Debateable Your online guide to Debate & Argument Mon, 20 May 2019 09:56:54 +0000 en-US hourly 1 The Evolution of WSDC Debate Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:05:02 +0000 “You gave the debate to one team based on style?” “snigger…” “You must be a new judge.” “No one gives the debate based on THAT!” […]

The post The Evolution of WSDC Debate appeared first on Debateable.



Have you heard these comments before? I have; adjudicating in the World Schools debating format and seeing more people approaching Schools debate in radically different ways. On the eve of the 2015 World Schools Debating Championships to be held in Singapore, it is worthwhile looking at how Schools debating has been approached in Singapore and whether things are evolving for the better.

I am not convinced that they are.

I believe that way too much emphasis (sometimes, exclusive emphasis) is placed on the “issues” in the debate at the expense of the execution of the arguments and their delivery. Content has been worshipped while Style and Strategy are sacrificed. What you say on the floor is the only thing that matters, not how you say it.

This will make debate increasingly esoteric and inapplicable to the common person. Having seen how specialised American Policy debate become (600 words a minute? Good luck trying to follow that debate), I shudder to think that WSDC matches might follow a similar trend. I hope my fears are never realised.

I add the caveat, of course, that not every match and speaker and judge fits the mould of what I am describing. At the same time, it is enough of a general trend that it is worth noting.

What has happened?

Over the last year, I have seen more parents attending debates and was pleased by this development, since parental support is wonderful for a student debater. I asked the parents if they enjoyed the matches and was surprised by the blunt “No” I received from many of them. They told me that they found the speakers hard to follow, with many speaking at break-neck speed and using technical jargon that was like Sanskrit to the non-debaters.

In hindsight, I should have seen it myself. But when one has been in the circuit for so long, the changes come gradually and I may have missed them. But I have noticed that more judges are having to write furiously to keep up with the speakers instead of being able to listen comfortably and evaluate the debates from a bird’s eye view. Some might not even glance once at a speaker once he or she has commenced her speech. If a specialist like a judge can barely keep up, how can the average audience member cope?

The answer may be that they simply can’t. To test this, I have been showing videos of older WSDC matches from the late 1990s and early 2000s to non-debaters and asking them to watch later matches post 2010. I have asked them watch matches involving different nationalities as well to get a sample. While they did not watch the entirety of the matches (no time for that), the samples they watched generally led them to conclude that the older matches were easier to understand because they were easier to follow. The modern debates are just harder to follow and intense focus and concentration is needed from the audience members to keep up.

Shockingly, some debaters I have spoken to do not really care. To them, the only relevant issue is whether the judges can follow and understand them. They don’t care that the audience cannot and some even seemed to take perverse pride in being able to speak in a way that their peers cannot match and understand.

What are the complaints I have received from audience members? Keeping in mind that this is feedback from parents and non-debater students:

1. Too fast. We cannot understand the speakers at all.

2. Jargon. The debaters assume we know the terms but we don’t. What is “self-actualisation?”

3. Lack of explanation. I get the general idea about slippery slope. But how does it work exactly.

4. Too loud. We are speaking in a classroom but the debaters are yelling.

5. Boring. There is no attempt to entertain us or to make the debate relevant to us, especially through examples. 

6.  Lack of inclusion. The debaters are focused on the judges or their notes and not on us. 

A simple test criterion I used in the past to determine if I had watched really good engaging debate was “would someone on the street pay to watch this debate?” I now use a slightly more forgiving criterion: “if an average reasonable person walks into this debate, and assuming he/she had time, would they stay and watch or would they leave?” I believe that in more and more debates, people would be opting to leave. 

How did it happen?

I believe that 3 fundamental judging paradigm shifts may have occurred.

  • Judges are basing which team convinced them purely on the issues raised in the debate.
  • Judges are deciding which team convinced them, rather than which team convinced an average reasonable person.
  • Many judges are not assigning scores immediately after a speech.  

The WSDC format clearly indicates that speeches are to be graded in three distinct categories: Style (40%), Content (40%) and Strategy (20%). This meant that all of these three areas are to be evaluated prior to assigning a total grade.

However, I have seen judges refuse to put in the separate scores and just assign a total score at the end. They freely admit that this was based purely on the content score and that style and strategy was not really a factor in the scoring.

When required to fill in the separate categories, I have seen judges putting in average scores (28s) for every single speaker, sometimes BEFORE the debate has started. I have also seen adjudicators being TOLD to just split the total score into the appropriate ratios and assign the scores instead of judging each area independently.

Furthermore, during debriefs, judges are instantly saying “style was equally good” even though there was a huge disparity. Either they are not judging style at all or they are just assuming that “as long as I can hear them, style is good.” Even if a speaker was screaming in a room and eardrums are bursting, that’s ok. Here is a 28 for you.

In some cases, I believe that there is an active decision not to judge on style, as seen by the disparaging remarks made to judges who do award debates based on style. When a team that was clear and effective in their delivery (albeit with simpler logic and arguments) almost always loses to a messy, hard to understand team (delivering the more sophisticated case written by their coach), style is clearly not a worthy issue for many judges. One judge frankly said that he would like to scrap style from WSDC as a category altogether.

The same goes for strategy as well. I will give you a small example of teams where 2 out of 3 speakers refused to take a single POI and another team where a member stood to offer a POI, but had NOTHING to say when accepted and then meekly sat back down. These teams, were not penalised in strategy at all for these errors.

So what do the judges use to determine the winner? “Issues” – mainly looking at the content that has been raised by the speakers. Many judges look at these areas of clash and then, like in a tennis match, tries to see who edged ahead in more issues or in the more critical issues. Sometimes, the emphasis on issues is so strong that the judges’ tracking did not follow the speakers based on their prioritisation of the arguments but purely based on the issues raised. Thus, if one team had all three speakers speak on 1 issue, this might be neutralised by a single speaker raising this issue on the other side.

Given that the judges only care about the “issues” and not on style and strategy, many debaters surely see no need to emphasis style and strategy and now just focus on flooding the debate speech with as many issues as possible. The audience simply has no chance.

It might be useful if the judges took a more detached approached to judging instead of being the evaluator who needs to be convinced by either team. Why? Because an adjudicator is a highly specialised, well-read specimen who understands the complicated jargon being used by the debaters. This meant that these judges will now be more lenient on the speakers with bad delivery and structure. “Sure it was hard to follow, but I managed to… so it’s ok.”

Instead, they should be looking at the debate to see which team would have done a better job of convincing the average reasonable person in the audience. This now raises the bar on the clarity of the arguments, since the speakers, like the judges, would have to presume that any points not understood by an audience member would not be regarded highly. Judges are often told to be an empty slate when viewing the debate. I believe this principle extends to ensuring that you are truly looking at the debate from the perspective of someone with no prior debating experience.

I have also seen that many judges refuse to assign scores to the speakers immediately after each speech. Rather, they wait until the debate is over and then assign the scores. This creates a problem. When looking back at the notes, the impression of the speaker’s speaking ability and strategy is less evident, since the notes only capture the “issues.” This then contributes to the scores for these two categories being flattened out, especially for the forgotten earlier speakers.

The key takeaway is that the debaters in the WSDC are increasingly encouraged to ignore style and in many cases, strategy as well.

Is this good or bad?

I don’t think this is a good development at all.

