Pegasus is spyware developed by the Israeli cyber-arms company NSO Group, which can be covertly installed on individual mobile devices. Its capabilities include: reading messages, tracking calls, collecting passwords, location tracking, and accessing the target device's microphone and camera.
NSO claims to sell the software exclusively to government branches such as police forces and intelligence agencies and has known customers from at least 14 EU countries.
This House Believes That the EU should ban Pegasus and similar software
これのMGのスピーチを聞いてください。
47:05 のところから、The right to privacyのextensionに入ってます。
The right to privacy exists completely independent of consequences.
1. This is analogous to property rights - people own their own information
You wouldn't force rich people to donate to charities even if it leads to more utile outcomes.
ここでは、1) Property rights should not be taken away for social utilityという一般論と、2) People own (=have property rights over) their own information and this motion steals itという当てはめ、の2段階になってますよね。この先も要点だけメモとして残しますが、2段階示されているか注目してみましょう。
2. The government is not justified in intervening in the private sphere.
1) People can discriminate and be racist in their own apartments but not in public spaces.
2) Things you do on the internet privately are not within the jurisdiction of government intervention.
3. This is a preemptive punishment.
1) Preemptive punishment is unjust. Police can search people's phones or information with a warrant. We would never agree to put someone behind bars without going to trials.
2) This motion covertly steals people's information even before getting warrants or people having committed crimes.
とはいえ別にこれも完璧なプリンシプルって訳じゃなくて、反論できると思います。
1つ目の理由への反論は、例えばこんな感じ
1) Property rights are not independent of social outcomes. We tax people, regulate land ownership and redistribute wealth all the time. The reason is that property rights are merely social constructs created and ensured by the government. Without government, there would be no property rights. The government, therefore, is justified in restricting property rights. → 結局practical harmあるならrestrictしていいやん
2) This motion is not analogous to property rights. When the government takes away people's property, people lose it (because property is zero-sum; either the government or you have it). By contrast, information is not zero-sum. Both the government and you can have access.
3) Even if this was analogous to property rights, the government steals people's information all the time. You need to report where you live, who you live with, your age, and even what you purchase (via tax declaration). You need to give up your information to the police if you witness a crime.
THBT it is in the interests of Taiwan to pursue friendlier ties with China (e.g. economic, political and cultural ties) (WUDC 2023 R7)
That we would prefer a world where Vladimir Putin died today suddenly of natural causes. (Australs 2021 SF) In late 2020, as a response to ongoing border skirmishes, India enacted a series of restrictions limiting Chinese FDI and imposed high import tariffs on Chinese goods and services. THBT India should substantially ease restrictions on Chinese trade and investment. (UADC 2023 R7)
Since 1999, various bodies such as the United Nations, the European Union, and the United States have placed sanctions on the Taliban and Afghanistan more broadly. They fall generally into two categories: economic sanctions, like the suspension of developmental aid and the widespread freezing of government assets, and non-economic sanctions like arms embargos and travel bans. THW lift economic sanctions on the Taliban. (ABP 2023 R5)
That Western states should support local rebel groups (e.g. by funding them and giving them intel) as opposed to direct military intervention in other states (Australs 2022 SF)
Since 1999, various bodies such as the United Nations, the European Union, and the United States have placed sanctions on the Taliban and Afghanistan more broadly. They fall generally into two categories: economic sanctions, like the suspension of developmental aid and the widespread freezing of government assets, and non-economic sanctions like arms embargos and travel bans. THW lift economic sanctions on the Taliban. (ABP 2023 R5)
ラテンアメリカ - War on drugs、アメリカによる介入の歴史、IMF bail out、ベネズエラ(Chávez→Maduro vs Guaidó、ハイパーインフレ)、メキシコ(シナロアカルテル)、ブラジル(Bolsonaro and Lula)、コロンビア(大麻栽培)、アルゼンチン(経済史)、ボリビア(モラレス元政権、リチウム開発)
The Muslim Brotherhood is a militant Muslim organization known for its connections with various terrorist groups. Its public agenda is the liberation of all oppressed Muslim groups internationally and the perpetration of Muslim theocracies. The group's leadership has recently expressed concern and interest in the genocide of the Uyghur population in the Xinjiang region.
