that is our case it is

incredibly simple and it will win this

debate let's talk about the theory of

what this shift is and how it occurs I

think we have a very simple explanation

throughout the vast majority of history

of democracies the political Spectrum

has been one of Economics between

leftwing parties that cared about the

poor and redistribution and right-wing

parties that cared about keeping money

in the hands of the richest they fought

against each other the change that we

point to here is that things like

education polarization have brought

cultural issues to the Forefront because

those are the things that Elites people

are rich enough to not need to care

about economic issues are deeply

concerned with they prioritize them at

the expense of economic issues which is

why if you look at political parties

today the issues at the Forefront that

they talk about are primarily social

issues Republicans and Democrats

differentiate themselves on the basis of

how they feel about trans people about

how they feel about immigration not

about how they feel on economic policy

notably Biden and Trump have basically

the same economic policy they both

support tariffs they both support

bringing back manufacturing jobs and

that is bad because it means that people

have similar Economic Policy so if you

care about economics you can't vote for

different policy but it also means

people care less about Economic Policy

because you're told the issues that

matter are social issues instead of

economic issues which makes it far

harder to carer to mobilize and to do

things in that direction closing

government p and says well you know the

Tories were voted out in England so

clearly bad economic performance still

matters is and economics hasn't

disappeared the problem with that is

firstly consider the counterfactual how

bad did the Tories have to [ __ ] the

economy in order to get voted out they

had to do brexit and then Liz trust had

to come in and literally torpedo the

guilds like obviously comparatively they

would have been turfed out far sooner

secondly though we would point out that

the reason it was so hard to Turf the

Tories out is because everyone was so

worried about immigration they didn't

care about the economy being [ __ ] but

thirdly Labour's economic policy is not

very different from the tor's economic

policy Rachel Reeves basically abandons

any form of real redistribution and only

does minor things like maybe adding vat

to to you know Private School uh

attendance which doesn't really do

anything it's precisely our argument

they're so busy positioning themselves

over social issues they don't get to do

the important stuff let's talk then

about social issues because opening

government says social issues are really

important so maybe if there's more

discussion of it it's good the problem

is social issues in economics occur in

very different ways economics is zero

sum which means it's a constant battle

and it's one that must be waged at every

time but social issues you're not work

in that way having a party advocating

for social issues is not actually

particularly useful think about the way

we get change like gay marriage it's by

activists on the ground convincing

people changing hearts and minds and the

addition of a political party not only

doesn't help is often counterproductive

because that form of signaling is what

locks people in it's what polarizes

people it's what makes them think I am

anti-gay marriage I am a republican I

will never vote in favor of it when on

our side those activists are far more

likely to be seen as nonpartisan to

reach across the aisle to make that case

to far more more people and convince far

more people to go on and the same is

true for climate change the same is true

for indigenous rights the same is true

for every social issue you don't need

politicians on one party on board you

need to convince hearts and minds and

once you do both parties will get on

board because they have incentives to

want people to like them and if one

party adopts it and it's not political

the other party will adopt it so they

don't lose voters on the basis of that

particular issue which is why on our

side you see social issues converging

towards a majority opinion and activists

are far more effective at advancing

social causes the long Arc of Justice

bends in the direction of opening

opposition there finally we point out

though that there's just a large amount

of distruction on their side politicians

can position themselves on social issues

and never have to do anything saying

you're PR gay marriage but you can never

pass a gay marriage policy because

you're only one party wastes a whole

bunch of time doing nothing when you

could have been advocating for policies

that would actually make people far

richer secondly this team says

compromise is important that obviously

occurs anyway firstly moderation is very

popular with voters because it allows

you to appeal to a broader set of Voters

voters tend to be normally distributed

you want to be the center for reasons

suggested by median voter Theory

secondly empirical examples think about

how Clinton and Blair in new labor and

you know Third Way moderated in order to

win after Democrats and you know the the

labor had been out of power for a large

amount of time think about our Bush in

2000 wins because of compassionate

conservatism we're not going to build

conservativism on the backs of the poor

we're going to moderate on economic

issues so those kinds of things occur

anyway voters Lov by partisanship it

occurs anyway they say you can't reach

across the aisle it's harder on their

side there's more Isles cuz there's more

parties under their understanding those

parties are smaller and more ideological

so less willing to compromise because

they Define themselves around their

position taking so they don't change and

engage in the way that this team needs

them to so they don't get compromised

finally weigh this against stability

which is a more important question and

they lose on stability because they say

they want to shake up the status quo

they say they want to challenge the

institutions that creates instability

more parties creates instability because

it's harder to form coalitions it's

farther harder to get agreement

particularly when you disagree not just

on economics as you might on our side

maybe they're five parties with

different economics views but they're on

a spectrum and you can Ally with the

ones closest to you very easily now you

disagree not just on economics but on a

myriad of dist poal issues not all of

which align in any one way so it's hard

to get politics and that matters for the

reasons we tell you it means less

business confidence it means less

capacity employment policy it means less

accountability because low information

voters don't know what's going on they

don't understand multiple parties they

don't know what's happening when parties

change closing what is the biggest

threat facing major democracies today we

would contend that the biggest threat

facing major democracies is a lack of

capacity to help the poor because when

the poor are not fed that is what

creates huge amounts of instability that

is what allows revolutions to forment

that is what allows autocracies to come

to power when you do not cater to the

most basic needs in the debate that is

when those harms occur and the weigh

here is very clear the poor are by far

the largest group in the debate and even

if you care about other oppressed groups

the way that they are disadvantaged is

primarily through poverty is through the

trol of class so we help them the most

if you believe for example that black

people are disadvantaged often that

makes them the poorest group and the

group that is helped more most by Red

distribution that is the most fungible

form of Oppression that we uniquely

Target finally on representation this

team says more parties means more

parties that you're happy with you feel

better when you vote we don't care if

you feel happy when you vote we care

about tangible outcomes at the end of

the day and more parties does not mean

better policy for minority groups

because large parties are broad tense

that have incentives deated them anyway

we explain why social change occurs

better on our side Coalition agreements

mean that those minor parties have to

compromise anyway and often just lose

out on being part of those coalitions

and representation for one minority

group is count by a party that is

opposed to that minority group these

parties are Niche they struggle to get

anything done they struggle to really

represent people maybe you feel a bit

happy about voting for them what we care

about is that food goes in people's

mouths what we care about is that the

them thank you very much for that speech

now we're moving back towards the bottom

half of this debate and to introduce us

to the bottom half a warm welcome to

member of government [Applause]