I believe was the principles behind the WSDC was engagement, including engaging the audience! This is why WSDC organisers make it a point to bring debaters to different schools in host nations to ensure that there is more exposure for the speakers instead of shoving the whole tournament into a single venue. That is why style has a separate category and has the same points as content!  If this principle is sacrificed, then we are betraying the original intent of the WSDC.

Worse, debating is an activity that is supposed to prepare youth for rigorous argumentation in the future. They are in for a rude shock if they think that their clients and bosses are going to be furiously tracking their arguments on paper. They will be at a severe disadvantage to the ones making plain arguments made in approachable language with an engaging manner. I currently interview for Harvard as an alumni and I have been frankly shocked by the lack of engagement and clarity in applicants who are debaters on the Singapore circuit.

And specifically, debating should not merely be an esoteric forum for intelligent individuals to exchange views. Rather, these arenas should serve as the modern day agora where the best arguments are articulated for the benefit of all the citizens, including those who cannot speak well. When debate becomes a lonely, specialist activity that audiences would rather avoid, then we have failed to live up to this noble tradition.

I fear too for the future of debaters on the WSDC circuit. Already, at the primary schools debating championships, where style is given an even higher weightage, speakers galore are still reading from pre-written cards and failing to make eye contact. Why would they bother, when they know they can get away with this with nary a chiding from the judge? Why would the coaches bother to get them to deliver from their hearts and their minds, when they can write their students’ cases? Sure, the students won’t understand them and deliver them badly, but it’s about the issues and they got the issues out. Woot.

If we are not careful, we might end up like the way debate has transformed on the American circuit. I recall that the student debate in America was a great avenue for the articulation of ideas and audiences were compelled to listen. I thought the events of The Great Debaters movie (shown here) were exaggerated but scrolling through the Harvard Archives, I found that debates amongst the students were attended by throngs of their peers.

I then realised that our own debates on the American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA) circuit generally consisted of the two teams, the judge and the rat in the corner. The break rounds had audiences for sure, but those tended to be eliminated teams from out of town who were trapped by the snow anyways. I recall that there was only a SINGLE occasion where there were external audience members and they ended up being the parents of one of the debaters (Hi Mr and Mrs Blenkinsopp! I hope you are well). And they said they did not even enjoy the debate.

Why? On APDA, the emphasis is on getting the issues out, not on explaining them and convincing the judges. I was actually reprimanded for having too few points and trying to explain too much.

Keep it up on the WSDC and we may well end up like American Policy speakers. Want to know what 600 words per minute sounds like? Here it is. Brace yourselves.

I hope this never comes to pass.  But how I yearn for the days when student debates in Singapore, though fewer in number, had more students attending them just to enjoy them. The topics were weird and the judging was not stellar. My secondary 4 team debated RGS on the motion “I’d rather be the drum than the piano.” Our arguments may not have been the most stellar… but we got our points across, we made the audience laugh and they all took away somethings from the debate. The best of all, we never had to compel those audience members to attend.  

Ah well. We live in hope.

The post The Evolution of WSDC Debate appeared first on Debateable.

Debate Matters: Development Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:44:32 +0000 wsdc2012

A compilation produced by the Singapore National Debate Team that participated in the 2012 World Schools Debating Championships and International Public Policy Forum

Series editor: Tan Teck Wei

Contributors: Teoh Ren Jie, Benjamin Mak Jia Ming, Darion Hotan, Kok Rabin, Chua Jun Yan, Tan Kuan Hian, Rohan Shah

Coach: Mrs. Geetha Creffield

Debate Matters: Development

Ladies and gentlemen, we will deliver a few key lines of analysis about the topic...

The post Debate Matters: Development appeared first on Debateable.



Series editor: Tan Teck Wei


Coach: Mrs. Geetha Creffield

Debate Matters: Development

Ladies and gentlemen, we will deliver a few key lines of analysis about the topic…


Pause what you are doing, and look around. Ask yourself this: out of all the things you see around you, how many of them would a child in Africa not have access to? It could be the laptop you are currently reading this on. It could be the classroom you are currently in, or the textbooks beside you. It could even be the clean drinking water in your water bottle. These, among many others, are luxuries that we tend to take for granted, even though many others around the world are not fortunate enough to have. Development is, in essence, about bringing all these to others around the world, and thereby developing a greater quality of life for them.

Human development does not have a universal or concrete definition, but it tends to be as all-encompassing as possible. Thus, when seeking to improve quality of life for other people around the world, we need to consider a spectrum of approaches and mechanisms. For example, contemporary approaches to reach the same goal of development range from providing healthcare, subsidizing education, imposing environmental standards, and empowering women. Within each of these targets, there are even more different ways we could go about doing the job. Hence, the topic of development is certainly a broad one: there are many ways we can contribute to development around the world.

Before we decide on the best path of development, we need to understand who we are trying to benefit. You may have heard of the terms developed and developing world; the specific definitions of these terms are open to differing interpretations. Nonetheless, this distinction is useful in describing the world as we see it. Developed countries are usually those with a higher Gross Domestic Product (GDP), are more industrially developed, and their citizens are relatively well-off. Basic needs, like food, water and shelter, are met, while education and healthcare are accessible to most, if not all, of us. On the other hand, developing countries lack a number of these things. Some developing countries are nonetheless better of than others, and so even within the category of these countries, there is a spectrum. For example, Ethiopia and India are both developing countries, but they are still fundamentally different societies and economies. In summary, development tends to be a process that starts from developed countries, through the sharing of their resources and expertise, that ends in the developing countries.

Why does finding the best path to development matter to us? Why do we need to care about the needs of people miles away? There is no single straightforward answer to this question. Development could be important to you because you believe in certain fundamental rights that all human beings are entitled to, such as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It could also be because you believe that no one should be forced to live in suffering and poverty in developing countries. Whatever this reason may be, the practical implication on a debate about development is easy to see: your arguments and your case must be about the citizens you are trying to help. Losing focus of who development is meant to aid can be disastrous in a debate, as it is in the real world.

If the aims of development are noble, why do people disagree and persist in debate? This is because the aims of either side in a debate are largely the same, but they disagree on the means by which to accomplish them. Similarly, teams debating the best path of development all have the welfare of the developing world at heart, but they disagree on how this welfare can be maximized. To round off this introduction, we have included some possible ways of thinking about such debates; this list is naturally not all-inclusive, but are good starting points when thinking about these issues.

Is this sustainable in the future? How do short term gains measure against future harms, or vice versa?


Is this an appropriate solution? Are these solutions suitable for the cultural, social or economic situation at hand?


Is this a fair solution? Is it fair for more developed actors to be a larger burden of solving the world’s problems?

We will now delve into the specific debate motions pertaining to development, where everything that has been discussed thus far will be brought to life. Onward!

The Debate:

Debate 1: THBT African problems require African solutions


This debate is likely to swing upon which side is better able to analyze Africa, with specific reference to the causes underlying the problems plaguing it. There are some unique characteristics that ought to be noted: first, Africa’s 54 nations have a history of colonization. This means that the borders of these countries are often arbitrary, based on politics of Europe at the time and subject to the decisions of Victorian cartographers.

Second, Africans are not a homogenous group of people- they come from hundreds of diverse tribal and ethnic groups, each with their own history and culture. As a result of the previous characteristic, however, a single group may span many countries and cross many borders, while one nation may include many different ethnic groups.

Third, the decolonization of African nations following the Second World War was in many instances a rushed and hurried affair. Hence, power vacuums were created in many nations, leading to the rise of authoritarian regimes as well as the propensity for sectarian violence, as there was no force to stop it. The common occurrence of military coups as a means of changing government has also undermined efforts for democratic change.


