WUDC2023 モーション解説①

以下、超大昔に書いたWSDCの記事が意外と需要あったっぽいので、WUDCバージョンも書きます的なノリです。

今回は以前よりも易しい言葉で書いているので、専門用語をあまり知らなくても読めるはず…!!

書くと宣言してしまった以上は書きます。テスト勉強とレポートの進捗が絶望的なんですけど...(泣)(←無事耐えました!…とはいえ書いてる時点では相当疲れていたので、誤植多い気がする、、、)

 

ワールズ(WUDC)の記事は、おそらくこれを含め4つに分けて、予選とPDO/Octo Finalのモーションの解説を書きます。また、4つ目の記事で、今後のワールズに参加する人に向けて(自戒を込めた)アドバイスとか「対面ワールズこんな雰囲気だった!」と分かるようなことを書きたいと思っています。

 

あと、WUDCの決勝のTranscript(スピーチの書き起こし)を別の記事にして載せておきました。是非ご活用ください!

debatepanda.hatenablog.com

 

以下、軽くですが、各ラウンドの感想とGov(肯定側)・Opp(否定側)双方でどのようなことが言えるか書いていきます。

なお、以下紹介するケースは、僕のチームが出したケースではなく、ラウンドを振り返ったり他のディベーターと話した結果、今の自分が最善だと思うケースです。

(まだまだ未熟なので+深夜に何も考えずにタイプしたので、このケース微妙じゃね?と思うものがあるかもしれません。どんな話が出来るかのアイデア探しに活用してください!悪しからず!)

 

Round 1

Info slide:

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

 

5分とかでもいいので、ぜひ自分でどんな話できるか考えてから読んでみてください!

 

【ラウンドの感想】

結果:CG 3位 OO>OG>CG>CO

Opp有利かつ超浅いモーションだったのでCGで言うことなくて困った。。。モーションバランス悪いってあらゆる人が言ってました。間違いない。

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。

 

interest of the team:

決勝に勝ちたい、今後も継続的に勝ちたい、評価が良くなってほしい、お金が欲しい、等

 

では、どれが一番重要なinterestなのでしょうか。BPなので、例えば、Openingが決勝に勝つことを重要視すれば、Closingから「いやいや、大事なのは決勝に勝つんじゃなくて今後も継続的に勝つことダヨ」と言えばextensionの方向性が決まります。

決勝に勝つのが一番重要と言いたい場合

weighingの仕方はいくつかあります。

・ワールドカップの決勝なんて強豪国でも来れるか分からないんだから、この弱小国が行けるはずがない。ここで優勝してレガシーを残すことの方が大事。

・優勝した時のbenefitが大きい。自国のメディアで46時中賞賛されて、より多くstate subsidy得られる等

・長期的なbenefitにもつながる。選手は海外強豪クラブに引き抜かれて、より良い環境でプレイできる等

(追加で賞金も4200万ドル(60億円弱)もらえる。)

 

逆に決勝に勝つのが重要でないと言いたい場合

・ワールドカップの決勝に勝てるかどうかは運要素が大きい。当日の選手のコンディション、相性、純粋な運(パスが決まるか、キーパーが止めれるか等)。→仮にチーム全体の実力を上げたとしても、決勝に勝てるかは不確か。逆を言えば、エースがいなくても運が良ければ勝てる可能性もある。

・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
    • the team is associated with violence and racism
    • Impact: money → better training, better everything

 

Opp case: 

1. higher chance of winning the final

  • the star player contributes a lot to the team
  • collaboration is fine
    • 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

 

最初丁寧に書きすぎて、最後の方雑になってしまったんですけど、ポイントは2つかな〜

ポイント1、characterisationはとても重要!!