a couple of brief thank yous before

beginning I'll keep these brief first

Tois Liz Matt I'm enormously grateful

for everything you've done for me to the

many people who supported me in my

journey Sophie Beasley Julia waji Manuel

yo T Mexico my parents Connor Kate the

much the biggest threat facing major

democracies is not poverty it is that

major democracies are less Democratic

than they ever have been that most

democracies are facing a major crisis of

democratic institutions that support for

institutions is at an alltime low that

support for Democratic backsliding is on

the rise that Trump in explicit

antidemocratic demagogue was elected

that the BJP is gaining ground in India

the anti- institutionalist sentiment is

on the rise the thesis of closing

government is straightforward you need

to upend the conventional Left Right

Spectrum to maintain support for

Democratic institutions to re energized

the working class in a way that empowers

anti-c complacent sentiment and hence

reduces the overpower of technocratic

Institutions and Democratic

anti-democratic demagogues how do we

reduce Democratic backsliding through

upending that Spectrum three mechanisms

from closing government then weighing

why this wins on opening opposition's

metric on workingclass politics first

the working class contrary to opening

opposition's claim was historically

marginalized by the Left Right Spectrum

now opening government to their credit

does name drop the problem of educ

ational polarization we'll make the

argument here's how it works

historically politics was dominated by

Central left and Central right parties

as o correctly notes that's the SPD and

CDU in Germany peso and new democracy in

Greece the Democrats and GOP in the

United States importantly historically

there was a strong correlation between

your economic status and your views on

social issues that is on average people

who were lower income tended to be

relatively more supportive of social

reform and people who were relatively

higher income tended to be relatively

more supportive of traditionalist

Institutions why was that because

historically that correlation held given

that relatively impoverished group stood

to benefit from upending social

structures that disadvantaged them and

relatively wealthy interests stood to

benefit from a maintenance of the status

quo that correlation is no longer true

empirically the most Progressive people

today are also the highest income and

the most conservative people socially

are those who are the lowest income why

is that it's simple it's because the

rate of social progress in the last 30

to 40 years has dramatically outpaced

the rate of economic progress

intuitively the level at which human

rights and socially leftist issues have

been protected in the European Union

post 2008 is literally multiple times

greater than the average GDP perear

growth in the EU the reason why of

course is because over time societies

become increasingly more liberal as you

become increasingly more exposed to

Progressive values but the same does not

apply to economics there are diminishing

marginal returns as countries further

develop they hit the middle income trap

the the further returns to Capital

become diminishing here's why that's

important what this means today is that

the relative balance has shifted there

is an anti-correlation between income

and socially Progressive values the most

conservative people on immigration and

on culture are often working class and

the people who are the most Progressive

are those who are the wealthiest why is

this framing essential it demonstrates

why there is a necessity to upend the

traditional left ring Left Right

Spectrum historically Center left

parties and center right parties were

mutually exclusive on both economic and

social issues so the center left could

be Pro the welfare state and pro lgbtq

rights the center right could be pro-

neoliberalism and relatively opposed to

gay marriage and that worked because the

relative Center left and center right

bases agreed broadly on those two

factions the problem is you need to

revert that Trend to represent the vast

majority of contemporary voters who are

empirically working in Middle Class

voters for the simple reason that the 1%

are called the 1% because there's only

1% of them the reason why this is

important is twofold firstly absent the

rise of parties that for example like

the national rally in France can join

left-wing economic stances for example

being pro the welfare state with

right-wing cultural stances like

opposing further immigration the likely

consequence is huge levels of alienation

disillusionment and active complacency

amongst the vast majority of Voters who

simply do not believe that they can fit

into a binarized political Spectrum

credit to opening government they

reasonably make the claim that many

people feel disenfranchised by the Left

Right Spectrum our extension

analytically explains not why there are

just some voters but why this

constitutes the vast majority of Voters

in the status quo why is this important

setting aside the fact that this unlocks

opening government's principle it also

has critical implications for Democratic

backsliding here's why because contrary

to popular opinion most democratic

backsliding does not happen because

people actively hate democracy

Democratic backsliding happens because

the average voter simply does not

believe that Democratic institutions are

worth protecting you do not turn out to

a protest if you don't think elections

represent you you don't care about

assaults on the courts if you don't

believe the judges appointed by parties

to the courts are representative what

you need to prevent backsliding what you

need to energize rallies that call out

the bjp's Democratic backsliding such

that the BJP did suffer a major

electoral loss relative to expectations

in this year's election is to energize

people who otherwi wise do not feel

represented that is why closing

government stance is that the rise of

right-wing populism is probably good

there are huge numbers of workingclass

people across Europe who feel

disenfranchised by parties like the

labor party and like the SPD and like

peso that refuse to recognize reality

that workingclass voters [ __ ] hate

immigration and they want change they

will never get it the way that you get

people to care again about democracy

given that Democratic backsliding Trends

happen on both sides is to unlock that

side of the political spect

I move on to our second mechanism o yeah

this shift away from traditional Left

Right Spectrum wouldn't sorry it doesn't

matter if there's an anti-correlation

between social views and economic views

when you prioritize economic views and

social views are not politicized because

you can just have social change outside

the political Spectrum no because you

obviously the first the last premise is

intuitively untrue you obviously need

legal protections for a wide range of

social issues for example protections

for abortion rights and so forth but

more importantly people do care very

deeply about cultural issues because

they're often tied to their identity for

for example a huge number of people are

often pro-life in a way that is tether

to their religious conception of the

good life which is why you necessarily

cannot compromise and why you need

parties that are both leftwing on

economic issues and right-wing on

cultural issues secondly on technocratic

backsliding a major crisis facing major

democracies is that the vast majority of

policy is no longer controlled by

democratically elected politicians it is

controlled by judges by bureaucrats by

technocrats by International

institutions like the European Union why

has this happened because the

convergence of Center left and center

right parties and the historical

dominance of those parties gave rise to

a neoliberal consensus the fact is that

Clinton and Reagan were in many ways

identical in their views for example on

financial regulation and the role of the

state in the economy the problem with

dominance of central left and Central

right parties is that both parties stand

to benefit from Outsourcing ever more

control to non-democratic institutions

because they converge broadly on a range

of economic and social issues but this

fundamentally subverts democracy by

reducing the capacity for democratically

elected officials to make critical

decisions about whether women can access

the right to abortion about whether tax

rates should be higher or lower about

the extent to which regulation occurs we

fix that under our side of the house by

challenging that conception as oo

concedes because we prevent the greatest

threat to democracies proud to win from closing

closing [Applause]