The CCP has continuously perpetrated various crimes against the Muslim population in the region, such as systematic violence, internment camps, and forced sterilization. This has led to a rapid drop in the Uyghur population, and despite international pressure against the genocide the CCP has silently continued its 're-education programs'.
TH, as the Muslim Brotherhood, would initiate guerilla operations against the CCP in support of the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region. (Gemini Cup 2023 QF)
Muslim Brotherhoodって何？ウイグルとこの組織にどう関係あるの？意味分からないんだけど となっている人が大半だと思います。
THBT the feminist movement should oppose policies that incentivise people to get married (ABP 2023 R6)
"Celebratory advocacy" embraces a positive and joyful approach to advocacy, utilizing music, dance, and art to inspire engagement and unity. It emphasizes celebrating achievements, fostering community, and highlighting the movement's successes. On the other hand, "solemn advocacy" takes on a serious and reflective tone, drawing attention to challenges or injustices. It aims to evoke empathy, inspire deep reflection, and mobilize for change through emotional pleas and powerful expressions of dissatisfaction. THBT feminist movements in the developing world should significantly prioritize being celebratory in their advocacy as opposed to being solemn. (UADC 2023 R2)
Coming out of the closet, or simply coming out, refers to LGBTQ people's self-disclosure of their sexual orientation or of their gender identity. THBT the LGBTQ movement should actively portray "coming out" stories in a positive way (Umeko Cup 2023 R3)
TH prefers environmental movements heavily prioritizing a local agenda over a global one (e.g., focusing on local pollution rather than climate change) (WUDC 2021 R3)
This House Believes That LGBTQ+ movements in developing countries should integrate patriotism into their messaging* *including actions such as celebrating LGBTQ+ soldiers, talking openly about being "queer and a patriot", displaying the pride flag with the national symbol, and avoiding actions such as supporting independence movements within the country or publicly criticizing nationalism (WUDC 2022 R3)
THBT no-platforming movements* in universities have done more harm than good *No-platforming movements aim to deny certain individuals the opportunity to express their views publicly (Oxford IV 2021 R5)
まず、Social Movementsのモーションにおいて、初心者がしがちなミスから話します。
Social Movementsのモーションでスピーチの大半をマイノリティーがいかに差別されているかに費やす初心者が多いです。しかし、それは戦略的ではありません。対戦相手が「マイノリティーの利益なんて全く重要でない！」と主張する可能性は限りなくゼロに近いからです。相手はおそらく、マイノリティーの利益は自分達の世界で守られる or マイノリティーにはより重要な利益があるのでそちらを優先すべき と主張するでしょう。
The goal of Feminism is 〜 って言われても、「それってあなたの感想ですよね？」としかなりません。なぜそれがFeminismにとって最も重要なゴールなのかの理由づけが必ず必要です。こんな感じ↓
The goal of Feminism is to reduce sexual violence and the worst types of abuse in conservative areas because the victims are the most vulnerable women who need our help.
でもこの理由づけって結局のところ、We save the most vulnerable women. っていうフツーのImpactですよね。
#MeToo Movementとは - 2017年、New York Timesがスクープした、映画プロデューサーのHarvey Weinsteinによる性的暴力事件がきっかけとなり、セクハラや性的暴行などの体験を告白・共有する際に、SNSでハッシュタグ「＃MeToo」を使用して、それまで沈黙してきた問題を「私も被害者である」と発信することで世の中を変えていこうとした運動です。
#MeTooをめぐっては、成功とする評価と失敗とする評価がある。Harvey Weinsteinの逮捕にはつながったし、一時的にものすごい社会的関心を呼ぶことには成功したが、結局構造的改革には繋がらなかったので失敗ではないかという見方もある。More support doesn't necessarily lead to structural change. 色んなディベートで例として使えそうですね。
Coming out of the closet, or simply coming out, refers to LGBTQ people's self-disclosure of their sexual orientation or of their gender identity. THBT the LGBTQ movement should actively portray "coming out" stories in a positive way
"Celebratory advocacy" embraces a positive and joyful approach to advocacy, utilizing music, dance, and art to inspire engagement and unity. It emphasizes celebrating achievements, fostering community, and highlighting the movement's successes. On the other hand, "solemn advocacy" takes on a serious and reflective tone, drawing attention to challenges or injustices. It aims to evoke empathy, inspire deep reflection, and mobilize for change through emotional pleas and powerful expressions of dissatisfaction. THBT feminist movements in the developing world should significantly prioritize being celebratory in their advocacy as opposed to being solemn.
