- 2
- 107 981
Bodhi Silberling
United States
เข้าร่วมเมื่อ 27 มิ.ย. 2017
NSDA Nationals 2022 - World Schools Debate Final Round
Team West Los Angeles Violet (proposition) wins the National Tournament on a 10-3 decision over Western Ohio Blue.
The prepared motion for the final round is: “This House believes that housing is a guaranteed right.”
West Los Angeles Violet: Katie Babb from New West Charter, Sungjoo Yoon (2nd speaker) from Burbank High School, Bodhi Silberling from Sierra Canyon School, Alex Lee (3rd speaker) from Harvard-Westlake School, and Nadia Chung (1st and reply speaker) from La Cañada High School.
Western Ohio Blue: Olivia Declercq (3rd speaker) and Stephen Frank from Whitmer High School, Bhuvan Meruga (2nd and reply speaker), Kunal Ponkshe, and Nikith Vangala (1st speaker) from William Mason High School.
00:00 Introduction
00:55 Proposition acknowledgments
03:35 1st Proposition (Nadia Chung)
12:28 Opposition acknowledgments
15:07 1st Opposition (Nikith Vangala)
24:09 2nd Proposition (Sungjoo Yoon)
33:01 2nd Opposition (Bhuvan Meruga)
41:36 3rd Proposition (Alex Lee)
50:21 3rd Opposition (Olivia Declerq)
59:05 Opposition Reply (Bhuvan Meruga)
1:03:49 Proposition Reply (Nadia Chung)
(World Schools Debating Championships, WSDC, WUDC, speech and debate, congressional debate, congress, house, senate, lincoln douglas, policy, usx, ix, international extemporaneous, public forum, parliamentary, impromptu, USA Debate, national debate team, Louisville, Kentucky)
The prepared motion for the final round is: “This House believes that housing is a guaranteed right.”
West Los Angeles Violet: Katie Babb from New West Charter, Sungjoo Yoon (2nd speaker) from Burbank High School, Bodhi Silberling from Sierra Canyon School, Alex Lee (3rd speaker) from Harvard-Westlake School, and Nadia Chung (1st and reply speaker) from La Cañada High School.
Western Ohio Blue: Olivia Declercq (3rd speaker) and Stephen Frank from Whitmer High School, Bhuvan Meruga (2nd and reply speaker), Kunal Ponkshe, and Nikith Vangala (1st speaker) from William Mason High School.
00:00 Introduction
00:55 Proposition acknowledgments
03:35 1st Proposition (Nadia Chung)
12:28 Opposition acknowledgments
15:07 1st Opposition (Nikith Vangala)
24:09 2nd Proposition (Sungjoo Yoon)
33:01 2nd Opposition (Bhuvan Meruga)
41:36 3rd Proposition (Alex Lee)
50:21 3rd Opposition (Olivia Declerq)
59:05 Opposition Reply (Bhuvan Meruga)
1:03:49 Proposition Reply (Nadia Chung)
(World Schools Debating Championships, WSDC, WUDC, speech and debate, congressional debate, congress, house, senate, lincoln douglas, policy, usx, ix, international extemporaneous, public forum, parliamentary, impromptu, USA Debate, national debate team, Louisville, Kentucky)
มุมมอง: 107 344
Hernandez Karen Lewis David Anderson Cynthia
Oh well I am trying to improve my debate skills there any way I can do that or is there anyone willing to coach me?
Taylor Kenneth Walker Melissa Davis Dorothy
third proposition speaker had me SCREAMINGGG HE COOKED SO HARD
Logcon in World Schools...
Alex starting his speech with, “no, no no. This house Believes that housing is a guaranteed right” that was so cool!…. As a debater hoping to be in the Korean WSDC team, so happy to see this;;
I saw you on the other video on debates
First speaker i know is so nervous but its hard to understand her. Need to talk in a calm pace n take a deep breath. She sounds good but understandably nervous.
Thanks for uploading this!
Who won this round? If it's team opp., I wouldn't be surprised...Nvm I just read the description. I think team opp. should've won
Prop won
team opp wasnt even close to winning
The opposition team was right in their interpretation of the motion. Words mean things and this was a sloppily worded proposition. If the housing really was a guaranteed right then why is homelessness so endemic in the USA and around the world?
I completely agree, and I’m sure the opposition had a second 1st opposition script in case the first team had properly interpreted the (poorly worded) motion
The whole point is that no reasonable tournament would set a motion asking a team to argue that homelessness does not exist. This debate was supposed to be about whether or not governments should enshrine it as a right - which has both good and bad effects. The opposition team wasn't just wrong, they were egregiously wrong.
@@yoonsj128they weren’t wrong in their interpretation though, just on what you believe is a moral-standing
because its a believes motion they are arguing about wether or not it should be a right not if it could actually be implemented. Although practical impacts exist, its more heavy on wether or not guaranteed housing is a right.
It is like a belive motion. So the opp will belive that it is possible but weather or not it should be done or not. There are many disadvantages of this. Opposition could look at them and won easily
This could have been a great debate if opposition had not misunderstood the motion. Proposition came in strong. Good job.
Wait, so pro is aground it’s a human right, and Con is aground it’s a human right but people don’t have access. But pro used cons argument as evidence, or am I misinterpreting it
I thought it should have been closer and Western Ohio Blue won. It is almost childish to think guaranteed housing could ever be available in the modernized countries, let alone the underdeveloped parts, sadly.