government thank you very much for that

very nice speech and to introduce the

final team in the round uh I would like

all right can you hear me clearly okay that's

fine I really hope you won't immediately

stop listening but Francis fukuyama was

right we did manage to reach the end of

history but we managed to squander it we

live in a time where we waste our

precious political Capital discussing

non-issues being distracted in terms of

faithfulness and in terms of targeting

groups that often have the same

interests as ours rather than genuinely

advocating for our own interests what I

want to do in this extension is I

essentially want to win the

characterization Clash I want to explain

to you why the sorts of positive sources

of differentiation that government bench

discuss are are actually being ched by

the negative sources that opening

opposition wishes to bring in this

debate before that though I wish to

bring three pieces of framing the first

one is that the Left Right Spectrum

still regularly features multiple

parties with differentiation between

them crucially it's possible to have

different axes along which parties are

left or right beat the economy or beat

on social issues but also this means

that you have a genuine degree of choice

and accountability between those groups

especially because it's very clear where

it is that they're able to win voters

from one another that is the like center

right criticizes the right wi precisely

because those are the voters that you

can flip over on their side it is far

more difficult to exercise this type of

accountability which it's not clear who

your voter base is and therefore this

makes political conversations worse the

second piece of framing however is that

the Left Right balance can shift over

history 150 years ago I would have been

considered a radical if not insane for

wanting to give women the vote and the

thing is this is not the same as

Crossing across the aisle it still is

the case of you have parties genuinely

disagreeing but it means that a lot of

the things that were considered left are

now considered common place even by

parties that support the establishment

but the third and important piece of

framing is that life for the longest

time continue to get better yes the

financial crisis yes this and that but

what I want to not is that since the

rise of the old right since these New

Politics that have been introduced we

have seen living conditions degrade for

many individuals we have seen rights get

lost and we have seen rates of social

inequality increase more and more as

time goes on and this is exactly where

the extension comes in I'm going to

prove to you why it is that basically

this New Politics that I want to

introduce you is largely a facade why it

is that the social issues are solving

aren genuine and therefore proving how

it is that you harm those groups why is

this true two main reasons one the first

one is that it's far easier to cause

moral Panic on social issues this is

precisely because most individuals have

a far weaker understanding of the

economy or of Broad and complicated

Concepts be it inflation or

International Trade the easiest way in

which you're able to agitate individuals

is to convince them that there's someone

out to get them and the thing is for

most people this doesn't even need to be

true that is if you can convince middle

class individuals that like you know

trans women entering women's bathroom is

a problem and that this is more

important than like the class disparity

between the rich and the middle class or

the working class that is precisely when

you're most able to persuade them the

second reason however is that the

hateful content that people see is

unavoidable and this is very important

because of the p line effect it has on

individuals and I want to be very clear

what it looks like because yes you may

initially be willing to scrutinize the

things you see but the problem is that

when you do go online and you constantly

see this content when it's around every

corner precisely because it's what

you're most likely to click on exactly

because it's something that appeals to

your sense of morality to your sense of

safety to your sense of well-being what

happens is you stop questioning you

eventually surrender yourself to what

this content has to say to you and the

problem is that that is when people have

stopped critically reflecting on what it

is they're being exposed to you what I

want to basically now prove is why it is

that this hateful content actually isn't

productive the first reason is that

minorities are definitionally minorities