一方で、BLMも#MeToo同様に失敗とも言われています。結局のところ警察による暴行 (police brutality)への構造的な解決策は見つからないまま終わってしまったからです。"Defund the Police"(警察予算を打ち切れ), "Abolish the Police"(警察を廃止しろ)というスローガンが掲げられましたが、アメリカ国民の警察への信頼は依然高いままです。「犯罪者と対面するのだから多少警戒するのはしょうがない」「警察は体を張って国民を守ってくれている」と考え、警察を支持する人も一定数います。また、警察内からの変革も難しい状況です。例えば、警官にbodycamの装着を要求することで逮捕時の記録を残したり、被疑者尋問の録画録音を義務付けたとしても、たまたまbodycamが壊れていた・尋問の録画が取れていなかった、としらを切られ、実効性に欠けます。
The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) is legally required to cover the news impartially. This means: 1. It cannot take sides on controversial issues. 2. The amount of coverage each viewpoint gets should roughly reflect the level of support that viewpoint has in society. 3. It is not required to be neutral on certain fundamental issues like the rule of law and the legitimacy of the democratic process.
This House would impose a BBC-style impartiality requirement on all news platforms. (WUDC 2020 R1)
This House Believes That news publications should be anonymized and signed as a collective editorial (EUDC 2023 R2)
(1) Information democratization refers to the current trend of increased citizen creation, distribution, exhibition, and curation of information. (2) Financial information refers to data and insight related to an individual's or organization's financial situation, including income, expenses, assets, liabilities, investments, and economic trends. Financial advice, on the other hand, involves the interpretation and application of this information to provide guidance or recommendations. THR the democratization of financial information and financial advice (ABP 2023 QF)
Data journalism is a type of journalism reflecting the increased role that numerical data has in the production and distribution of information in the digital era. It reflects the increased interaction between content producers (journalists) and several other fields such as design, computer science and statistics. On the flip side, more traditional forms of journalism are qualitative in approach, focusing more on interpretation and contextualisation. THS the increasing prominence of data journalism at the expense of qualitative journalism (WUDC 2023 R5)
In children's entertainment, a political message specifically addresses issues, policies, or power dynamics related to governance and public affairs. It aims to shape public opinion, influence political decisions, or promote specific political ideologies. Examples of children's media with political messages include "The Lorax," "Zootopia," and "Pocahontas". It should not be confused with apolitical moral messages, which focus on teaching universal values like honesty, kindness, and empathy, and are prevalent in most children's media (e.g. "SpongeBob SquarePants," "Dora the Explorer," and "The Powerpuff Girls."). The key distinction that makes a message political lies in whether the message primarily addresses specific political issues as compared to broader ethical principles. This House Opposes the use of political messaging in Children's Entertainment (EUDC 2023 R6)
THW ban social media companies from independently deplatforming politicians (WUDC 2021 R2)
Mediaと言っても色々とありますよね。ここでは2つに分けて話したいと思います。
昔からあるtraditional media companiesとsocial mediaです。
まずはmedia companiesから見ていきます。
CNNやNew York Times, Fox Newsのような報道をメインとする会社からWarner Bros, Walt Disney Studiosなどの映画制作会社まで、media companiesといっても様々です。
The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) is legally required to cover the news impartially. This means: 1. It cannot take sides on controversial issues. 2. The amount of coverage each viewpoint gets should roughly reflect the level of support that viewpoint has in society. 3. It is not required to be neutral on certain fundamental issues like the rule of law and the legitimacy of the democratic process.
This House would impose a BBC-style impartiality requirement on all news platforms.
