Thessaloniki WUDC 2016 - Finals | Open Final 

PM's speech: Madame chair, the global poor, all around the world and no matter what country in which they live, currently live under in a system of dictatorship. They live under a dictatorship known as no alternative, shackled by capital that have been unjustly acquired, constrained by landed gentry that have no incentive but to pursue they own interests and chained by the fact they can´t do anything but to look at the question of their own subsistence, they are unable to reach out the right to liberty and the self-determination that we think inheres in the human condition. How are we going to define a Marxist revolution in this debate? We say that in all its forms it shares the feature of wanting to break down the system of private property, that’s what a Marxist revolution means. It can take place in one of two ways. One, it can happen through internal systems, that is to say you voting Marxist governments who support things like mass redistribution and the abolishment of private property, or it can exist externally in the instance of forcibly bringing down governments that for far too long have treat in this people lives. The first thing that I am going to note just on account of the model is just a picture of what we think this world looks like, that is to say that we accept that this attempt to revolution won´t succeed in all instances, that in many just lead to the rise of Marxist parties but in the world succeed we encourage you to use your imagination, that is to say, just notice how chrono centric our vision of civilization is that is a system of private property emerged out of the enlighten that is the las 300 hundred years of human existence, prior to that people lived in sharing economies where they defined themselves as something greater than their labor and their productive force, that is the kind of world that we support. Two things then I'm going to begin with this speech, First, private property constitutes a fundamental assault in human dignity in three key respects, First, it is found and in has been acquired unjustly. In the vast majority of instances, the reason why wealthy countries are wealthy is trough processes like colonialism, through slavery, through patriarchy, it represents plunder when you refuse to give any representation or resources to whom and from whom you money but even if it wasn´t in those direct instances of theft in many instances it was negligence, that´s to say the creation of vastly constrictive intellectual property rates that means that individuals don´t in the poor have proper access to things like medication, its refusal to tax properly. We think negligence is morally culpable. The fact that it is unjustly acquired in and of itself gives the poor a claim to that property and its institution that is itself being harmful. The second thing it enables the poor in terms of a principle is that it allows them to get redress in opposition to centuries of disenfranchisement, that is to say theft and negligence represent the stripping of the individual right assert themselves. We are going to give you systematic reasons why you don´t get reforms on their side but notice that this as a principle argument is independent from a consideration of practices, that’s to say compensation or giving more money is unlike categorically what these people require in principle which is a redress from the fact that they´ve been taken out of the system of moral equality by theft and negligence. The last thing to say is let´s take them at their best, that is, let´s wipe the slate clean and accept that everybody has equal access to resources. Why then is property still oppressive and why does it represent an assault on human dignity? The first is that competition and the premise on which it is based is artificial that´s to say it trades on morally insignificant arbitrary factors. The fact of scarcity which allows many corporations to succeed, the fact that I was born with certain talents or certain skills that other individuals weren´t. We think that those are morally arbitrary from the consideration of deserve and we don't think that´s just ground. The second thing is a question of actors so capital continues to decide what begets it so you get to decide as the head of a corporation who you hire and what kind of skills you have. Principally private property assaults dignity … leads to good outcome. Notice what´s on the other side, the reason why they need to defend the SQ is that they don´t get the structural reforms that you require. There are three reasons for this, The first is the democratic system that trough processes of gerrymandering which are almost irrevocable in many parts of the world the poor are systematically disenfranchised, they don´t control hegemonic media that control media narratives about what a good policy is, they usually kept apart by racist rhetoric that accentuates other a script of descriptions preventing them from coming forward, the fact of historical disenfranchise furthermore means that they´re less likely to turn out the vote in a way that other people are. The second reason why you don´t get structural reform Is because it´s internationally imbalanced on the consideration of nations so the … institutions largely built by the west, the institution of human rights, which favors civil and political rights of a socio-economic human rights. We say that those things mean that the alternative they need to defend is continued and systematic in action. What do you get on our side? One, the success cases, these are the one in which the revolution works, closing I will take you if you have something, opening. POI: Despite this rhetoric, the last two decades the last two decades have seen almost a billion people lifted in Asia because private companies have an incentive to unlock an unskilled an uneducated workforce that they otherwise wouldn´t. We refuse that premise, the reason why we were able to get socio-economics rights in countries like China is through massive systems of redistribution and bringing up the poor from the public, so if you want to claim literally the communist country from your side is to say the people who´ve put it together the single biggest program of and social rights, yeah, I think enough said. So, let's say the world in which they succeed, we think that those communities will succeed for three reasons. First, it encompasses the vast majority of the global population and given that capital is dependent on labor to get any return we think that´s beneficial. Second is the location of resources in many parts of the developing world mean that they have access to those things. The third thing to say is that you get cross-pollination and you get global solidarity across racial lines what currently capital have the incentive to get them divided, those deals with the best case scenario for their side where you get complete revolution, Fanele will also talk about why you get structural reforms along the way that are beneficial. What we need from an opposition? Is a comprehensive account of property, why is just, and why it doesn't, as it continually done throughout history assault human dignity.