and therefore it's the case that the

majority of the con Ry generated will be

targeting those groups in so far as on

either side of the house they don't have

enough of a voice to push back that is

when you have the majority of society

telling you that these people are

harmful that is what is going to

dominate the online narratives the

second reason however is that I want you

to question who it is that these cross

party populists are people like money

people like bolsonaro in Brazil the

reason that these are going to be

overwhelmingly politically negative is

precisely because they're most able to

control the funding that is is in the

interest of to basically support those

parties that is who is it who wants to

distract you from the real issues the

people who have the most to gain the

people who have the money and who don't

want you taxing it and this is true for

two reasons the first one is that money

controls politics how many

advertisements you can buy how much

lobbying you can do basically controls

what politicians say and how many people

see that message therefore the s that

aligns with big business interests will

be the one basically getting most of

this money but also secondly they just

don't have an incentive to genuinely

solve these issues for you they want to

continue keeping you angry because you

don't vote for these parties because you

genuinely believe in them rather you

vote for them exactly because they make

you angry in this manner I'll take a PI

from opening please the lack of

questioning occurs when you assume that

certain economic positions are

intrinsically tied to social ones people

in Catholic and Muslim Muslim countries

have voted against their own economic

interests because they are told that it

is intrinsically anti- Catholic or

anti-muslim to redistribute this is what

we prove in opening government they

don't respond to more of this in whip

but I think my framing already defeats

this basically let me do some impacting

the first problem is a direct and

accelerating degradation of political

systems and this is because a political

system isn't just about a set of formal

rules it is about the interaction of

parties within those systems this looks

like the cohesion when your party can

caucus and have discussions on issues

this looks like essentially having the

ability to govern an effective manner in

so far as you have longstanding

mechanisms in so far as the party has a

reputation to maintain and there is

consistency in what the voter base

expects of your party you have been in

government before and you are someone

who basically shows your ideas to the

people who vote for you not the harm

then on their side on their side of the

house it is when you see like these

broad tent coalitions that opening

government treats with ro ended Clash

glasses but lead to the repeated

collapse of the French government

basically where you try to compromise on

far too many ideas instead of being able

to reach common ground but more

importantly you divide people and this

is true for a very simple reason you

basically make people feel alienated

because not what the prerequisite is to

the genuine political conversation they

want in government bench you need to

feel safe within your beliefs you need

to know that you exist within a

community that supports you and that

you're not the only one who Bears those

ideas the problem is that when you feel

like what you're expressing or voting on

The Fringe the moment somebody else

questions you you feel on you go on the

defensive and this is precisely when you

lack this High degree of confidence

within the political system or within

your beliefs that you're far less lik

you to engage in these conversations or

hold yourself accountable to them not a

comparative on our side we don't

motivate people by anger we motivate

them by hope we tell them that the

system works and has provided for you

yes things aren perfect but things have

can and will continue getting better in

so far as we work as you work with us

parties aren't perfect but we think

they're far more accountable than what

you get on the alternative importantly

we think that parties are better when

they're merely seen as occupants of

government we don't want these

short-term is single-issue politicians

and we think you uniquely get good

political engagement on our side and for

all these reasons I have never been

prouder to [Applause]

[Applause] [Music]

oppose thank you very much for that

speech and to conclude the government

side of this debate

please a big round of applause for the

government whip [Applause]