African problems

There are three broad categories under which Africa’s problems can be placed. First, there is conflict; the African continent is rife with civil war and ethnic violence. This often leads to massive refugee problems for the region. The emergence of terrorism as a new global threat and groups that operate from Africa have also led to extremist insurgencies across the nation.

Second, there is poverty. 36.2% of Africans live on less than USD 1 a day, making it by far the world’s poorest continent. This manifests itself in problems such as food shortage, drought, lack of adequate healthcare, education or infrastructure, all of which have contributed to low life expectancy across the country.

Third, authoritarianism and oppression have left many Africans deprived of human rights and liberties. Of the 54 African nations, only 15 are considered democratic, with many others being bywords for oppression, such as Zimbabwe, Chad, Sudan, e.t.c. The lack of democracy in Africa has led to some of the most egregious violations of human rights imaginable, such as mass rapes in the Congo and ethnic genocide in Rwanda or, more recently, South Sudan.

It is true, of course, that these categories of problems are all interlinked and affect each other. The failure of democratic institutions, or their absence, increases the likelihood of conflict, which in turn is responsible not only for gross transgressions of human liberty but also for instability that stunts the continent’s economic growth. Solutions to them must, therefore, be coordinated in some way. How teams decide to use these links is up to them.

Require African solutions

The categorization of solutions follows those of the problems: first, diplomacy and intervention to end conflicts. Second, economic development and effective aid distribution to combat poverty. Finally, bringing about democratic change and reform to stop oppression, by pressuring regimes into undertaking such reforms or by aiding existing local democratic movements.

By requiring African solutions, therefore, Prop argues that the problems identified would be more efficiently and swiftly dealt with by a) the countries themselves b) other African nations c) regional African organizations such as Ecowas, SADC, or the African Economic Union, as opposed to external actors such as the UN, NATO or the USA, by achieving the aims stated above.

However, this does not mean that only African nations and organizations should be involved; it means that interference and intervention from outside powers should be avoided, and that developmental/humanitarian aid should be given without conditions, and left to be directed and allocated by African nations themselves. In short, Africans must have the final say in how their countries are run, and not be beholden to the requirements or pressures of the international community.

In contrast, Opp should argue that external organizations are better suited to implementing and bringing about such change as is needed, and should be allowed to pressure African nations where necessary, even intervening if they deem they must.

Some concerns

Prop will probably try to paint Africa’s problems as due to the persisting effects of abrupt decolonization, and argue that many non-Africans will be hard-pressed to fully understand the intricacies of Africa and be rejected by Africans. Opp, on the other hand, should probably paint Africa’s problems as being caused by a succession of corrupt dictators who are unlikely to fall in the foreseeable future, and will be more concerned with lining their pockets than with Africans’ welfare.




African solutions are better for conflict resolution


Thesis: Africans are better at mediating African conflicts because they understand the issues underlying these conflicts better.

For fellow African leaders, the divide between ethnic groups within nations and the existing tensions that lead to conflict are better understood, as being of similar ethnicities, other African countries fully understand the cultural and historical background to the conflict. By contrast, external powers often tar the whole of Africa with one brush, regarding all Africans as similar without considering ethnic or cultural differences that often lead to conflict.

Hence, African countries are far better at negotiating an end to conflict, as they do not infringe upon cultural sensibilities of Africans unlike external forces might. Furthermore, African nations have a stronger understanding of why civil conflicts within nations arise, such as the historical territorial disputes between the Zulus and Xhosas in Southern Africa, allowing them to tailor mediation towards these specific issues.

Willingness to intervene: by reason of geographical proximity, African nations have much stronger interests in other African nations. Often, conflicts lead to refugee crises, e.g. Darfur, Somalia. The mass exodus of refugees into neighbouring countries place a strain on the infrastructure of such countries, e.g. Somlian refugees in the Dadaab camps in Kenya. As a result, they have a vested interest in ensuring that conflicts do not spiral out of control. By contrast, external forces do not have such a strong vested interest, and are hence easily deterred by their domestic politics, leading to a) lack of will to intervene b) interventions without full commitment. e.g. USA and Somalia, USA pulled out after Black Hawk Down incident, leaving Somalia mired in civil war.

Hence, African nations, with a keener understanding of evolving tensions coupled with an overwhelming national interest to prevent them from spiraling into conflict, are far more likely to step in to mediate early and also to, in necessary situations, send in troops, e.g. South Africa intervening in Lesotho, without half baked interventions. External forces are subject to the whims of domestic politics, and when they fail to commit to an intervention this leads to a massive escalation of conflict in the region, e.g. Somalia.


African solutions are not better for conflict resolution

External groups are separate from the myriad of cultural politics and are hence more willingly accepted as unbiased. The specifics and sensitivities of various cultures can be taught; it is impossible for an African to divide himself from his own ethnicity.

There are problems with African mediators: African tribes and cultures are spread across many countries, due to the arbitrary nature of national borders drawn during colonialization. The fact that previously warring tribes are placed within the same borders means that often, African conflict is tribally motivated (Hutus and Tutsis, Zulu and Xhosa, Merle and Nuer in South Sudan).

African mediators also have their own tribal affiliations and ethnicities. Due to a long history of tribal conflict in Africa, every tribe has some form of past relation with another tribe. Mediators from one tribe, however well-intentioned they may be, are often open to accusations of bias that lead conflicting tribal groups to disregard their efforts. e.g. Julius Nyerere, former President of Tanzania, was tasked with mediating conflict between Hutus and Tutsis in Burundi; however, Tutsis accused him of being biased towards the Hutus, an accusation lent credence due to the fact that Nyerere belonged to the Zanaki ethnic group, which had a history of tension with the Tutsis. As a result, mediation efforts by Nyerere in Burundi did not lead to tangible success.

Non-African powers are better at mediation because there is no possible accusation of cultural/ethnic bias. It is precisely because they are more divorced from the minefield of African tribal ties that they can legitimately claim to be unbiased. e.g. mediation in Mozambique, which was driven by UN.

When you have to intervene, this feeds rhetoric: precisely because other African nations have vested interests in conflict is the reason that African intervention is likely to support one particular group. In fact, these vested interests often lead to accusations of conquest no less vitriolic than those directed at Westerners; e.g. Kenya in Somalia

African solutions are better for conflict resolution (cont.)


Ability to intervene: against the opposition to be expected, African militaries are as good as, if not better than, those of external organizations.

Against opposing armies in conventional warfare for control of territory, the opposing armies are armed merely with small arms, some gun-mounted vehicles, at most a tank or two. For example, the military of South Africa is more than capable of taking out such forces using technology it already gets from the Western world, including jet fighters. The technological difference between African militaries and external forces is hence not significant in relation to this kind of opposition.

insurgencies, guerillas, and terrorists: faced with this kind of unconventional warfare, against insurgencies, once again the difference in technological capabilities between African militaries and external ones does not constitute a substantive difference, since insurgents aren’t exactly well equipped. What is needed to deal with insurgents is: a keen understanding of where insurgents might hide themselves, where more specific African knowledge comes in useful, and winning the battle of hearts and minds, gaining trust/support of locals, which is easier when those intervening are fellow Africans as opposed to the ‘Western imperialists’ terrorist groups/insurgents often vilify.

Therefore, African militaries are just as good at intervening, if not better, than foreign militaries.

