วีดีโอ

First few mins up to 5:00 was so hard to watch...

Did P2 do only rebuttal? 😭 Whhere were his arguments? 😭

We love you Henry! You ROCK! 🎸❤❤🤘

What hacker is Chinese neocolonialism?

Hi,do u hv the recoding of Uhuru 2024 Grand Final

I don't have liberal bias, but I felt that criticize leftist's arrogance while claim progressive policies are inherently bad is so contradictory

Who won?

Lucia Arce!

that one mf still waiting for this 1h long debate to finish and consider his decision to press the button or not

just wanna say, 3rd opp flopped

Starts at 3:50.

opp heavy

what is clinical rebuttal

nice

CAN WE GET THE OTHER SEMI

Harish POI to tin lmfao

WHERE ARE OTHER VIDEOS FOR THE ROUNDS MISSING???!

third impact from Naomi for sustained political will is crazy

Where are some of the opp speeches?

Tin has legs?

Ask one poi toward prop: What if throughout the calculations of the AI that the quickest way to reduce the global sufferings is to let those poor die out? How would prop dealt with that?

I love tobi leung

Who is the dof?

Joss bhai

Who won?

Bro how did you guys record this?

Opposition and their water bottles through 😂 Great debate

what is this sound quality

I think they could use tin pulijic speech in wudc 22 finals😊

dpm got cooked

Developing countries like Africa that are poor right now? Come and show me your account balance nnam, I'll double it if you're rich.

Imagine winning a round from OG with an entire constitution for an infoslide 💀

can you add a video with toby leung as whip? i didnt find any

If anyone was curious, OG and OO advanced in this round.

rankings?

dpm cooked

Prop: The national identity that is most likely to emerge is one with increased State impunity, excludes minorities, and is to the benefit of the privileged majority and whitewashes the history of the State. Five reasons why: Incentives to stay in power->Exclusion along ethnic/racial lines Image of proclaiming prosperity->admiration of holdovers/conservative outlooks from past->Socially regressive Tie nationality to identity of groups in power->generates glory, desirability, and honor. Ingroups and outgroups->scapegoat from personal/policy failing. Vague nationalistic values->election buy in and criticism of other politicians who fail on these values. Comparative: Dissipation of exclusive national identity based on patriotism. State is not the primary locus of identity. 1)Globalization->Exposure to other cultures+interactions with other people 2)Fact-finding->makes people less proud of atrocities in the past 3)Developing new communities=alternative structure. These incentives can only activate in a world without the State artificially curtailing globalization, limiting information, and breaking down communities. Argument 1: State Power and Accountability Emboldened State violence on Opp: 1)Attack on policy=Attack on State+Fabric of the country 2)Naysayers=Unpatriotic+Too critical of the founding fathers 3)Appeals to fear->Degradation of nationalism(“We are losing our way of life”) Impacts: 1)Manifestation through force: Military expansion+fund for the military/industrial complex while immune from public accountability. 2)Instantiated violence against minorities because it is encouraged. 3)Political Stagnation: Existing parties can claim legacy->No social change like education. 4)Less welfare because money goes to the vanity of patriotism and to cultivate nationalism. Argument 2: Minorities 1)Minorities cannot learn their mother tongue, learn a false history of their culture, and are discriminated against. 2)Much harder to immigrate. 3)Less normalized for minorities to exist and be human. Opp: States will promote nationalism in a good way: 1)Established State wants internal stability->no backlash from segments+moderates who do not want mass repression even targeted not at them 2)Established States are electoral accountable to minorities. Often acts as swing votes in multi-party systems and pulls concessions+appeal to left wingers. 3)Established States do not want international ostracization. Israel doesn’t annex the West bank. Morocco not annexing South Sahara. 4)Government represents a large segment of the electorate. Most states are pluralist to an extent->incentive for national narratives to move center. 5)World is liberalizing overtime(Internet, young generations, decline of organized religion, integration across communities, and large migration leading to policy shift). So the curation becomes more progressive over time. Comparative: Both sides' national identity occurs. Our national identity is top down, curated by the government, and Prop is bottom up. This is because the idea of globalism is limited in terms of appeal. Global identity is vague, i.e. are we dissolving borders? Absent nationalism, people default to their ethnic or racial identities simply because of proximity. 1)When organic narratives emerge, they are more likely to be majoritarian built around ethnic lines. People who have the most voices in public squares push these narratives. Comparatively, these people have influences on the State, but the State is responsible for many groups of people and international actors to establish in and out built moderation mechanisms. In the worst case of hegemonic identity at the top, we have more recourse for minority and moderate to influence the State. 2)Organic narratives are fragmented. Competing interpretations of identity without the State centralizing force to grow unity. Leads to race the bottom where the most radical one gets media attention. Allows demagogues and populist to exploit tension. 3)Even if progressive change happens on both sides, organic forces are more malleable by outside forces. Progress happens faster with top down imposition. Argument 2: People are entitled to national identity State is a vehicle through which people understand the world. Being American is a cohesive way to understand my identity. Prop is a world of a football stadium without knowing what you are cheering for. A world where you draw your first breath and exhale your last in a state of moral incoherence. We give Argentina an ability to unambiguously cheer for Messi.