[Applause] [Music]

to be clear the closing government

extension is not only about Democratic

backsliding it is fundamentally about

characterizing why the traditional Left

Right Spectrum no longer reflects the

views of the median working and

middleclass voter and this is necessary

analysis for the round to happen because

it shows therefore that the traditional

understanding of a left right spectrum

is no longer Democratic democratically

representative I'll do a few things

firstly I'll just quickly take out Co

and then I'll talk about o and weigh

ourselves against them firstly then Co I

think the two main lines to come up with

is firstly there is still going to be

differentiation in the Left Right

Spectrum so you have Center left center

right farar left farar rights which

often mean there is still a level of

Multiplicity when it comes to policies

and ideology for one like obviously this

is comparative it is still likely highly

rigid because often you have to work

within party lines in many countries but

second let's actually flip the argument

when parties can only compete within the

left or rightwing Spectrum there are

more likely to radicalize on their side

of the house because they have to appeal

further to the left and further to the

right-wing basis why because often the

left the F the far left and Far Right

Within These parties those who hold the

most extreme views often are ones who

have lots of power they're often the

ones who have the lowest say they often

are the ones who are more like to veto

and not be willing to horse trade if you

do not Pander to their views all of this

means it is actually far worse on their

side because actually having a left

right Spectrum gives rise to people on

the very ends of it it often

disproportionately it weighs their

voices louder that is far worse on their

side of the house the second thing that

Co says is but the politicians that rise

out of a break of the Left Right

Spectrum will be politicians who are bad

those who have lots of power money

resources they are politically Negative

they actually don't really want to solve

issues that people face on the ground

first let's actually flip this argument

like for one the center left and right

dominance traditionally has favorite

powerful institutions most center right

parties in Europe have ties to their

Church IEC F the CDU in Germany the rise

of new parties is what actually creates

opportunities for disruption this is

evident in the status quote that's why

often political campaigning by Trump who

actively shows that they're favoring the

working class and breaking through

traditional Norms of what the left and

right had traditionally stood for are

people who have become immensely

immensely politically appealing in

recent years moving on then I want to

talk about o the first thing I want to

do is I want to weigh against oo so I

think our extension directly beats o for

a few reasons because we explain that

the workingclass voters are more

involved in politics on our side because

unconventional parties can speak

directly to their left-wing economic

views and their right-wing cultural

issues and their concerns o says that

people care more about economics than

culture but recognize cultural issues

issues are often not insell from

economics often cultural issues can

affect how you view something

economically I.E often immigration is

tied to what you think for for example a

certain Economic Policy should be do you

think these people are someone who are

threatening your jobs often these things

are interl you often connect the two

issues therefore these are not ins

issues and therefore it is necessary for

us to consider this Awakening secondly

moving on then I want to explain I want

to provide an explanation on O's case of

the working class I want to explain why

economics will likely always matter in

voting regardless of whether it is the

locus of mobilization among the working

class and then I'll compare it against

the Alternatives they give as to what

our side has stand for like first and

foremost it is likely that middle and

workingclass people will always care

about economics this is the most

fundamental part of their lives this is

the first condition they need to meet to

access all their other rights for most

people who struggle from paycheck to

paycheck to meet their day-to-day needs

economics is all you can consider and

this is why voters on both sides of the

house will likely care but here's the

what the important part it is not to say

that everyone who is disenfranchise has

to act as a monolith when it comes to

economic issues that single mothers who

want matern leave might not meet the

same set of Economic Policy as the

middle class worker who now will fall

into a new tax bracket and want

something else and it is precisely

because the poor and the working class

who were previously viewed as monolitic

voters are now shocker can vote

differently which means that parties

across the aisle are now forced to the

table to introspect and reconsider What

policies they want to craft to better

represent voters on our side of the

house but second flip the reason why we

think violence is wrong is not only

because of the pain it causes to you but

because it subjects your will at the

disposal of someone else when you're

hand strapped and you cannot make a

choice poverty is violence for many

people who are strapped at the hands of

the Left Right spectrum because in the

past if you want an economic policy you

also have to subscribe to racism you

have to deny women the right to abortion

our side on the comparative energizes

people as for Ryan's extension it

energized disparaged voters to come out

to vote to Def defend their rights to go

to rallies to fight for economic Liberty

this argument is logically prior to the

argument of O So if you believe Ryan's

argument on our side of the house you

energize a new group of Voters that were

previously not unlocked on their side we

actually gain most of the benefits they

want to push for um opening yeah you

don't preserve democracy by upending it

and the harms you identify clearly stem

from the shift away from traditional

politics like Trump who literally

adopted Democratic positions on

protectionism and social services and

ran on immigration that is the problem

you defend it this is true to some

degree some politians have done this

undoubtable the concern is obviously

there are check backs against this

there's obviously a rise of alternate

discourse that likely happens and we've

seen this in the current status quo as

well we don't have to defend isolated

examples of it we can prove that the

overall trend is good second o says that

the politicization of social issues is

bad on our side and will happen which

will lead to radicalization but the

counterfactual is lots of these issues

get sidelined it is that disenfranchised

groups are never ever likely to win on

these issues why because historically

they have been disempowered economically

which often means it is harder for them to do things like pull resources to

to do things like pull resources to mobilize and to create change the D's

mobilize and to create change the D's proposal is social issues should be