In conclusion, fellow African nations/organizations have a better understanding of conflict situations, giving them greater ability to mediate such conflicts. They have a greater incentive to prevent the escalation of conflict, and when they intervene to do so they are more effective than foreign militaries. Therefore, in the area of African conflict, African solutions are definitely better and hence required.


African solutions are not better for conflict resolution (cont.)

Even if their motives were clear, African militaries are simply unable to cope. It is true that the fight against insurgency is often not conventional warfare; however, African militaries lack the requisite and often even more specialized training for counter-insurgency warfare (more specialized because emphasis on precision, work in small, cohesive units). Equipment as well often needs to be even more advanced for counter-insurgency, as precision and stealth are key. The tanks that South Africa possesses are no use; the drones that the USA commands are. Furthermore, weak democratic institutions in Africa itself (with only 15 African nations as democracies) make abuses by soldiers more likely. For example, even South Africa’s intervention in Lesotho, to date the only African to African nation intervention with a legitimate basis, is marred by reports of soldiers killing civilians and opposing forces that tried to surrender. Lack of training in crowd control also led to widespread rioting in Lesotho’s capital, further ravaging its stuttering economy.

Non-African nations are better when intervention is necessary. It is true that Somalia was a failed intervention- following the lessons of that time, however, Western powers have been far more committed to intervention when necessary. For example, French intervention in the Ivory Coast to remove Laurent Gbagbo from power succeeded. There is continuing UN support and UN peacekeepers for the conflict in Somalia, which is the only thing to have kept Mogadishu under the legitimate government’s control.

Where African militaries lack expertise and equipment, Western nations fill the gap. It is not true that all African wars are insurgencies; the previous example of Ivory Coast was not, and neither was the intervention in Libya, which required cruise missiles African nations certainly lack. Even for insurgencies, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, against precisely the kind of insurgency African nations might face, mean that Western militaries have soldiers trained and experience in counter-insurgency, as well as equipment tailored specifically to such asymmetrical warfare.

Finally, non-African powers, especially Western ones likely to intervene, have far stronger democratic institutions and emphasis on rights, meaning that abuses by soldiers are less likely to happen.

African solutions are better for economic growth


African nations have no choice but to accept aid, often from Western nations. This aid often comes with conditions attached, and these conditions hinder economic growth as they are not tailed to African needs.

For example, the Washington Consensus: fiscal austerity, trade liberalization (allowing MNCs in, removing all trade barriers), high interest rates, privatization, and capital market liberalization (e.g. removal of currency controls) based on neoliberal economic thought. e.g IMF and every single developing nation that has ever received aid from it. USA and Angola. IMF and Russia, IMF and Argentina, IMF and East Asia.

The idea behind these market reforms is that profit motive will lead to competition, and the self-correcting invisible hand will lead to efficient outcomes. However, the invisible hand works imperfectly when there is imperfect information and imperfect markets, which is especially the case is developing countries.

These circumstances don’t exist, hence the conditions are bad for these nations. Why?

(A) Imperfect information: reforms imposed by IMF largely include privatization of state industries (e.g. Russia, where everything used to be a state industry in the USSR) as soon as possible. Under systems where perfect information and transparency are achieved, this privatization should work, and state owned assets would be sold to the highest bidder. However, especially in African countries that are often not democratic (only 15 out of 54), the system of privatization is opaque and not released to the general public. with institutions such as the media, the courts and sometimes also the opposition often not very strong, officials in charge of privatization can easily fall prey to corruption.

As a result, state owned assets are sold off to people with strong connections to state officials, with many kickbacks, leading to a system of crony capitalism that does not benefit the people or abide by the principles of neo-liberalism. Either the assets are sold at less than their actual value, or they end up being run by organized crime with strong links to officials. e.g. in Nigeria, privatization of former national telecommunications company was marred by fraud, bribery and the failure to consider existing employees in the deal that was made.


African solutions are not better for economic growth


Stance: don’t make judgment on the Washington Consensus, but believe that Western aid and conditions are necessary to prevent huge corruption. Don’t stand for everything donors do, but believe that their aid and direction is far better than African corruption and mismanagement.

Cause of problem: Africa is extremely rich in resources. Since decolonization, however, it has been mired in poverty and suffered from economic mismanagement. The key reason why is that a country’s resources go towards lining the pockets of its officials instead of helping the people. Due to the lack of democratic checks and balances, corruption is widespread and exploitation of the country’s national resources rife.

If no conditions are imposed upon aid and officials are left to decide its use, all that will happen is ever greater corruption. The good thing about all aid donations is that they share a universal condition: the aid must go towards helping the people, whether this be building a hospital or a road or a school.

Imposing such conditions upon aid that African rulers must accept helps the people of Africa by providing the basic transport and educational infrastructure they need to pull themselves out of poverty.

In fact, if you leave the use of aid up to African rulers, chances are that even if they don’t embezzle it directly, they will pump it into state-owned companies that they have a direct stake in, or waste it on grandiose monuments, as has happened time and again with public funds.

Furthermore, foreign investment is a huge driver of African growth. It is true that in some instances, donors such as China impose specific conditions. However, this happens in a minority of instances- for the most part, the foreign investment creates jobs and businesses for the African people. Even when it does happen, jobs and growth still occur- in fact, the example of China and Nigeria simply proves that even more jobs were made, since oil fields that would otherwise have been left alone under Proposition would be operated by Chinese companies hiring local Africans. Without this foreign investment, Africa would suffer from an acute lack of capital and liquidity and find itself in even more dire economic straits.

African solutions are better for economic growth (cont.)


(B) Imperfect markets: IMF reform includes lowering of trade barriers, as well as deregulation of capital markets. This allows for foreign goods to flood local African markets without the added cost of tariffs, and without subsidies for local producers. The problem is that in countries at such low levels of development, local industries lose out to MNCs which can rely on economies of scale, existing logistical infrastructure and superior technical expertise.

This leads to a huge difference in what MNCs can afford to price their goods and what local industries can price their goods while still staying proftitable. as a result, cheap foreign goods (especially from China) are able to flood the market after deregulation, and without any protections for local industries, these industries are swiftly crowded out; for example Nigeria’s budding garment industry, which got pretty much crowded out after it liberalized and MNCs flooded the market with goods from Bangladesh. The result is that local industries are suffocated, leading to less jobs for locals. Furthermore, it undermines attempts to create local industries that often become engines of growth for the entire nation.

(C) The deregulation of capital markets leads to the flow of speculative money into the country as investors bet on whether or not the economy or certain industries will grow, really fast since the IMF demands abrupt deregulation in developing nations. With so much money coming into the country, inflation rises. Given the IMF’s stance on inflation (keep it as low as possible), and the conditions worked into loans, rising inflation will trigger fiscal austerity and higher interest rates in an attempt to limit the flow of money. Fledgling businesses and poor families find it much harder to borrow the money needed to keep going. This leads to a rise in bankruptcy or closure of business in these African nations, which also feeds into unemployment. This is exacerbated because fiscal austerity removes any form of social safety net for those who are hit. Finally, foreign investors are quick to withdraw their capital in light of such circumstances, leading to a much less well-off country. e.g. Thailand in the East Asian Financial Crisis, where IMF imposed these loan conditions and George Soros took the chance to make a lot of money by destroying the Thai economy.

As a result, international policies don’t work, instead harming African economies.

African solutions are better at creating democracy


African dictators remain in power first by controlling powerful institutions such as the military, but also with a strong propaganda system that blames troubles on external forces.