Watching Bo PM this motion is all I've ever wanted from life.

bo seo's diction and his body languages are remarkably phenomenal..he's one of the best presenter in the world

It's very wholesome how they all just hugged each other in the end

Bo's speeches are like fine art, but Fanele's contribution was equally (if not more) compelling. Their rhetorical skills only rival that of Shengwu.

1. OG 2. CO 3. CG 4. OO

Never had a final better than this one for a long time now... We miss you Bo:(

Transcript of the CO extension because he's the Johnny Lawrence of this debate: Honorable Speaker, the poor of the world have two choices before them in this debate. The first is to engage in a revolution that will either fail, or, more terrifyingly, succeed; or, work within the system to improve their influence and their situation within the world both domestically and internationally today. We will show you how the latter is significantly better. Okay, we are going to deal firstly with the principle of the debate. Because we get that the principle that "this is what you deserve", "it's better to fight even if you are going to fail". Okay, it is principally deplorable to choose an option that will not only condemn millions of global poor to live in a post-revolution society where the people who control the economic and political leaps of power are now prejudiced against them, but to subject the poor to enconomic, politic and violent destruction, right? If you have two choices before you, and you choose to endanger the lives of billions of the most endangered people in the world, that is principally abhorrent. So we're going to take it on that basis. Okay, let's talk about how this revolution looks when it fails, because they admit that it'll fail in almost all countries. In the United States, this is going to fail; Europe, this is going to fail. What are the harms of a failed Marxist revolution? It puts the interests of the poor diametrically opposed to the interest of the wealthy; this revolution threaten the property rights of the people who have power in society; political power, economic power; it threatens the lives that they have built for their family; it is based on the rhetoric that you don't deserve to have the things that you have, that you feel that you worked your whole life to obtain, the generations of wealth that you intend to pass on to your children; you threaten to take away everything from the people who have power. This will lead to a hatred, or at least an opposition, to the poor. Secondly, what will this do to the rich? It will cause them to act in self-defense; so the biggest risk isn't that people lose some stuff. The biggest risk is that this revolution fails and the people who have political power in the open world turn against the poor domestically and internationally. What does this look like domestically? Look at how tenuous any welfare policy is in the United States currently. Look at how thin a margin Obamacare passed to give basic medical care to the poor of the United States. The reason that you got this kind of support is on a broad based rhetoric that the poor deserve our help; that their interest are in line with ours, that they deserve help and that we can help in this way. If you make it so that the poor are a threat to the wealthy and the economic powerful in these countries, those policies will certainly fail. There will also be harms to any form of international support. Donations to the World Bank, to the United Nations Development Fund, those all depend on development will in the developed countries to give their money to help the poor. If the poor are set to take away everything they worked for and they loved, that is awful to them. So that's why it's bad if it fails. POI: You spend ten seconds on the principle. Colonialism and slavery were themselves acts of war. Given that the capital was unjustly acquired, disenfranchisement requires reparations, and at best, property (...)