大半の人は映画やドラマなどを現実逃避の手段として使います (people use media as a source of escapism)。一日仕事して、あるいは学校で勉強して、疲れた中でゴロゴロしながらネトフリを観たり、映画館に友達と行ったり。現実逃避だからこそ、明るい内容の物語の方が人気が出ます。大量の人が苦しみ続けるような映画をわざわざ疲れてる中観たい人は少数派でしょう。
Info can be spread without the control of large media companies
Typically information that is uniquely available on social media are for minority
E.g. Arab Spring, black communities in Hurricane season reporting the lack of government assistance
Strengthens social movements
Effective mobilisation
E.g. Chile, Hong Kong
Explores personal connection, community and identity
Creates community around different types of hobbies people have
Helps shape one’s identity
E.g. LGBT people in developing countries being able to access to Western influences
デメリット：
Political polarisation
Anonymity uniquely allows room for these radical beliefs.
Normally people wouldn’t engage in explicitly racist behaviour due to social sanction. When people can say anything and hide behind the veil of anonymity, they are more likely to be radical →creation of groups like Patriots for America
Echo chamber
Algorithm tends to only show posts that you agree with or like looking at. This ends up with a lot of people being affirmed and feel like their opinion is absolute.
Fake news
Anonymity→ppl can get away with it
Not enough regulation
Social media companies benefit from more content especially controversial ones that generate more clicks
Addiction
Algorithm taylors contents to each individual user.
Weaponised as a political tool
Cambridge Analytica, Russian Involvement into 2016 US Presidential Election
Social media自体の良し悪しは直接争点となることはあまりありませんが、いくつか把握しておいた方がいいことを書いておきます。
Social mediaを運営する会社も結局はprofit incentiveを持ちます。収益の大半は広告収入です。どうやって収益を増やすか？物議を醸す投稿はより多くの収益へと繋がります。トランプのTwitter (現在はX)アカウントはかなりの物議を醸したが故に、トランプのサポーターのみならず、トランプを批判する人々のエンゲージメントも増やしました。つまり、運営会社的には問題の多い過激な投稿をどんどん増やしたい訳ですね。
最後に、SNSは独占になりがちです。これはcollective action problem (集団行動問題/囚人のジレンマ)から説明できます。例えば、最近Instragramチームが開発したThreadsっていうTwitterみたいなSNSがありましたよね。仮に個人的にはThreadsの方がTwitterよりも良いと思ったとしても、周りの友達が皆Twitterを使ってる以上、Threadsに乗り換えることは難しいですよね。つまり、他の人も他のSNSプラットフォームに移らない限り、自分も移ることができない。結局、誰も乗り換えることができない訳です。
(1) Information democratization refers to the current trend of increased citizen creation, distribution, exhibition, and curation of information. (2) Financial information refers to data and insight related to an individual's or organization's financial situation, including income, expenses, assets, liabilities, investments, and economic trends. Financial advice, on the other hand, involves the interpretation and application of this information to provide guidance or recommendations. THR the democratization of financial information and financial advice
the democratization of financial information and financial adviceっていうのは要はSNSのインフルエンサーやYouTuber、ブロガーが投資のアドバイスをするってことですよね。SNSやYouTubeでどのような記事や動画がアルゴリズム上優遇されるかはとても大事です。「ビットコインに投資して、たった1年で1000万円を儲けたストーリー」と「インデックス投資して資産が1年で1.1倍になったストーリー」だったら、どちらがアルゴリズムで上に行きますか？当然後者ですよね。このような危ない投資情報を流すインフルエンサーやYouTuberによって人々がリスクの高い投資をしてお金を失うっていうのがGovの話です。これを証明するにあたり、SNSにおいてどのようなコンテンツが優遇されるか、SNSに対しファクトチェックのような規制が十分になされているか、などの分析が大事になってきます。
THBT SNS does more good than harm to democracy (Elizabeth Cup 2023 R2)
THBT national legislatures should apportion electoral representation by age group, rather than geographical area (Cambridge IV 2021 R4)
In an "anonymous candidate" system, voters cast their votes for various policies, and candidates are matched to them based on the preferences presented. In this debate, it is assumed that voters can be matched to the candidate that best reflects their policy preferences. Under this system, voters do not know which specific candidate/parties they are voting for. THP an "anonymous candidate system" of voting (Umeko Cup 2023 R4)