Hence, Western pressure fuels rhetoric. In many autocratic regimes, democracy/women’s rights are portrayed as evil concepts that the Western imperialists are trying to impose on an African nation or culture. When external forces (often the West) decide to pressure governments towards democratic reform, with e.g. sanctions, dictators are able to claim that the West is refusing to help the poor and destitute, and do not really care about the citizens. Rallying cries are created by leaders to go against the West, including Western notions of right and wrong, and this leads to the poisoning of democracy as a concept in the minds of citizens.

More perfidiously, when dissent has already started within countries, Western support is often portrayed as an imperialist attempt to take over the country. With fears still playing in the minds of Africans over how the USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, the creation of fears over a Western takeover is a powerful tool dictators can use in their arsenal. For example, Gaddafi constantly blamed all and sundry external forces for the unrest in Libya, as has Assad in Syria. With the powerful machine of propaganda in such undemocratic states, the Western association as an outsider may well hamper all attempts at inspiring democracy.

By contrast, Africans inspire trust. When it is instead African organizations that apply this pressure, it cuts out a lot of possible dictator rhetoric about imperialism, moral superiority and so forth. This stops the fears of a Western takeover, decreasing the opposition to regime change as citizens are confident that their country will remain.

More importantly, African organizations have more influence over autocratic leaders. Many autocratic leaders count on the idea of regional affirmation, that fellow Africans believe him a legitimate leader, to actually portray legitimacy to his people. e.g. al-Bashir and Sudan.


African solutions are not better at creating democracy


The problem with African solutions is that most other African nations are just as non-democratic. Dictators tend to support other dictators over democratic change, since they fear similar change in their own countries.

Most African countries are non-democratic. As such, any regional bloc attempting to make a statement about democratic movements in, for example, Syria is automatically hamstrung by the fact that a significant number of its members might be facing or be worried about similar local challenges to the regime, e.g Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and their Shia population. The fact that dictators count on other African nations for support is proof of this: they know that other similarly undemocratic nations are far more likely to support them.

This is particularly problematic when considering that regional African organizations designed to foster positive change are similarly led by non-democratic regimes. For example, Obasanjo of Nigeria (an ex-military ruler) and Gaddafi were ex-chairmen of the African Union. This hamstrings its ability to push for tough but necessary change. Most notably, the AU stood against the world in opposing the no-fly zone over Libya and assisting the Libyan rebels.

Even when you do have groups that push for democratic change, the response of a regime is no different from its response to Westerners: that they ought not to interfere, that the protesters are terrorist rebels, and so forth. In fact, democracy itself is seen as a Western idea, such that even when one African nation supports it that African nation is deemed to be a mere puppet of the West, as Bashr al-Assad called South Africa.

The difference for external organizations such as the UN is that they are fundamentally committed to democratic principles and human rights. Also, they have stronger and more internationally recognized democratic institutions that help lend credence and momentum to fledgling democracies, not only within the nation itself but also for the international community.

To suggest that African dictators will call for democracy in other African dictatorships is naïve in the extreme, and simply will not happen. As a result, regional voting blocs usually have a majority against this democratic movements.

African solutions are better at creating democracy (cont.)


When African organizations publicly reject a figure whom they have traditionally accepted, it very strongly signals to the people of that country that their leader has lost the faith of those whose support he once used as a reason for his power. It is a clear indication that his actions are so deplorable that even a group that historically has not condemned him will now do so, and this weakens the leader’s popular cult/moral grasp over the country immensely.

Either this action itself helps precipitate the support required to topple the leader, or the threat of such action is sufficient to gain significant concessions. e.g. Arab League, Ali Abdullah Saleh.

As a result, Western powers cannot try to bring about or support existing democratic movements as this merely fuels the rhetoric of authoritarian leaders, whereas African nations are able to send very strong messages not just to dictators but also to their people about the atrocities a dictator is committing and about the importance of democracy, giving them the ability to extract concessions that would otherwise have been impossible to get.

Debate 2: THW legalize child labour in the developing world.


This is a an example of a debate that implicitly refers to a specific context for us to debate in; clearly, it would not make good socio-economic sense for Singaporean students to pull out of school tomorrow, and start finding work! Instead, child labour could most reasonably be justified in developing countries. This is where it is most common anyway, and it is within this context that child labour could possibly reap benefits.

The understanding behind this debate is that neither side can reach a perfect outcome. Thus, the proposition needs to prove that child labour, while not ideal, is principally justified and in the best interests of the child. On the other hand, the opposition needs to counter by showing that child labour is more detrimental to the child, and that it would be better for him/her if child labour was not employed in the developing world.


Child labour is defined by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the United Nations’ Children’s Fund (UNICEF) as any minor working more than a certain number of hours a week. Hence, the legal definition of child labour in each country depends on (a) the age of majority and (b) the number of hours a week that defines child labour.

Child labour thus usually refers to minors who take up a permanent job, such as working in factories, fishing vessels, plantations, among others. It is good to bear in mind that this work will usually interfere with their education, either by forcing them to drop out of school or combine their school attendance with excessively long and heavy work.

Prop policy:

The policy on Proposition needs to endorse some form of child labour, but should be a nuanced and well-regulated policy that aims to maximize the benefits while minimizing the costs to the child. A possible model to follow would include:

1.  Legalize child labour in the developing world, and legitimize it in these select instances

2.  Regulate child labour: laws on workplace safety, providing basic amounts of food and sleep as per the needs of children, outlawing reckless endangering of children (like other workers)

3.  Limit the forms of child labour: no child prostitutes, bondage, slavery – these are not part of the real-world definition of child labour, and are inherently exploitative

4.  Provide avenues of escape: regular checks on companies using child labor

Opp policy:

The policy on Opposition clearly cannot endorse child labour. However, at the same time, it should provide some alternatives that it stands for. This allows it to stand for a world with solutions to the problems that the developing world faces, rather than sounding unreasonable when saying “no child labour”. A possible model to follow would include:

1.  Do not stand for child labour: no legalization, or legitimization.

2.  Alternative toolbox of solutions: development projects, compulsory education, better health policies, birth control, higher quality schooling, targeted subsidies to encourage families to send children to school, etc.




Child labour protects the rights of children by enabling them to survive.


The rights of the child are important, but but like all rights, they exist based on priorities. When resources are limited, we need to secure basic rights first.

At the same time, in the developing world, basic rights are often not currently fulfilled. The poorest parts of the developing world live in poverty, without enough food, and are forced to live from hand to mouth.

Child labor helps children to fulfill basic rights better, because it allows children to supplant the income of their family, helping to put food on the table. This allows these children and families to survive these harsh conditions.

In fact, because we often cannot send every child to school, some element of child labor pays for the education of a few and helps the family in increasing their income in the long-run.

Child labor also helps as a temporary solution to tide families through crises, before returning to school to continue their schooling. For example, in the 1990s, in Vietnam, 80% of child labor was in agriculture. When trade barriers went down, prices went up, and child labor went down accordingly as families were relatively better off.

Therefore, child labor is effective and crucial in helping families and children survive, by securing their future without sacrificing today’s needs.

A ban on child labour protects the child and his rights.

Children have rights, more than adults, because they are less capable than adults of protecting themselves. In the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, children are protected from abuse, and cannot be treated as possessions or chattels

These rights are important and need to be upheld because parents do not always make the best decisions for their children, and these rights protect the child from abuse and harm in these cases.

Child labour clearly violates these rights and hurts the child.