Characterisationとは、端的にいうと具体化のことです。

ディベートはただのロジックゲームと捉えられがちですが、両サイド若干異なる世界観を持っており、自分達の世界観に現実性を持たせるためにcharacterisationを使います。

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。

なぜcharacterisationが重要かというと、characterisationが、より正確にいうと、自分のチームの世界観がargumentの前提となるからです。star playerがMessiのような圧倒的ワンマンキャリーなのか、それともチームの中で比較的強いだけなのか、これだけでargumentの評価は大きく変わります。

少々偉そうに聞こえますが、日本の大会ではcharacterisationをしないチームが途っっっても多いです。そういうチームには楽に勝てるので個人的には嬉しい()

 

ポイント2、Be comparative!!(とりわけ国際大会)

"comparative"という単語はディベート大会に参加すると40回は聞きます。「Be comparative=自分と相手の世界を比較しましょう」ってことです。ディベートは相手をディスるだけじゃ勝てません。自分の世界がなんで良いのかを説明しなければいけません。

とりわけ、海外大会だと、国内大会以上にこの点が重視されます。比較大事です。

今回のディベートだと、プレパの段階からGovでは

1. Excluding the star player is good

2. Including the star player is bad

の2つを証明しなきゃいけない、という意識が必要です。

さらに、一つ一つのメカニズムを考える際も、本当にcomparativeなのか?という意識を持ちましょう。上記のケースはちょっとかなり疲れてる中書いたので、完全にcomparativeになっているか分かりませんが、例えば"by contrast"のようなフレーズが使われているはずです。

 

Round 2

THP the quality of art being viewed as predominantly subjective as opposed to predominantly objective

 

5分とかでもいいので、ぜひ自分でどんな話できるか考えてから読んでみてください!

 

【ラウンドの感想】

結果:CO 1位 CO>OG>OO>CG

こういう抽象的で分かりづらいモーションはClosingやりやすいイメージ。しかも前の試合3位でビンルーム(順位が下の部屋の通称)だったので、結構簡単に1位が取れた。

OpeningがMinorityがどっちの方がrepresentされるかを話し、CGはOpeningをframe outしようと謎のcontextを設定するもpositive matterなくて死亡し、僕らはCOからテキトーな話(後述)をするだけで勝てた。

 

【モーション解説】

Artは難しく苦手にする人の多い分野ですが、以下の2点に注意するだけで格段に上達します。

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。

 

もう一点大事な注意点

(僕はこれに気づくまで2年かかった!!) 今回のように抽象的なモーションが出た場合、これがどういうディベートなのか、というセットアップに時間をかけて下さい。なぜなら、ジャッジや他のチームと、argumentの前提となるモーションの解釈に齟齬が生じていると、いくら素晴らしいargumentを考えても評価されない可能性があるからです。前述のcharacterisation大事!って話の延長ですね。

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)
  • ppl involved in art often value creativity
    • e.g. the value of replica is rly low even though it is just as aesthetically pleasing as the original one
    • diversity is conducive to creativity
  • better for minority
    • can call out the lack of representation←→subjectivity - white ppl will only consume majoritarian art

2. Even if the metric is bad, more fulfillment from art

  • majority of ppl can't appreciate art e.g. Monalisa is viewed as one of the best paintings but no one rly understands why
    • not enough time to do research on how the art was created, etc.
    • not enough knowledge to understand the background and history
    • → prioritise mandane things like working, hanging out with friends, etc.
  • The view of objectivity allows ppl to appreciate art
    • more accessible info about art 
      • more incentive for ppl to share info about "objectively good art" cuz many ppl are curious and there is a huge market for these info
      • e.g. when you go to museum, you'd google about the museum collection and what the must-see artworks are → more articles on these info are created
    • self-fulfilling prophecy
      • believing monalisa is rly good and going to the Louvre Museum → happy
  • Impacts:
    • On gov, ppl consume far less art and not appreciate them. Often art provides unique value and benefits to ppl's lives
      • e.g. many ppl get unique aspirations from a specific movie or build community around being a fan of a particular artist

3. More creation of art

  • more artists create art
    • artitsts want affirmation and fame
  • more investment into art
    • investment into art happens cuz of high speculative return due to the temporal gap
      • e.g. movie - once spent all the cost in creating the movie, you can sell. But no one knows how much revenue it can create at the opt-in point
    • speculative return massively increases cuz of the norm of objectivity
      • potentially capture a larger market share
        • e.g. if nominated to academy award→lots of ppl watch
      • + more ppl consume art per the second argument
  • more state subsidies to art
    • politically popular to advance your country's art and show them as objectively good/better than other countries'
  • Impacts:
    • different ppl have different lived experiences and find meaning in different kinds of art. Therefore maximing the number of artworks is rly important

 

これ以降は次回の記事に回します。

ここまで読んでくれた方々には本当に感謝です。