Advanced Analytics is the autonomous or semi-autonomous examination of data or content. It involves using sophisticated techniques such as machine learning algorithms, deep learning, predictive modelling, or other tools to discover deeper insights, make predictions, or generate recommendations. Advanced Analytics can be used for political microtargeting, which involves identifying the detailed profile of individual voters and voter groups, testing the most persuasive messages, and tailoring campaign strategy to target different voter profiles. This House Would ban the use of advanced analytics in political campaigns (WUDC 2022 QF)
The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has dominated the Japanese political landscape since its inception in 1955. At the moment, the LDP, with massive funding, has no real opposition. It alone currently has 276 seats in the House of Representatives of 465 seats and forms a coalition with Komei Party which has 29 seats. Its political ideology is often seen as more conservative than the people: it opposes legalising gay marriage and immigration, it emphasises on traditional family values and nationalism, and it advocates strongly for strengthening Japan’s relationship with the US and further militarisation of Japan. THBT the Japanese government should break up the LDP (Tokyo IV 2023 GF)
THW ban political parties and require all candidates for national public office to seek election as independents (JPDU Spring Tournament 2023 GF)
THP a world in which media depicts democratic politics as cynical and pessimistic to an idealistic and optimistic (JPDU Spring Tournament 2023 GF)
The state is coercive and it deprives people of their agency by taking away money through taxation, enforcing laws, throwing people into prison when they don’t comply, and monopolising violence in the form of police and military.
People do not consent to live under the tyranny of the state.
Therefore, the only way to justify the existence of the state is by reciprocally giving people the power to decide what the state does to them.
State Power Principle以外に、「民主主義の方がより良い政策をもたらすから民主主義の方が良い」という考え方があります。本当なのでしょうか？
このモーションを元に考えてみましょう。まずgood to democracy, harm to democracyとは何でしょうか？
先ほどのState Power Principleを使えば、民主主義の存在意義は人々の意志(preference)を反映するためですよね。じゃあ、good to democracyというのは人々の意志を政治システムに反映しやすくすること、harm to democracyというのは人々の意志を政治システムに反映しずらくすること、と考えるのが自然です。
最後に、選挙では一人一票です。しかし、地区の候補の政策と自身のpreferenceが完全に一致することはまずありません。だから、正確な民意の反映は不可能です。また、人々が自身のpreferenceと反する不合理な選択をする場合もあります。ポピュリズムが典型例です。アメリカの貧困層の多くは、2016年にトランプに投票しました。でもトランプの経済政策の多くは貧困層を苦しめる政策ですよね。SNSの影響とか色々あると思いますが、必ずしも人々は合理的な選択をしないということは覚えておいた方がいいです。この非合理な選択を説明するものとして、政治学ではrational ignorance, rational irrationality, the Nirvana Fallacyと言われる概念もあるので興味のある人は調べてみてね。
THW only allow university admission on the basis of standardized testing, as opposed to non-quantitative methods (e.g. essays, alumni interviews). (Tokyo IV 2023 R1)
THW significantly relax graduation requirements for schools in underprivileged areas (e.g. separate standardised testing, relaxed attendance requirements, flexible submission deadlines, reduced number of subjects, etc.) (ABP 2023 R1)
THBT parents from minority groups should actively teach children the reality of oppression and how to deal with it (Icho Cup 2023 R1)
THBT developing countries should drop local languages in favor of a world language* as the primary medium of instruction in schools.*A World Language is a major language that is geographically widespread and has many speakers (e.g. English, Arabic, French, etc.) (WSDC 2023 R8)
The Politeness Pill, when taken, temporarily permits only socially acceptable behavior, such as obedience, attendance at school, good manners, following the law, refraining from drugs and alcohol, etc. THW allow parents to give the Politeness Pill to their children under the age of 18, regardless of the children's consent (Oxford IV 2021 R2)
THW significantly relax graduation requirements for schools in underprivileged areas (e.g. separate standardised testing, relaxed attendance requirements, flexible submission deadlines, reduced number of subjects, etc.)