? A: The poor of the world, if they are made significantly worse off, if they are oppressed violently and economically and politically, will not take solace in your principled victory. We are fine to stand on practice here. Next, what if it succeeds? Which is the real danger in this scenario. Where is it likely that this will succeed? In countries that there is a State that can be overthrown by anomaly; in the places where the poor are the most vulnerable. First, the gov gets up and says that Bangladeshi factories are currently very bad; imagine if the country was thrown in a state of rebellion, what would be made of these people both economically and politically? Economically, all investment from the West in the development world that suffer a violent Marxist revolution will immediately disappear; given that a Marxist revolution will likely fail where the capital is globally, people will withdraw and not have any jobs and investment in this country, and it will lead to a huge period of economically instability that will take away the livelihood of literally millions of people - this is the serious harm. Next, it will lead to a complete shutdown of government. Who pays the police in this State, where you will completely disarm the government and remove them of any sort of legitimacy? Who oversees the electoral mecanism by which this new communist party is brought to power? They give no reason to believe that a State that it's violently converted to Marxism will be a utopia for the poor - in fact, we think that these States will likely lead to incredible perversion incentives for state capture; these kinds of revolutions are usually a very narrow military movement that were not brought by basic publics of poor. There's usually one strong militant group in these countries that will take power under the guise of Marxism - look at the massive Marxist revolutions in South Africa and South America, and look how they did not lead to a great redistributive State that help the poor, but instead led to a concentrated military government that oppress the poor and its opposition to maintain political power. It's perhaps the most dangerous to give these sorts of bodies absolute power over the developing world. It is a narrow movement that will not lead to a better outcome, and will in fact disinfranchise the poor and desestabilize States that need it the most. Okay, let's talk about our alternative. Why it is better for people to work within the system? How can the poor make things better? We think that there have been huge steps forward in the international system; things like the World Bank, the United Nations. The United Nations gives millions of food/day to the entire world. And even the WTO is making huge steps forward; the recent agreement in Nigeria led to an agreement to reduce agricultural subsidies from the developed world to the developing world by 65% over the next five years. This is a huge economic win for the developed world. Why is this happening? Firstly, growing social awareness and vocal criticism of oppression of the West of the global poor in the developed world; from scholars that come from Harvard [nice shade, man] that say "this is bad, and we shouldn't oppress people like this". Secondly, growing economic influence of these countries. Regional trade blocks, like MERCOSUL, like the upcoming African Trade Union, are giving a more equal economic footing for the global poor to negotiate equal rights with the global powers and this is improving the situation. Lastly, domestically, the poor in democratic countries and even in countries like China that are less democratic, have a substantial ability to pressure their government to do things that are better for them. If you have a global poor that is able to unite for a Marxist revolution, clearly they can enact some sort of democratic change to give themselves better policies within the country. It is significantly better. We think that this is not a round about machines, right? The machination point, I'll spend the last fifteen seconds dealing with, mechanization is not what this round is about. This round is about economic destruction and political disparity for the developing world. We think that if you have principally the choice that leads to growth or deplorable destruction, then the latter is unprincipled and unjust choice for the global poor. We are proud to oppose. [you're alright, larusso]

i have to watch this as a assignment for my debate class, i was suppous to watch only 7 minutes but ended up watching the whole thing! its alot more intresting than i thought

Amazing debate from PM

Yay, HH got 2nd! I actually have a crush on their 1st speaker now.

2:39 the holy speech that is sacred and used by communists

Two minutes into video and im already rooting for closing opp. The guy who gave the wave just endeared me so much to him.

this is my first in my entire life watching WUDC, my reaction? Speechles

Bo Seo's speech is more than enough to convince someone to convert their religion.