proposal is social issues should be reached by activists and they can change

reached by activists and they can change hearts and minds but one you need

hearts and minds but one you need legislation and policy to protect rights

legislation and policy to protect rights to not only make sure people can go out

to not only make sure people can go out to the streets in the first place but to

to the streets in the first place but to make sure that more people are feeling

make sure that more people are feeling safe enough they can do so you need

safe enough they can do so you need parties to protect rights like the right

parties to protect rights like the right to protest and the right to free speech

to protest and the right to free speech to make sure Advocates can speak and to

to make sure Advocates can speak and to encourage people to come out but also

encourage people to come out but also second hearts and Minds only get changed

second hearts and Minds only get changed when you force these issues to the

when you force these issues to the Forefront most people only care a little

Forefront most people only care a little bit about racial equality and the

bit about racial equality and the conditions migrants face but cognitive

conditions migrants face but cognitive dissidence means you forget about it

dissidence means you forget about it therefore often these issues being

therefore often these issues being talked upfront is what actually raises

talked upfront is what actually raises awareness and gives Advocates the

awareness and gives Advocates the rhetoric and the language to use their

rhetoric and the language to use their advocacy outside of Politics as well the

advocacy outside of Politics as well the last thing I want to talk about is

last thing I want to talk about is quickly on stability uh as pry o case

quickly on stability uh as pry o case that is good for things like investment

that is good for things like investment and accountability like obviously the

and accountability like obviously the shift away from the left right spectrum

shift away from the left right spectrum is likely a gradual one as we've seen

is likely a gradual one as we've seen over the course of history issues of

over the course of history issues of capital flight and investors leaving is

capital flight and investors leaving is probably a silly one that doesn't really

probably a silly one that doesn't really apply to the debate much and also second

apply to the debate much and also second our extension flips the idea of

our extension flips the idea of accountability because on both sides of

accountability because on both sides of the house political institutions are not

the house political institutions are not always easy to access for anyone but it

always easy to access for anyone but it is the people who can counter it that

is the people who can counter it that also matter we explain to you why on our

also matter we explain to you why on our side the house people are far more

side the house people are far more empowered to do that they're far more

empowered to do that they're far more empowered to protect democracy very

empowered to protect democracy very proud to propose

proud to propose [Applause]

[Applause] [Music]

[Music] [Applause]

thank you very much for that speech and now for the final speech of this whole

now for the final speech of this whole tournament please have a warm welcome to

tournament please have a warm welcome to the opposition

the opposition [Applause]

it doesn't matter how representative of government is if that government cannot

government is if that government cannot achieve anything that is the simple case

achieve anything that is the simple case that you get from Co which undercuts

that you get from Co which undercuts everything we hear from the government

everything we hear from the government bench let me first start with CG CG says

bench let me first start with CG CG says two things the first is that we need to

two things the first is that we need to restore faith in democracy the premise

restore faith in democracy the premise of this argument is that voter

of this argument is that voter preferences changed first and parties

preferences changed first and parties simply responded and those new parties

simply responded and those new parties therefore accurately represent the

therefore accurately represent the interests of Voters as Chris points out

interests of Voters as Chris points out this is the wrong way round what has

this is the wrong way round what has historically happened is that these

historically happened is that these parties have stoked the increase in

parties have stoked the increase in xenophobia and far-right sentiment that

xenophobia and far-right sentiment that CG themselves identify why should you

CG themselves identify why should you believe this claim because most people

believe this claim because most people don't sit around all day thinking about

don't sit around all day thinking about politics they don't have well-formed

politics they don't have well-formed views on immigration or the major

views on immigration or the major problems facing the country the way they

problems facing the country the way they get their political views is by what

get their political views is by what parties tell them and parties therefore

parties tell them and parties therefore serve an educative function ining the

serve an educative function ining the political beliefs of these voters

political beliefs of these voters therefore it is far more likely that the

therefore it is far more likely that the far-right parties which CG defends came

far-right parties which CG defends came first which then created the far-right

first which then created the far-right voters which we now think is the problem

voters which we now think is the problem no thank you second response

no thank you second response representing these voters doesn't matter

representing these voters doesn't matter if the effective degree of

if the effective degree of representation goes down so yes there

representation goes down so yes there may be lots of farri parties in

may be lots of farri parties in Parliament talking about things but they

Parliament talking about things but they can't put together an Effective

can't put together an Effective Government because they are plat forms

Government because they are plat forms based on hate which no other party will

based on hate which no other party will agree with that is exactly what you see

agree with that is exactly what you see in countries like the Netherlands for

in countries like the Netherlands for instance where you have a total collapse

instance where you have a total collapse of the government as a result of the

of the government as a result of the light no thank you as a result of the

light no thank you as a result of the rise of the far right which means that

rise of the far right which means that no voters can be represented left or

no voters can be represented left or right this is why the end outcome of

right this is why the end outcome of their extension which is restoring faith

their extension which is restoring faith in democracy doesn't happen because when

