WSDC 2015 QF: SA vs SG
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ย. 2015
- The Quarter-Final round of the 2015 World Schools Debating Championships held in Singapore. The motion was THBT affirmative action policies are counterproductive in reducing inequalities. The debate featured Team South Africa in Proposition and Team Singapore in Opposition. This debate was won by Team Singapore.
THE STARTING OF BRYAN YAN REPLY SPEECH IS SO SAVAGEEEEEE "Sometimes the best indicator of when a team has lost a debate is when they chose to drop an entire argument we ran,,,"
My left ear is so lonely.
Prop 3 is like goals in life
Broooo she ateee
The third prop's annalysis was amazing but she didn't deal with half of opp's points. pity...
Outstanding performance by both teams!
3rd proposition speaker was fantastic!
thank you for posting this
Point of information sir!!!!!
29:29 The guy on the SA team's Ron Weasley face is perfect. Teach me sensei.
He went to my school
what was the topic of this debate
Swatting at him like he's a fly😂😂😂
Wooow
The 2 3ed speakers are on some other level of good
At 20:58 her analysis is off. She describes a discriminatory society without measures to address structural inequality(such as the exclusion of women from the workplace) as being "normal". She also seems to think that people will in her "normal" society not think that the woman who gets a job on merit would not be there because of being a woman, case in point, the Hillary Clinton candidacy in the US. Some people still think that she is only there because she is a woman. It is not the job of the state to deal with biases that exist in society, its duty is to rather usurp any institutions that may 1) reflect those biases, and; 2) enforce those biases by systematically discriminating against women.
But then they're whole case is about changing those perceptions first in society which already rebuts that point on Hillary Clinton. To say listen because woman on their own merit will not be respected, quota system worsen those ideas because this is directly favouring them. I think the problem came at the counterpolicy
I'm south african but I must admit we were fighting a losing battle
the first speaker of the affirmative was awesome
Team RSA missed the debate by not characterizing AA correctly and not stating which ways of AA policies are counterproductive. Singapore was correct on how RSA was not defending each other's points, especially prop 1's ideas. Otherwise good debate
The second speaker of side proposition also has points which make no sense; because a group that has been discriminated against is being helped into the state, then they will be vilified more.Say what? They are vilified already. During apartheid, black people were seen as a threat and denied of equal pay, will denying them of equal pay in a democratic South Africa lead to less regression(because discrimination that has already occurred has already caused most of it anyway)?
hear hear
I get what u mean, I guess she meant that AA doesn’t solve the problem it was meant to fix, it makes it worse in government, where before you could address inequality and discrimination, opp’s world if a politician even attempts to address theses issues which would still exist, they will be shut down on the basis that “we’ve felt with this, we gave them quotas we stoped other people from other groups getting to those positions, so don’t say there is a issue” essentially halting any progress in the long term, I’m not sure I’d agree, but I get her point.
Their style is so great
My man's is trying to get in a poi but is being denied
Daammnn😂😂😂
whats the motion
affirmative action
@@agentagrapeseedlingj5647 That's not a motion. 😭😭
BYRON COLLEGE DEBATE
Gov 3 slayed
Cool!
i am south korean speaker is very good at english
WOW the whip is such a great speaker! Literally didn't accept POIs lol
Im South African but the Singaporeans won hands down.
How long did these debaters have to prepare?
1 hour
padawan 6175 Here in Canada, we get 15 minutes to prepare for impromptu and I could come up with far better points than the South African team. Kudos to the Singaporean’s, they actually had great points
@@saranshchaudhary5228 I think ur talking about CNDF, where yes, we do only have 15 minutes to prep. In WSDC, it is around 1 hour.
damn why is the ginger boi so aggressive
I love it how its 3 white people from South Africa debating 3 asians
@@bubbleteabeatboxxthis guy is rascist
bryan yan roasting prop
it was easy to say that "black guy" in 2015
Secondly, the first speaker's assumption that addressing inequality is mutually exclusive of addressing women's lives has weak legs to stand on: the indicator of economic disparities amongst groups of people, is the difference in the lived experiences of those groups. Wealthy women, for example, are less prone to being raped as compared to women who live poor lives in the villages. So addressing the economic inequalities does directly speak to addressing the issues of women.
He also argues that affirmative action has very little to do with reforming the educational sphere. The surge of strikes in the higher educational sphere in South Africa with regards to more inclusive language policies(UP,2015) and the lowering of fees in general shows that in order for transformation to be fully effective, it has to have a more entrenched meaning in the university space. Any transformative agenda in society should also reflect an intention to include previously excluded groups in its core. By deciding that the basic definition of team proposition does not reflect that, he attempted(and dismally failed) to rid affirmative action of its merit. He should have looked into the admission policy of universities in his own country, or the USA, where black people are favoured in order to increase the amount of social equity held by the black communities in both countries. Because of this very reason alone, skills are not an issue. He should just sit down.
Nicely done but How does increasing social equity related to the skill argument brought up by 1st speaker?
I need you help .
SA had arguments which make almost no sense; they were willing to put the perceptions of racists ahead of the need for economic redress. Similarly, they prioritize capital flight ahead of integrating those who have been discriminated against. To me, it sounds as if the are saying: Pete and Co. will take jobs and go to Europe and leave everyone if you take the capital that they worked (not so) hard for.
wut da hell ish dis
Useful only for debators only LOL…