PM speech is very good, reminds me of last year WUDC Chennai Final PM

you know they are the anime main character when they have their hands in their pocket

Just miss debating 🥺

*DPM stands to POI for 2-3 solid minutes* DLO: And now, before I go on, I'll take closing. Savage.

that intro from PM was godly

Bo is the best. Eloquent too , ideas are relatable and logical. Thumbs up 👍💜

I might be able to give a speech like any one of them after 100 years

wow,I'm on my way guys. be ready

The second speaker, who spoke was so *hyper* in his whole speech.

Somebody needs to transcribe the PM's speech.

The PM's speech is just so great to keep on re-watching this debate damn.. and then this guy deputy leader of opposition i love the way he started with the movie thought 😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝

This is under rated😗

very impressive

well -done

Hart House is University of Toronto BTW

I have class debat at mu Univ , but this is amazing

That Vietnam remark was just ridiculously funny.

No one: Bo Seo: tHE GLOBAL POOR

watching this before state debating trials, any semblance of my confidence is destroyed

what a great debate:D

Do anyone know the name of all speakers in the competition?

Can anyone please explain why the first speaker, keeps waving his hands to prevent other from speaking? ? Are the other oppose or support his motion?

an Australian as deputy leader of opposition!!!

I love how these pros low key throw shade to other teams' universities.

DLO WAS FUNNY IN HIS INTRO

26:53 bookmark

LO why you no consent?? 😭

please add the subtitle

wow...

Does anyone here have an outline of the debate? its for our Speech class (Debate) Thank you in advance :)

Can anyone tell me the name of closing opp's second speaker?

Who got edited out?

02:41

What is the result

Awwwww Saddiq is just an adj 😫

Should've been the LOML up there :(

Opp whip is great

2:38

Weird to ask considering this is Bo seo’s most infamous speech (to my knowledge) but did OG win first on this one??

쩐다

daym bo. maybe i could have understood what you said if I brought a thesaurous

anyone who can link me up to more videos with Bo?

Why was opening OPs speech edited out?

wow

The LO's speech?

Who won

bo at 4:01 sounding like Winston Churchill

Vietnam's gorverment can relative

wew

Is this impromptu

I'm new to this. Why are they raising their hands?

I thought opening opposition was really good.......

Wait where is LO speech

Horrifying and deceptive. Great speaking. Pure wickedness.

After all the US election craziness, kpop, and the other 2020 madness, I come back here to say CO has won

Bo!

omf third opposition speaker slapped hard

Fanele so good LMAO

24:56 *COOL* (ear rape)

debate me lee vs neji i got lee

Almost temps you into giving communism a shot. Almost.

Who won?

What was the call for this?

I don't care if its Barack bo seobama... no-one can present a working or humane case of socialism.

Speaker does not concent hmmmm

what's the decision?

BO the GOAT

28:39 Europe isn’t a country

2nd government speaker... on your example of the Warskau ghetto uprising...um no the luftwaffe was not involved.

They messed up as soon as they started arguing in favor of capitalism.

Why do they speak so fast?

7:02 does he say dessert or is it just me

The guy debater from africa, speaks Way too fast,,, omg… gives me headache sounded like noise instead of ideas. Slow down man. If this is the finalist, oh my… were done in this world of debate.

CO should have won. Change my mind

OMG ARTINYA APA? 👉👈

Very ironic lmfao

Lets wipe the slane clean

I wonder why it is usually only men at BP, as seen here. Are they just more attracted to the idea of debating, and why is it uncommon to see a BP team with both sexes represented?

PEP A? More like Pepe! AHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAA im so funny. yea. laugh NOW. YOU BETTER BE LAUGHING... LAUGH.

creepy. evil.

is that all they bark whole day

2nd guy was a rhetorician not a debater.

Bo’s proposal may have won and it may sound good but not good enough to convince me to become a marxist revolutionary. I refuse this “I will own nothing and be happy” and “I’m oppressed therefore I must oppress the oppressor” mentality.

2:35

2:38