in democracy doesn't happen because when your government doesn't do anything you

your government doesn't do anything you have no faith in democracy this part is

have no faith in democracy this part is additionally untrue because the way

additionally untrue because the way these parties situate themselves is as

these parties situate themselves is as Outsiders of the democratic system

Outsiders of the democratic system precis in the language of CG upending

precis in the language of CG upending the Democratic process in order to put a

the Democratic process in order to put a breath of fresher into it which is

breath of fresher into it which is precisely why they will W restore faith

precisely why they will W restore faith in the way that they suggest the second

in the way that they suggest the second big thing that CG says is that there's

big thing that CG says is that there's technocratic backsliding no thank you in

technocratic backsliding no thank you in the world of opposition I would note

the world of opposition I would note firstly that this is just a subset of

firstly that this is just a subset of the OG material on challenging The

the OG material on challenging The Establishment so it's largely derivative

Establishment so it's largely derivative but more importantly the way you get to

but more importantly the way you get to technocracy is precisely when politics

technocracy is precisely when politics becomes more unstable and no longer

becomes more unstable and no longer works when the elected government cannot

works when the elected government cannot deliver anything because it's struck

deliver anything because it's struck stuck in fractious coalitions based on

stuck in fractious coalitions based on identity politics in the world of

identity politics in the world of government that is when policy making is

government that is when policy making is devolved to the courts or bureaucracy no

devolved to the courts or bureaucracy no thank you that is exactly what you see

thank you that is exactly what you see in the US right when parties are no

in the US right when parties are no longer able to come to the table and

longer able to come to the table and compromise as a result of the popular

compromise as a result of the popular retic of government side that is when

retic of government side that is when the Supreme Court and other unelected

the Supreme Court and other unelected government agencies make policy instead

government agencies make policy instead no thank you so that is a problem for

no thank you so that is a problem for their side weighing against oo then o

their side weighing against oo then o says two big things the first is that

says two big things the first is that economic issues are extremely important

economic issues are extremely important question why is it that the new parties

question why is it that the new parties on government bench will always and

on government bench will always and everywhere sideline economic issues I

everywhere sideline economic issues I know that many of opposition's examples

know that many of opposition's examples fail for example the BJP did prioritize

fail for example the BJP did prioritize a significant degree of economic

a significant degree of economic development in India we give you a far

development in India we give you a far because as OG notes surely voters do

because as OG notes surely voters do care about economics to a significant

care about economics to a significant degree and therefore these new parties

degree and therefore these new parties will be responsive to these issues no

will be responsive to these issues no thank you the better response that comes

thank you the better response that comes to you in Chris's argument is that even

to you in Chris's argument is that even if this is true the solutions to

if this is true the solutions to economic problems that these parties

economic problems that these parties give are not constructive because the

give are not constructive because the way these far right parties tell you you

way these far right parties tell you you need to save the economy is not by

need to save the economy is not by restructuring the welfare system along

restructuring the welfare system along the technocratic lines as o points out

the technocratic lines as o points out but just kicking out all the immigrants

but just kicking out all the immigrants because the immigrants are the one

because the immigrants are the one draining the welfare money so even if

draining the welfare money so even if it's true as Government suggests that

it's true as Government suggests that these new parties also identify economic

these new parties also identify economic issues those parties are uniquely unable

issues those parties are uniquely unable to solve these economic issues precisely

to solve these economic issues precisely because they pedal on hate in the way

because they pedal on hate in the way that only Chris describes no thank you

that only Chris describes no thank you the second issue with o is that they

the second issue with o is that they don't prove why left parties and outside

don't prove why left parties and outside of the house will continue to fight

of the house will continue to fight poverty in the way they describe so a

poverty in the way they describe so a large part of the argument is missing

large part of the argument is missing right they say parties on government

right they say parties on government side don't deal with economic issues but

side don't deal with economic issues but the second part to prove why left

the second part to prove why left parties do this is missing I would note

parties do this is missing I would note empirically a large reason why these

empirically a large reason why these parties rose on government side is

parties rose on government side is because Center left parties first

because Center left parties first abandoned the working class right it was

abandoned the working class right it was first the case that the Democratic party