Parents can claim rights over their child only because a child cannot make decisions alone and parents are the most proximate proxy who can act on behalf of their child. That's why we don't allow parents to be abusive and mandate them to provide food, shelter, and education for their child. Therefore, parental rights do not exist where the interests of parents clearly don't align with those of the child.
A team that’s recently gained prominence after great performances at the World Cup has advanced to World Cup finals for the first time. After the semi final, the team's top scorer and most important player, while drunk at a bar, publicly instigated a physical fight against another member of the team. When asked to calm down they continued to double down, causing more of a public disruption and seemingly irreconcilable differences with other members of the team.
THBT it's in the interest of the team for the player to be excluded from the World Cup finals squad
1位のOOは上手くて、とにかく色々なマターをscatterしていて、CGから反論も十分に出来ないし難しいなぁという感じ。LOの人はWSDC 2018 Team Chinaのメンバーだったらしい。OGは上手くないけど、当たり前の話(less chance of winning the final, reputation of the team)を立てていた。COはよく分からないextensionだったので死んでいた。
【モーション解説】
簡単にgov, oppのケースを書きますが、前提としてinterest of the teamを定義する必要があります。
・ワールドカップの決勝に勝つことはshort-term benefit。勝ってすぐは国中が歓喜するが、そのうち熱は冷める。People have short attention spanというあるある話。より重要なのは今後も継続的に勝ち続けること。
上記の戦略を念頭にgov, opp ケースをざっと書きます。
Govの最初の方を張り切って書きすぎた結果、疲れてその他の箇所は雑です。
Gov case:
2 points of set-up:
1. What is the interest of the team
They want to increase the probability of winning the final. This is more important than long-term benefits like more good players in the future that Opp or closing might talk about. Two weighing mech:
Becoming the champion of the World Cup is the most prestigious and greatest feat any national team can achieve. Especially this nation proceeded to the final thanks to luck and momentum at this particular edition of the World Cup, highly unlikely that the team makes it to the final again in the near future. Therefore, performance at this final matters more.
While you might still lose, increasing the probability itself is important to prevent miserable losses against the other team. If you lose 0-5, ppl will think you are a joke. Players will be humiliated. The prominence of football in the nation decreases. This is more important than future losses because of the scale of impact. Almost everyone in your country and so many ppl in other countries watch the final, it is important you perform not so terribly.
2. What's the comparative
We will defend 2 different sets of comparative.
The first comparative: Given the wording of the motion, what Opp needs to defend is the inclusion of the star player at all costs. Other players will refuse to play because the star player is in the team. Two reasons:
nature of the fight: This is NOT just a random drunk fight. As the info slide says, the rest of the team now have irreconcilable differences. This has to be something deeply insensitive and unacceptable from the perspective of the vast majority of ppl in society. e.g. racist/sexist commentary Further, it involved violence. Given layers have already formed close relationship and emotional attachment to the victim (e.g. practice in the lead-up to the world cup), they will side with the victim.
media narrative: media have incentive to side with the victim over the star player
1)this is a socially unacceptable kind of behaviour that ppl don't like
2)star player who used to be praised and celebrated now being criticised is a shocking news that attracts more clicks
3)ppl generally don't like violence
This means any players that follow the team on Opp would be framed and seen as players who support and endorse racism and violence.
The implication is, even if Opp keeps the star player, the fact other members will be replaced by worse replacement outweigh the benefit of having one star player.
The second comparative: if you don't buy the prior analysis, then on gov we have a team with a replacement player of the star and the rest of the team members being the same. Our arguments will base this charitable comparative and show why Opp is worse for the team.
Opp cannot have cake and eat it too by saying the team will reconcile by the start of the final
1) no incentive for the team. Team managers are often immensely stressed before the final and they choose to sweep it under the rug and move on with their regular practice without having necessary conversation to reconcile.
2) irreconcilable differences with ALL the other players→take time
3) very little interval between Semifinal and Final.
4) not just a drunk fight→the star player is unlikely to apologise just cuz he is not drunk anymore
Two arguments
1. The team wins the Final far more likely
Football requires precise collaboration between players
e.g. kicking the ball to, not where the other player is currently at, but where the player is expected to be in the next few seconds
→
This means even if one person is rly good, it is insufficient for the team to succeed.