When deciding to work, parents have more leverage over the child. They have the ability, through their emotional bond, to compel the child to work. Often, they also have full control over selling a child off. This means that the true consent of the child is often not present when he decides to work. Even if they do agree to work, in the workplace, children are less capable of resisting abuse, running away, or reporting abuse, because they are more easily intimidated and physically controlled.

This work causes permanent harm to the child’s development and growth: the workplace is often very dangerous, in particular the jobs that children are needed to fill. For example, diving down to the coral reefs to attach nets, because only children are small enough to get down deep. The pressure permanently harms their body, and many children end up attacked by carnivorous and poisonous fishes. Similarly, an ILO report in 2002 found that 179 million children are currently trapped in child labour that endangers the child’s physical, mental or moral well-being.

Even when the work is not in itself dangerous, children need more rest and nutrition in their growing years, and this is unlikely to happen when they are needed to work a sizable amount of time a day to maintain economic value.

Furthermore, parents end up having an economic incentive to sell their children as labor for money, rather than necessity. For example, Brazil in 1990s, when coffee prices went up, child labour rates went up as well, and school attendance went down, because parents used this opportunity to profit.

The child labour market protects children from worse exploitation.


Because of the sheer poverty in developing world, the desperation of families means that children will always need to be a source of income. (32% of workforce in Africa and 22% in Asia are children, despite its illegality)

Therefore, the best thing we can do is to ensure children are not exploited, and gives them the best chance for development in the future. This means we need to protect them from bondage, work without pay, being sold into servitude, or excessively dangerous work.

Legalizing the child labor market combats exploitation, because:

Resources spent enforcing can be better used to make workplaces safer, and without punishing parents for their poverty instead. For example, in Thailand, knowledge or connivance of child labor = 4-20 years prison for parents, fine of 80,000 to 400,000 baht. In the Philippines it’s a 5000 pesos fine, 6 months jail.

Making child labor illegal forces parents to respond by sending children to kids in informal sector, which is often more dangerous, because they want to avoid getting caught. With a legal market alternative, we will be able to regulate workplaces and provide a safer option for parents. Parents will be less likely to take the illegal option, even if it pays more, because of the risk analysis – parents know that it’s dangerous to send children to black market sectors, and what they need most is a stable income. Given that the legal option provides this with far less risk, parents are less likely to send children to more dangerous forms of child labor.

Thus, a legal child labor market better protects children from exploitation.

Child labour hurts the economic development of the country.


Child labor prevents children from attending school over a sustained period of time, because they spend most of their time and energy recuperating and working, leaving nothing much for schooling. Furthermore, they often have to work substantial hours to be economically productive for the employer. For example, Sierra Leone and Niger, 78% child labor %, about 30% school attendance.

This results in a less educated workforce in the future, without the basic literacy/numeracy skills to take on more advanced jobs.

Without these skills, citizens will lack the ability to take on better jobs, and thus be locked into the same low-paying industry as before.

This leads to a poverty trap, where individuals are never able to improve their position.

ILO estimates that banning child labor and educating all children would raise the world’s total income by 22% over 20 years, because of the economic boost of primary and lower secondary education, as well as health benefits.

Hence, since child labor sacrifices the future development of our human capital and economic development, a ban on child labor is necessary.

Legalizing child labour gives children the real-world skills needed to survive.


In the developing world, support structures, where adults take care of their children’s welfare, are not always present. This could be because of parents who are forced to work far away from their homes, or who die young due to AIDS or other diseases. Furthermore, state welfare for orphans or underprivileged children is usually non-existent, because of a lack of resources.

In these cases, children are often forced to take care of themselves, and their siblings, at an extremely young age. This is not an ideal circumstance, but legalizing child labour helps these children survive.

Compared to traditional education, child labour allows children the opportunity to pick up trades or work skills. These enable them to find jobs despite not having literacy or a full education. Furthermore, child labour helps children develop a sense of the real world through the work experience they obtain.

This enables them to survive better in the absence of parents or guardians, because minors who have experienced some form of child labour will be better able to hold down a job for himself, as well as make decisions for his siblings if needed. This gives a significant number of broken families the best opportunity to survive the loss of one or both parents, and thus should be legalized.

Legalizing child labour makes it harder to protect the child.


The legalization of child labor is tantamount to the government legitimizing the act. This encourages and endorses parents treating children as economic instruments, or tools for income.

This makes it harder for us to protect children from other forms of abuse in society. It encourages parents to sell their children into worse occupations with more lucrative payouts, in order to maximize the income of the child, such as prostitution, marriage, factory work. It also encourages more to offer these illegal jobs, because they justify their approach with the same economic logic of proposition. The state has already legitimized the trade-off between welfare of child and economic necessity, so both parties are going to be more likely to do so.

It also makes it harder for parents to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate occupations for their children. Most of them are not educated, very vulnerable. In the status quo, there are already many who are tricked into child or human trafficking in the developing world with the promise of a better life, thinking it’s a legitimate venture. This is going to be worse when they are expected to distinguish between legal and illegal forms of child labor, as compared to an outright ban on all child labor and education that all forms are illegal.

Since legalizing child labor hampers our ability to protect children from worse abuse, we would not legalize it.

Debate 3: THW tie development aid to environmental standards.


Prop policy:

Proposition teams must consider the following questions in their model or policy. Given the fiasco surrounding environmental negotiations in Copenhagen (2009) and Mexico City (2010), it is vital for the Proposition to demonstrate that a fair and equitable arrangement acceptable to all parties is feasible in the real world.

What are the types of aid being discussed? (note the distinction between developmental aid, which is used to promote long-term economic growth, and humanitarian aid, which is used to alleviate immediate suffering after a natural disaster)

Through what channels do these types of aid reach their recipients? NGOs like Red Cross or Oxfam? International organizations like World Bank and IMF?

What are the environmental standards which will be used? (e.g. United Nations Environmental Program / Kyoto protocol) 

Who will objectively and accurately assess whether these standards are met? How will they do so?

Opp policy:

For the sake of consistency, the clearest line for opposition to argue is that developmental aid should always be given unconditionally. To demonstrate how environmental problems can be solved in their paradigm, opposition could suggest alternative mechanisms by which environmental protection can be upheld in developing countries. For instance, this could include the transfer of environmentally-friendly technology from richer to poorer nations. Nonetheless, opposition teams must ensure that the mechanisms they propose do not contract the principles they enshrine in their constructive arguments. For example, threatening economic sanctions or tariffs against polluting countries would go against an argument about how developing countries should be allowed to develop first and take care of the environment later.




Developing nations have an equal duty to uphold environmental standards and should be penalized if they fail to do so.


At its heart, development is about protecting the welfare of the people. Environmental protection is not exclusive to this aim, because the effects of environmental damage directly compromise the quality of life of locals.

First, pollution severely threatens the health of people. An asthmatic child in Beijing literally chokes to death from the impenetrable smog in the air; a person living drinking tainted water from the Mekong River risks developing cancer.

Second, environmental degradation tears apart homes and habitats.  When forests are indiscriminately cut down, indigenous peoples are displaced; when soil erosion occurs, farmland becomes barren and destroys livelihoods.

Third, climate change and global warming fuels natural disasters which ravage developing nations and claim lives. Hence, it is an issue which must be mitigated at all costs. We have already seen the powerful effects of global warming in action during Hurricane Katrina and Cyclone Nargis.