Nah i think prop cleared this round. Your point makes sense, but that’s not what opp argued. Instead they went heavy on definitional challenges that tried to corner prop into disproving a truism. The substantive opp brought was ‘homeless people and displaced people exist on both sides of the house’, therefore opp wins. Their lack of substantive material that is mutually exclusive is also a bit iffy. To be honest, I think the reason opp lost was misunderstanding the motion. I dont blame them for that though, the wording of the motion is pretty impossible to understand. But even if you dont take that into account, its clear prop still wins due to the mutually exclusive substantive arguments brought in first, which have much greater impact than anything opp ended up bringing to this debate.
Decisions on who should win isn't based on what you actually think will work in irl. It's based off of the argumentation made by both teams and who made the better argumentation and refutation.
I’m new to this. I’ll study this vid later. Interested in learning how to handle my emotions with complete control during debates. Is there a place where we can get debate training?
are you in high school?
i am give me tips @@aceott8690
if you're a high schooler and your school offers speech and debate join it. if you're in highschool but aren't offered the class : do some heavy research into public forum (world schools isn't widely done for tournaments, i think nsda does it but for the most part you won't do it unless you're in college, go to nationals for it, or it's your debate final) or lincoln douglas debate. you can look at the motions for all types of debate for the next month (not sure when spring topics are up). You can attend opener tournaments and regular tournaments as an independent (not from a school debate team) but i think there's a fee.
Asking the same question 🤔
So, do you get the other teams arguments before the debate or do you guess what they are going to say and kind of throw it in there after you hear their arguments? It seems like you knew exactly what their questions were and already had an answer ready. Even the most intelligent person can’t formulate a response in half a second after being asked a question.
in the prep time, you think of possible arguments for the opponent team and prepare answers before hand, and for knew questions/argument if you understand the motion you can just formulate a rebuttal
Good debaters do formulate a response in half a second
after a while you just get the same type of questions and you can answer pretty similar.
Now you have seen one.😊
Ah, yeah, lets debate on whether people have a right to have a roof over their heads 😍
did you watch the video?? not a single minute of the debate was spent arguing over that
@@aceott8690 it doesnt matter what they argued, this topic itself is just quite bad. And yeah, I did watch it, and they definitely did discuss the principle
Argh. Trying to get through this First Ladies screeching. My head.
Wdym
one of the view debates on TH-cam with actually good audio
The fact that I’m watching this makes me a nerd
It’s fascinating how most of the speakers are Asians (biologically)
what rhe hell does this mean? "asians (biologically)" the fuck
the actual debate could have been around these teams wearing masks.
What the hell did i just find. I thought the title was ironic.
As a fellow debater, the framing of the motion you guys established in the first proposition speech is phenomenal. Your frontining of the definition later is simply amazing. Congrats!
This is quite possibly the single worst world schools motion that I have ever seen
Bro is spittin facts
how come
wait so are you saying they did bad?
@@simarpawar5295 they ended up arguing two diffrent things, due to unclear wording. It could have been really interesting but they spent forever on definitional challenges.
Ong
That’s great trip
Absolutely lover the debate ❤️. The second and third proposition speaker aced it. The points from the proposition were really well presented in a more significant manner as compared to the opposition. I think that's what allowed u guys to win with such a Lead. The 2nd opposition speaker also did really well and overall olboth sides were great. I mean from an opposition point of view, it's impossible to counter "an ideal society has to have the housing" cause that's also a truism.
this is actually the most horrible motion I've ever seen
realistically, it's not possible for houses to be guaranteed.
Oh but it is, you'd be surprised. I believe you're not taking on to account the quality of the houses. but the again you are just claiming "its not possible". and i dont know what you mean by that.
Alex Lee guy is good 🙌
.☠️.⚰️.NO MORE SCHOOLS.⚰️.☠️.
th-cam.com/video/4a9duPVLmlU/w-d-xo.html
Wait so who won ?I think the Burden on team proposition was way too heavy
Team Proposition Won on a 10-3 decision I believe. Congrats🎉
Is this sped up?
nope
debaters just talk fast (difference between speed talking and talking fast to make and argue points) and when we talk fast while using our hands we tend to have more sporadic movement 😸
my school sent 16 ppl to nationals i think this past year! congrats !
congrats!!!!!
Congratulations, Bodhi!
LOUISSSSSS
dubs dubs dubs dubs dubs dubs
I'm Nadia's coach. So happy to see this online.
You coached her to being one of the best 😍😍
Best 1/4 NA (in north america)
TIYA!!! I never could have been on that stage without you. Thank you for shaping me as a debater and person❣️
I was looking up the Harry Potter world school video to show in my world schools class lol and saw they put the debate online. You guys did so well. So proud of you.
Props to you coach
u americans are something else
fax
Congratulations on winning. Is there a way where I can see more debates from your team and from you? If so where can I find that?
Unfortunately there was no recording permitted of any of the other rounds.
Hi! How frequently does NSDA host tournaments in WSDC format? And are they all online?
The NSDA allows two teams from every district along with some international teams at nationals. The "WSDC" circuit on Tabroom should show every world schools tournament other than nationals, but many of them will most likely be in-person next year.
@@bodhisilberling8763 that was crystal-clear, tysm! btw congrats to u and ur teammates you guys absolutely deserve it!!
@@shanghaistudentvoices1322 thank you so much!!