By contrast, the inclusion of the player hurt the team's overall performance.
Less pass goes to the star player other players don't want him to succeed or are genuinely not a fan. Opp might say players want to win so they will pass rationally. However, in such a high-level competitive match, players have to make strategic decision in a split second while being chased by world-class players. Therefore, the recency bias kicks in and players subconsciously make the decision based on personal dislike to the player. This links to how many points the team scores cuz the star player often is in a very important position fot grabbing the goal like forward.
Players get distracted. There still exists tension within the team and the memory of the fight is repeated in your head whenever they see the star player in the field.
The star player is not at the best performance. Not only does the fight physically hurt him, but it is also emotionally damaging as well. The speculation over the fight on social media, public backlash, and the sense of isolation in the team.
Impact:
Worse performance. Less ball retention, more mistakes, and even a miserable loss with a large margin.
This also encapsulates long-term impacts.
Players are less likely to come back - trauma of the final
Less public support for funding the national team
2. Future success of the team
Fewer players are willing to come to the team as they no longer feel their treatment under the current management is good enough
Corporate sponsorship substantially decreases
Corporations sponsor to improve their branding and optics
given years of training and the fact that players don't give pass on the basis of personal preference, the team would perform just as usual even with the tension
players want to win the final rather than anything else → they will put aside the differences and work together
the star player was drunk at the time. Once he realises his mistakes, he is likely to apologise. He also wants to win the final
more division within the team if the star player is ousted
some players would definitely question the coach and management while others support the decision → more conflict
compounded by media and fans condemning the team's decision
2. long-term success
team collapses
the star player gets upset and no longer apologise
compounded by media and fans blaming the coaches and other players for their losses at the final(if they lose)
←→by contrast, on Opp, the player will naturally apologise when he has taken some time to consider what he did
Impact: the star player will never come back to the national team, other players will also not trust the management and don't join the team in the future
more sponsorship
the star player attracts sponsorship as he has cults of personality e.g. Messi
例えばこのディベートだと、star playerがどういう人でどの程度戦術的或いは社会的に重要なのか、fightは何についての揉め事か、seemingly irreconcilable differences with other members of the teamってどの程度やばいのか、等です。
1. Art motionを毛嫌いする人は多いですが、それはArtと聞いた際に美術館に展示されている絵画や彫刻を想像するからだと思います。実際、Artには映画、ドラマ、音楽等誰でも知っている身近なものが多く含まれます。Art motionが出たら、自分の詳しいpop culture(K-popとか、好きな特定の映画とか)に置き換えて考えるといいです。また、ジャッジの大半も芸術選択ではないはずなので、Art motionをディベートするときは必ず身近な例を用いること。モデルディベートでこのモーションのPMスピーチをTin Puljić(2020年世界大会優勝した人)がやっていて、そこではTaylor Swiftが例として使われていました。
2. Art motionはだいたいminority art, minority artistsがより脚光を浴びる！的なargumentばっかり出ます。Openingであれば、相手がminorityの話をすることを推測した上で、なぜminorityにとって良いのか考えるべき。Closingであれば、minorityのclashに依存しない話を探そうとなるべきです。一つArtに限らず色々なディベートで使えるのは、QualityとQuantityという考えです。Quality of art improves (minority representation増える、より良いart増える等)という話とQuantity of art increases (artist増える、より多くart work作られる等)の2種類に分けて考えるとextensionを考えやすいです。
今回のモーションにおいては、そもそも、the quality of art being viewed subjective/objectiveってどういうこと？？？ってなるのが大多数だと思います。こういう時にこそ、どういう意味かを分かりやすく具体的に説明することで、ジャッジに伝わるかつ相手との齟齬を最小限にしたスピーチができるようになります。
じゃあ、the quality of art being viewed subjective/objectiveどういうことなんでしょう。日本語にすると、「芸術の価値が主観的/客観的に見られる」となります。意味わからん。芸術の価値が客観的に見られている良い例はカンヌ国際映画祭とか映画賞ありますよね！あれって「客観的に良い映画」を選出していますよね。逆に、「私、K-POP好きなんだよね〜」「そうなんだ〜、K-POP良いよね〜、でも私はジャニーズ派かな」とか、知らんですが、こんな感じで各個人が推し的なものを持ってて、お互いの推しを尊重する感じ。分かりましたかね？こんな感じで、分かりにくい抽象的なものを具体的な場面に落とし込んで、誰でも理解できる説明をすることが大事です。
以上を念頭に、gov, oppケースです。
注)Structureぐちゃぐちゃです、、、すみません、、、
Gov case:
Set up:
What does it look like to view the quality of art subjective and objective?
