2015 HWS Round Robin Finals
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 เม.ย. 2015
- Motion: This house believes that prominent civil society activists should choose not to run for elected office.
OG: Cambridge (Dunn-Goekjian / Kumar)
OO: Harvard (Mashwama / Seo)
CG: Hart House (Flynn / Sundarsingh)
CO: Hart House (Goswami / McGrade)
ashish AND bo seo opening the debate? way too overpowered
Ashish, Dunn, Bo, Fanele and Joe, all in one room. O.O
All star debate! Awesome. Bo Seo is a god.
what harvard became?
Hart House on CO
On a 3-2 split!
(Also, kind of gutted to miss you at the RR this year!)
@@AshishXiangyiKumar i thought it was 4-3 split?
41:39 powerful strawman in response to the POI lmao i wonder if panel caught it
13:50
OL Speech Transcript:
Mr. Speaker, it seems fitting in this room with giant (...) of debaters that prominence is not the same thing as power. The world that we envision from government is this: why in the perfect willingness means to go for even the (...) positions means they far fewer Senators, far fewer Congressmen, far fewer judges and far fewer technocrats who work within the seat of power. Thus, why this claim about true trailblazers is repleted with ambiguity. Either is the case that we have Obama, and no one else in the history of American Presidencies, or, under their side, you have people who belong to minorities with no track record in civil rights running for these positions. Clarence Thomas [a revisionist conservative judge] being the only African American within the seat of power. That seems ridiculous.
The lack of smears that these guys claim is a benefit doesn't come out of some pure exercise. It's because that people who are on the margins, people who are portrayed as simply yelling rather than trying to get real changes aren't smearing at all because they are portrayed and they represent no significant threat to the seats of power. Three arguments from our side, integrated throughout.
First: how does this change the tone of the movement?
We think there are two biggest problems facing political movements at this. First is a nihilist concept that is both self-defeating and self-fulfilling - that is to say, when they avow and they disavow government legal institutions that are the only shot that we have at getting political change and constantly talk about how ineffective they are, they then become ineffective through that rhetoric. The second and biggest problem, is that they are seen as being without objective, right? This is either that they are purely intellectual who have no concerns for the lives of real people, or they're an angry irrational mob with no real direction. Why does our suggestion improve and brings correction to this problem?
First, it focuses all deliberation on the question of policy - that is to say you now bring concrete proposal on the problems. That means you need to look further than your immediate circle. So when these guys talk about people talking about like 'food policies', 'economic policies', that don't have to do with race, we see that's an incredibly important thing. That is to say you don't just want, as a black candidate, to complain about police laws because that forces you to ignore the way in which economic policies, the ways in which tax policies, the way in which voting and labour policies also oppress you. If the entire system of government as they say is waged against these minorities, it's important they don't get reduced to a single issue, but rather they see as all facets of government policy are contributive to their harm.
The second way in which this is an important correctivist measure - reduces the narcissism of small differences and reduces the in-fighting within these groups. That is to say that people need to unite behind a single candidate, because it doesn't make sense for them to have multiple people running up against each other. We say that with infighting, these movements are much more likely to go down. That means you get coalitions within the groups aligned with other groups - that means to say you work with consensual concerns to build coalitions with women fronts, or with others if you are, for example, representing a racial minority.
The third, Mr. Speaker, is that you increase the support from the outside. That is to say you change the tone to emphasize communality and common citizenship rather than alienating other bases who don't belong to the same racial group or the same gender group. To respond brieftly and directly to the idea of appealing to as many sizes as possible - first, this is based on the offensive assumption that aren't two different ways to be black or to have two different views of what means to be black. That is to say a conservative and a liberal could very well have very different suggestions for what is oppressive and what is going to best corrective for that. Political parties allow them to do that. But moreover, if these guys can talk about smearing, about how so much of this stuff is uncontroversial, (...)
Second argument: this signals and forces these minority groups to focus on enfranchisement. First, they [political people] play an important role as rolemodels. When these guys talk about trailblazers, they implicitly recognize the importance of this.
First, within the scope of the campaigns themselves. Government has totally missed the comparison in this debate. The point of "ideological purity" is that pure (?), dense (?) takes up less space. That is to say that it gets less traction. So even on the instance that you get [...] the same number of words spoken, in the same ways, you don't hear from these common civil rights ativists at all because you don't get a table at a presidential debate which almost every voting citizen has chosen to watch during prime time. You don't get the coverage that you get under our side.
But once they are here, it's important for people to recognize that members of traditionally disenfranchised people have more to them than just talking about alterity. That is to say that they are able to have positive suggestions that are going to be benefitial to society; that they are able to talk on a range of issues, including, yes, the environment, right? So we think that the ability to go across and to talk about a bunch of issues is important, not only because it represents their concerns, but it benefits their perceptions of it, which has been largely ignored for hundreds of years.
On government. What does this means for the stages of power once they take that role? First of all, we're going to say they break a perspective at best. This is the case with technocrats, for judges, for all appointees that these guys are happy to exclude. That is to say the fact that a social minority can look at the situation as it really is helps them become, for example, better judges. That is to say this isn't a perspective you bring externally, but that that person is in the room [aware of the problems] at all times, given that the thing that oppresses minorities isn't single policies, but the range of policies and the way they work together, so that presence in the room is incredibly important.
But moreover, it will allows for the building of coalitions that will require internal party support and focusing those gives-and-takes in breaking real problems. Prominece is not the same as power, and it's only us that are defending the last one for these groups.
14:04 , ashish's expression!! BRUH!
Winner?
Hart House on CO
Can someone explain why CO took over OO?
i mean CO>OO is quite clear? I think there is a reasonable case for OG>CO.
OG with the microphone is so obnoxious lmao
Opp was way too overpowered.
Gov needs Shengwu Li on closing gov
The decision was split between OG and CO. So not really.
Who won?
Hart House on CO
@@markso5834 What is the ranking?
@@ADWYETYATRIPATHYBEI Winner CO, Runner-up OG, other teams listed "finalist"
Thanks a ton @@captainrocket7187