Leader of Opposition what are those glasses? LMAO😂

I’ve met the Korean team before in person they’re all so cool

Who won?

The Canadian team could have talked abt that AI is created and programmed by (humans) and how that contradicts the opponents' view, as the AI still won't treat everyone equally since it gets its information from the network, which it obviously is very subjective.

THANK YOU SO MUCH! Please keep updating!! all of the videos are so helpful

rly like this channel because there arent many debate recordings online but if something cud be done about the quality that wud be so gud

I’m really curious about what OG said to win this great round. Would anyone like to brief it here?😊

result: opp bench

4:40. 1st Prop. 13:45. 1st Opp.

Such a good CG speeches

LO Transcript: Proposition’s case reminds me of every anti-technology activist that has ever existed. No, we shouldn’t have more medicine because the rich will be able to buy it more tho people will live longer. These are extremely generic arguments that will not win them the debate. Four responses to OG: 1)OG cannot just assert that our senses are the only way to explore the world. There are other ways to be humans. But also, we fuck with our senses all the time. When people are depressed, we give them long term antidepressants understanding they depend on them to function. It changes their emotions and outlook yet it improves their lives. People can consent to that because people have emotions and choosing to alter or not have those emotions is better for them. 2)Inequality isn’t bad as long as everyone improves their living conditions. But second, everything Prop says is marginal. The SQ is fucked up, not only random. The rich have tutor and access to healthware and a host of other non transhumanist ways to allow all these asymmetries to occur. 3)Regulation is likely to solve commercialization. This invention is made with usually scientific processes, and the FDA is going to require approval. Also the pressure of commercialization is the same for all other types of medicines. 4)Social change is not really necessary when no one feels sad and angry. But second is that transhumanism pushes for control instead of the removal of emotions artificially. This means people can choose to be angry where they think is necessary for them. People who fight for social issues are likely to keep that anger as they see it as important to them. These are things worthy of being angry about. Framing: Who are prominent transhumanists and how does the narrative get defined: The likely people who are transhumanists are the people who have the most plausible view of how it is possible for transhumanist technology to come about. So we are talking about narratives primarily driven by scientists in the field like neuroscience. These people are trained through ethical studies for example on pitching their research to panels that conduct ethical reviews in thinking about these considerations of the kind of transhumanist technology they promote. Argument 1: Transhumanism is a good narrative to gather funding for other scientific endeavors, so even if we never invent the technology, there is still benefit. The problem with scientific funding in the SQ is that they seem progressless. It seems tackling dementia is insurmountable because it’s incredibly hard to make incremental progress on treating dementia patients beyond alleviating symptoms. This means it’s incredibly hard to convince funding bodies to give you money to tackle the root causes of dementia. However, if you pitch transhumanist projects to them, this seems like something that is sexy and can make incremental improvement. You are able to augment the human mind and along the way you necessarily gain understanding of how the human mind functions. This means you often get ancillary benefits that are good for humanity. Argument 2: A better understanding of our biological limitation is better for how we interact with each other: 1)We have a greater understanding of qualitative and quantitative limitations of humans and those limitations arise neurologically. This means we can approach them more objectively where the narrative is that certain parts of our body are a function of our biology instead of ourselves that one can overcome those things. 2)People can more easily buy into those narratives from a transhumanist perspective because they are not a fundamental flaw of themselves so people engage more actively to solve their issues. Argument 3: Transhumanist technology is good: 1)Increased intelligence is really beneficial for people to research more benefits for humanity. If we have the artificial capacity to store information, we can store a mass amount of studies from different fields so you are not locked out of the research you would have been. Research has stacked so high nobody can really read those existing research to make further contributions. 2)Increasing longevity is good for not dying. 3)Even if this technology is not accessible, people still benefit: 1)Other technology subsumed has become obsolete. When technology gets obsolete, there is less competition to them in terms of demand. This means other technologies that are actually good for the poor become more accessible. This is good because even if inequality increases, their baseline quality of life is better by accessing medicine they can’t in the SQ. 2)The technology will be accessible because people have incentives for people to have smarter or less tired people within their workforce. Therefore, businesses want to make this technology cheap or at least subsidized, especially in the long run when we have cheaper ways of producing these goods. Argument 4: Our body is a prison and we should have the choice to alter it When you are anxious and you cannot talk or if your physical capacity means you shit yourself as an old person in bed cause you couldn’t control your bowels, your ability to exercise your autonomy is stolen from nature. It was arbitrary that you were born into a body that restricts what you want to do. Government is saying you are not able to change that and you cannot live the life you want to be. This is an assault on a person’s dignity, and any movement attempting to take that assault away is a principally obligatory one.

2:01. 1st Prop. 10:12. 1st Opp.