first the case that the Democratic party ran towards the middle or new labor

ran towards the middle or new labor occurred in the UK and then you got the

occurred in the UK and then you got the rise of far parties on their side of the

rise of far parties on their side of the house no thank you so it's not

house no thank you so it's not necessarily clear why these parties

necessarily clear why these parties continue to fight poverty on our side

continue to fight poverty on our side CO's case has a far lower burden we

CO's case has a far lower burden we don't necessarily need to prove to you

don't necessarily need to prove to you that the Left Right Spectrum as exists

that the Left Right Spectrum as exists in our counterfactual world will do all

in our counterfactual world will do all of the good things that opening

of the good things that opening opposition suggests necessarily all we

opposition suggests necessarily all we need to prove is that the structural

need to prove is that the structural incentives of those parties means that

incentives of those parties means that they are less likely to Pedal in hate

they are less likely to Pedal in hate xenophobia and the other kinds of

xenophobia and the other kinds of rhetoric that CHR describes to you no

rhetoric that CHR describes to you no thank you let's talk about what Chris

thank you let's talk about what Chris gives you the framing I would give for

gives you the framing I would give for Chris's argument is that democracy and

Chris's argument is that democracy and its survival as a political system and

its survival as a political system and not just a collection of rules is prior

not just a collection of rules is prior to everything else right if the

to everything else right if the Democracy no longer functions then none

Democracy no longer functions then none of the voters can be represented CG says

of the voters can be represented CG says a few things to this the first thing

a few things to this the first thing they say is there is more radicalization

they say is there is more radicalization on our side when you only have the Left

on our side when you only have the Left Right Spectrum I would note that it's

Right Spectrum I would note that it's true you can run to the ends of the

true you can run to the ends of the spectrum on our side but there are no

spectrum on our side but there are no votes there right the reason these are

votes there right the reason these are French positions is because they are

French positions is because they are ones in which voters don't exist without

ones in which voters don't exist without the political realignment which only

the political realignment which only exists on government side of the house

exists on government side of the house no thank you the second thing they say

no thank you the second thing they say is that people outside the establishment

is that people outside the establishment are the ones who push these policies on

are the ones who push these policies on their side that's precisely the problem

their side that's precisely the problem right Chris shows to you why the only

right Chris shows to you why the only way in which people outside the

way in which people outside the establishment can enter the political

establishment can enter the political Arena without backing from for example

Arena without backing from for example major doners of other political parties

major doners of other political parties currently is to pedal and hateful

currently is to pedal and hateful rhetoric blame immigrants and all those

rhetoric blame immigrants and all those kinds of things opening in India the

kinds of things opening in India the only option for an opposition party that

only option for an opposition party that cares for the minorities or for the

cares for the minorities or for the millions of disregarded Farmers by the

millions of disregarded Farmers by the BJP seems to be anti-hindu nationalist

BJP seems to be anti-hindu nationalist so you do not Ed only the shift away

so you do not Ed only the shift away from this where you have more fractions

from this where you have more fractions of individuals who can in fact go up

of individuals who can in fact go up that can have be a solution for the ways

that can have be a solution for the ways that we describe that CG doesn't weigh

that we describe that CG doesn't weigh against and you don't at all respond to

against and you don't at all respond to yeah so the point is that it is only

yeah so the point is that it is only seen as anti-hindu nationalist in your

seen as anti-hindu nationalist in your world when Hindu nationalism comes to

world when Hindu nationalism comes to the four which is precisely the problem

the four which is precisely the problem described in Chris's speech what is the

described in Chris's speech what is the counterfactual on our side and why is it

counterfactual on our side and why is it that establishment parties don't pedal

that establishment parties don't pedal in hate in the way we suggest they're

in hate in the way we suggest they're systemically less likely to do this

systemically less likely to do this because they are more subject to things

because they are more subject to things like the public sphere of media

like the public sphere of media regulation right when the guardian of

regulation right when the guardian of the BBC calls out a major party for

the BBC calls out a major party for engaging a hateful rhetoric that is much

engaging a hateful rhetoric that is much more likely to stick because that party

more likely to stick because that party has been around for far longer and it

has been around for far longer and it can't just simply run away to a new

can't just simply run away to a new party that's why Party Loyalty contrary

party that's why Party Loyalty contrary to OG and CG is a good thing because

to OG and CG is a good thing because people who have loyal to the party are

people who have loyal to the party are more likely to hold it to account right

more likely to hold it to account right the people who hold the labor party to

the people who hold the labor party to account in the UK are precisely the

account in the UK are precisely the strongest labor supporters they are the

strongest labor supporters they are the ones who criticize it and tell it when

ones who criticize it and tell it when it's going in the wrong direction what

it's going in the wrong direction what does OG then say OG says you need to

does OG then say OG says you need to compromise O's response is is you won't

compromise O's response is is you won't compromise because issues are important

compromise because issues are important Chris's extension proves even if you get

Chris's extension proves even if you get compromis it is bad compromise we

compromis it is bad compromise we shouldn't be compromising with the afd

shouldn't be compromising with the afd in Germany or Eric zamore in France

in Germany or Eric zamore in France because that just drives us to the far

because that just drives us to the far right and compromise gives you a less

right and compromise gives you a less functional government because these

functional government because these coalitions are much more likely to be

coalitions are much more likely to be fractious and unstable finally when it

fractious and unstable finally when it comes to social issues they are likely

comes to social issues they are likely to be accepted on our side when they

to be accepted on our side when they gain large social attaction and

gain large social attaction and otherwise there's no solvency on their

otherwise there's no solvency on their side for all of those reasons oppose

[Music] [Applause]

thank you very much for that speech I hope you enjoyed the finals and if you

hope you enjoyed the finals and if you did please have a big round of applause

did please have a big round of applause for all the

[Music] finalists we said all of the finalist

finalists we said all of the finalist guys uh good luck to all teams uh cross

guys uh good luck to all teams uh cross floor shake hands go

floor shake hands go side uh and see you at the socials thank

side uh and see you at the socials thank you

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 Transcript:Panama WUDC 2025 Open Finals

Video Transcript

Paste YouTube URL

Transcript Extraction Form

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube Transcript:
Panama WUDC 2025 Open Finals