subjective
consume artworks like movies, tv shows, and music not on the basis of them being on the top chart of Spotify playlist or receiving the academy award, but rather on the basis of them clicking to you, giving some kind of fulfillment in a personal way
objective
experts, ppl with authority rating artworks tell ppl this is a good movie. This becomes the social benchmark of what art ppl should consume.
This is a very powerful norm in society
exists everywhere - media, art education in school, how your parents view art when you go to museum with them, etc.
→ Most ppl believe the norm and not critically question it
1. Democratisation of artwork
Objective metric is highly majoritarian and exclusonary
1) experts and elites dictate the social narrative of what good art looks like → unlikely recognise the importance of minority art
2) historical accumulation of artworks exclusively by the majority i.e. most artworks in museums are western and painted by rich white men in the past
3) The existence of objectivity in art creates competition in a toxic way. Each culture will fight for dominance and the position of "objectively best art". Given the lack of resources like funding and casting, minority art always lose out in the competition.
4) Even if minority art is recognised, it would be recognised through the lens of majority → often leads to cultural appropriation e.g. hip hop
→Consequently, a) ppl are forced to interpret art from the perspective of elites and majority; b) artists are forced to create art from the perspective of elites and majority to sell their artworks
Impacts:
1) minority can find less fulfillment from art cuz minority art is seen as "uncultured" or "not good enough"
2) those who can't find value in "objectively good art" shun themselves from consuming art cuz they feel like they don't understand art (+they are disproportionately from minority backgrounds)
3) Less diversity in art → important cuz different ppl have different lived experiences and find meaning in different kinds of art. Therefore maximing the diversity of artwork is rly important
Subjective - why ppl can find their own interpretation
1) Yes, elites exist on both sides. But the comparative is elites have far less incentive to force their own conception of good art on the society
less benefits of forcing e.g. On Opp if a movie gets awards, lots of ppl watch. But on gov, not much benefit cuz even if rich ppl like the movie, other ppl are less likely to watch it
2) Minority can have the confidence to affirm and empower their own culture
3) powerful narrative (see setup)→ppl can construct their own conception of what good art is
ppl practice this idea of subjectivity from young age e.g. when they go to the museum, they will try to find artworks that make them happy rather than go find a famous painting
ppl are educated to find their own favourite art in school
2. More art is created
Artists are demotivated from creating art on Opp
incentive: often outliers in the community/family = don't like to cave into society, value creativity
but digression from the mainstream societal conception of objectively good art punishes them
on Gov, more artists and more artworks
no imposition from society
artists can rationalise that their art is the best
other ppl are less likely to make fun of untraditional artworks
Impacts:
Again, different ppl have different lived experiences and find meaning in different kinds of art. Therefore maximing the number of artworks is rly important
Opp case:
Set up:
What does it mean to view the quality of art as subjective and objective?
objective
If a piece of art is aesthetically pleasing to you, you will enjoy the art anyway on both sides. This is cuz you want to listen to music you like or watch movies you love. Just cuz society has a standard of what great art is, you won't brainlessly stop consuming art you already love.
Therefore, the comparative is how to view the art that doesn't click to you when you encounter them in museums or watch a movie.
subjective
ppl will think "it's non of my business what art others like or others consume". → less ppl share their own understanding of art e.g. less ppl tweet about what they love or write articles on who is the best singer ever etc.
they will stick to their own initial gut reaction of seeing the art
1. Societal metric for objectivity is good
competition for the objectively good standard
different awards, different schools (Romanticism, Realism, etc.)
→ 1) more research into art → deeper understanding of art 2) reflects the opinion of average person (e.g. if academy award is so detached from average conception of good art, ppl swicth to oscars)