Worse, 3rd-party harm from environmental damage accrues to other nations as well, because air and water pollution knows no borders. This is fundamentally unjust to countries that do not pollute and must be stopped.

While the first world may have developed at the expense of the environment, the crucial distinction is that it had no knowledge of the harms it was precipitating. Humanity ought to have learnt its lesson and its developmental trajectory should reflect this.

Consequently, development without attention to environmental protection is irresponsible and dangerous. However, governments are often too blinded by short-term realities and the demands of a hungry electorate to do what is best for their country.

Hence, developmental aid ought to nudge governmental policy in developing countries in the right direction.

Developing nations have a right to prioritize economic growth over environmental protection.


There is almost always a trade-off to be made between the economy and the environment. Building a factory means cutting down trees; expanding the transport system means increasing air pollution. In the case of developing countries, environmental damage is inevitable in achieving growth. This is because growth necessarily entails a shift from low-value agricultural activities to more intensive secondary industries. Moreover, these countries lack the money and expertise to introduce environmentally-friendly solutions which are more expensive.

It is unfair to expect developing nations to uphold the same environmental standards as the first world, because developed countries accumulated its wealth through rapid industrialization which caused present-day environmental degradation in the first place. Developing countries should not be denied the same opportunity to grow.

Moreover, the developed world is actually liable for most environmental problems in the third world. The most polluting factories are funded by first-world consumers and controlled by MNCs headquartered in major cities.  Even till today, developed countries fail to uphold their obligations under international environmental agreements and refused to be held to account. Consequently, it is unjustified to expect developing countries to bear full responsibility for environmental problems.

Given that most developing nations dependent on foreign aid for survival, tying aid to the environment equates to functionally compelling them to choose the environment over economic growth.

This is particularly damning because the basic needs of citizens in the third world are still not being met – up to 2 billion people still live below the UN poverty line of $2 a day. Hence, the foremost goal of governments in the developing world should (legitimately) be on alleviating this immediate suffering and improving the standard of living of the people which elects them. Even though the environment is important as well, the long-term implications of climate change and pollution come second to the pressing and direct needs of the people.

Therefore, it is unfair to force developing countries to meet environmental standards in order to gain access to developmental aid.

Tied aid promotes long-term economic growth.


Slower development which is environmentally sustainable ends up being more beneficial in the long run.

Why? Economic growth which fails to account for environmental standards often entails exploiting and extracting resources (be in fertile land, forest, oil or coal) in the quickest rate possible. This is done without regard for whether the resource is able to naturally renew and replenish itself.

Because these industries are so lucrative, companies have little incentive to diversity into higher-value economic activities. Amongst companies, the profit motive dictates that they try to gain as much as possible from a country’s resources before a competitor reaps the benefits (read more on the Tragedy of the Commons).  

Eventually, the resources that the country depends on will run out due to unsustainable use.  With no alternative to turn to, economic stagnation and decline occurs.

As such, any sustainable model of development must meet sound environmental standards. An important mechanism for ensuring this is to tie developmental aid to environmental protection.

Tied aid hinders long-term environmental protection.


When developing countries are forced to adopt stringent environmental standards at the expense of growth in order to gain access to aid, citizens and governments perceive environmentalism to be a neocolonial imposition on their independence and autonomy.

Consequently, the aim of developing countries becomes to gain aid as quickly as possible by superficially and dogmatically adhering to environmental standards. Outside the purview of these indices, these countries have no regard for the environment. This is problematic, because the environment covers such a broad scope of factors that no set of standards can possible cover all of them.

Worse, developing countries have a perverse incentive to cover-up environmental abuses by concealing them – a problem which is hard to resolve due to endemic corruption and enforcement problems under such circumstances.

In contrast, our model allows the local population to progressively buy into the principles of environmentalism as it becomes wealthier and gains the means to care for and protect its surroundings. This gradual uptake of conservationism permits civil society to pressure their governments into becoming truly environmentally-friendly through advocacy and campaigning. It also increases the chances of success of environmental initiatives by winning over the support and adherence of the people.

In sum, the path to truly sustainable growth is one without tied aid.

Developed nations have no duty to give aid and are legitimate in using aid to further their own interests, including that of environmentalism. 


The premise of this argument is that the foremost duty of any government is to protect its own people. This is because governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of those which elect them and fund its activity through taxes.

Aid is no different in this regard and ought to be used strategically as a foreign policy tool  to advance the interests of the donor nation.

Given that the polluting practices  of the third world harm the citizens of the first world (as w have proven above), governments of developed countries have a right to defend their own interests by urging developing nations to adopt more stringent environmental standards.

If this requires the tying of developmental aid to environmental standards, we would be prepared to do it.

Developed nations have an inherent duty to give aid to poorer countries; hence, aid should not be used as an instrument to achieve other goals.


The wealth of a nation is based on morally arbitrary circumstances – it is through the lottery of geography and history that a country is situation on a piece of land endowed with mineral resources, or at a strategic location near shipping routes. 

Therefore, it can never be truly said that a developed country truly earned its riches. Vice versa, it is inherently unfair that some nations are disadvantaged by factors beyond their control.

Consequently, developed countries have a duty to compensate for these accidental circumstances by sharing the benefits they have reaped with the less fortunate.

Furthermore, developed nations are often responsible for the plight of poorer countries. For instance, the legacy of colonial abuse and exploitation continues to foster tribal conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa and prevent sustained growth. Therefore, developed nations have a duty to recompense for past wrongs.

One important instrument by which this can be accomplished is through the provision of developmental aid.   Because this is an inherent duty that developed countries have to developing ones, however, aid should not be used to further any particular agenda, including that of environmentalism. Hence, it is immoral and unjust for developmental aid to be tied to environmental standards.

Debate 4: THW remove patents for AIDS drugs in the developing world



The bulk of HIV/AIDS infections and eventual casualties occur in developing countries; in 2007, the WHO estimated that 76% of HIV/AIDS-related deaths occurred in Sub-Saharan Africa. Given the extent of poverty in these nations, many afflicted with HIV/AIDS cannot afford the lifelong therapy of antiretrovirals needed to manage HIV/AIDS.

It is in this context, that we consider the removal of patents on AIDS drugs. Currently, pharmaceutical companies that originate from developed nations patent new drugs so that, for a period that usually lasts from 7-12 years, these companies have a monopoly on the production and sale of that drug. The rationale given is that these new drugs are the intellectual property of these companies, and that these companies must be allowed to recoup the colossal costs of R&D. This monopoly thus allows a pharmaceutical to control the price of the drug for the period of the patent.

In a world without patents, other drug manufacturers would be allowed to produce the same drug. As a result of the competition, the price of the drug would be driven downwards. These drugs would then, presumably be affordable to HIV/AIDS patients in the developing world.

Operating in the background of this entire debate is the shadow of what HIV/AIDS is. Is it an incurable disease that patients will always be consigned to managing with lifelong, costly therapy? Or is it in fact, a disease with a cure that is within our reach with R&D continuing. In Germany, a man who received experimental bone marrow transplant in 2007 has reportedly been cured of AIDS completely. The HIV can no longer be found in his blood.

Bear in mind that many of the arguments below swing at the fulcrum of characterization/context. Consider these questions and others on the status quo during prep:

  • What is the behavior of pharmaceuticals like in the developing world? Altruistic or mercenary? A bit of both?
  • What sorts of drugs are available in the status quo to developing countries? The reasonably functional, the grossly outmoded or the top-of-the-line? Why is it any of these cases?
  • What is the nature of the HIV/AIDS epidemic? Is the threat receding or is it just as dangerous today as it was 2 decades ago? What are the modern problems in managing HIV in the developing world?


What is more important in the fight against HIV/AIDS ⎯ Incentivizing further R&D or Ensuring affordability today? The question that underpins this question is whether the two are mutually exclusive or if either team can better maximizes these two goods.

Strategic concerns:

The Proposition must decide in prep if they plan on removing the patents in developing countries alone or if they would extend the policy to developed countries as well. Both stances have strategic implications. Should you choose the former, a team would have to defend against the accusation of a inconsistency of principle; the impoverished in the developed world have just as much trouble securing their treatment as those in the developing world, the Opposition may argue. Should you choose the latter, the arguments that R&D would become unprofitable become particularly resonant as there would be no market where these firms would not be undercut.

The Opposition can include a buffer in their model that they would tighten patent law to prevent exploitative extensions of patents. It would be helpful to illustrate the feasibility of making patent law airtight by showing existing trends in the direction. This would counteract the weight of some the Proposition’s rhetoric and argumentation that patents eventually last forever, preventing developing nations from ever getting the drugs they need.




People in developing countries will be saved.

The poor in the developing world need these drugs to continue surviving. There is a need for the most recent of drugs because HIV is becoming increasingly resistant to the first-generation of drugs that are no longer protected under patents. In addition these first-generation drugs come with debilitating side effects that remove HIV/AIDS sufferers quality of life.

To deprive them of these drugs is to remove their ability to live lives of dignity ⎯ that all human beings deserve ⎯ on account of where their poverty and where they were born.  These circumstances were beyond their control and such deprivation is unfair.

They do not get access to these new drugs because they are too expensive for NGOs, hospitals and governments to distribute in these nations.

This was the precise cause of the massive protests in Rabat, Morocco ⎯ a only marginally democratic state ⎯ against the high prices of such drugs.

If patents are removed, no pharmaceutical will have monopoly over the sale of the drug.

Generic drug companies local to developing countries will be able to produce the drugs at a far cheaper cost than the pharmaceuticals because manufacturing these drugs is in fact very cheap. The drug will thus become more affordable to buy and distribute

AIDS triple-combination therapy, which costs US$ 10 000 per patient per year in industrialized countries, can now be obtained from Indian generic drugs company, Cipla, for less than US$ 200 per year

Thus, the people in developing countries who are desperately in need, will no longer have to suffer the degradation of their dignity and lives.

Pharmaceuticals’ right to intellectual property must be upheld.

The right to property arises because we acquire property on account of our efforts

The reason we own the land we bought is because the money we used to buy it is the product of our labour

Similarly, new antiretrovirals are the product of a pharmaceutical’s labour. In its creation went the efforts of countless researchers, financiers, etc.

Because it is their property, they have the right to seek out protection of that property and for that protection to be respected.

When governments start taking away patent protections, it is saying that other people can make claims on your property

This is the equivalent of the rest of society staking claim on what brought your property about in the first place: your labour.

Therefore the abolition of patents is morally equivalent to the enslaving of those researchers by society and cannot be tolerated.

R&D by pharmaceuticals is in fact sped up by removing patents.


Patents hinder the introduction of ‘generic’ drugs – anti-retroviral drugs manufactured by smaller, local companies.

Paracetamol is a generic drug – it has exactly the same chemical composition as Panadol but is manufactured by many companies worldwide as patent rights to the chemical composition have expired.

Generic drug companies drive R&D in two ways.

Firstly, they can take on R&D on a smaller scale themselves, piggybacking on the unpatented developments made by larger pharmaceuticals

Secondly, by producing the same drug as big pharmaceuticals, they create competition for these pharmaceuticals.

In order to maintain their profits and status as market-leaders, pharmaceuticals will now have to speed up R&D as the differentiating gap between them and the generic drug companies would have narrowed.

R&D will be compromised by the removal of patents

R&D is crucial in combating HIV/AIDS. New drugs and new combinations are crucial in easing the debilitating side effects of antiretroviral drugs, increasing the degree of inhibition of the virus ie. Increasing life-span, decreasing the chances of secondary infection, etc. Some new drugs have even been shown to have preventive effects. None of these developments are possible without continued R&D

Triple-combination HIV therapy was only made possible after the development of the drug Saquinavir which began in 1987 and only bore fruit in 1995.

R&D is immensely costly. This is because of the inherent costs of employment, equipment, administering trials, etc. Secondly, there are several drugs that fail completely in R&D; the capital invested in these drugs is never recouped because they never become viable products. Therefore, for every new successful product, there are the added costs of every failure the led to the eventual product.

Therefore, the cost to a pharmaceutical developing a drug far outweigh the cost of merely manufacturing.

The research costs of a standard anti-retroviral drug for instance, are estimated at over US$ 400 billion

Therefore, a pharmaceutical can thus be easily outcompeted by generic drug companies in terms of price as generic drug companies have far lower costs because they only manufacture

Therefore, in a world without patents, a pharmaceutical will not be able to make a profit on newly developed drugs.

There will thus be no incentive for them to develop these drugs

Patents in the developed world are insufficient to ensure profitability because HIV/AIDS is becoming a rarity in the developed world; the market for these drugs has shrunk significantly.

Therefore, the only viable means of securing more R&D is the maintenance of patents in the developing world.

Patents are prone to exploitation that worsens the HIV/AIDS crises

When patents are in place, pharmaceuticals will strive to keep them in place as long as possible.

This is because this would allow them to maintain their monopoly and thus their supernormal profits for an even longer span of time.

Consequently, pharmaceuticals will make small changes to the product or the manufacturing process that would make their drug eligible for a new patent.

Therefore, the patent will be extended indefinitely. This process is called evergreening.

Governmental regulation on such exploitation is difficult because pharmaceuticals will always look for loopholes in the regulations and tweak their product accordingly.

In the past, drug companies would merely change the colour of the casing of the drug in order to evergreen their patent. When regulation tightened, they began changing non-critical aspects of the drug like the concentration of water, the means of administration, etc.

Therefore, regulation is at best reactive rather than proactive to the new methods of exploitation that companies find.

Therefore, HIV/AIDS patients in developing world are likely to continue receiving old-generation antiretrovirals as they will not be able to afford the newer drugs.

This will worsen the plight of HIV/AIDS sufferers in the developing world who will have to wait even longer to get drugs at an affordable price, if ever at all.

Pharmaceuticals will be driven to keeping the fruits of their R&D “trade secrets”

In IP law, there exist several types of legal protections of intellectual property. One of these is patents and the other, is “trade secret” protection.

Patents function on the disclosure of information; Pharmaceuticals disclose information about their product, manufacturing process, etc. and agree that their monopoly on that product will cease after a period of time in return for a wider ambit of legal protections.

“Trade secrets” allow companies to maintain the secrecy of the process and product indefinitely, albeit with fewer legal protections in the event the secret is found out.

Currently pharmaceuticals prefer to patent their developments because they are confident that they will recoup their R&D losses within the timeframe of the patent. Therefore, pharmaceuticals prefer the wider legal protections of a patent over the indefinite timeframe of trade secrets.

If we remove patents, pharmaceuticals no longer have the guarantee of recouping their costs.

Pharmaceuticals will thus be more inclined to protecting innovations through trade secrets because this will allow them to recover the losses they made in R&D

This is a bad thing because this means that information on how to develop certain drugs and improvements in the manufacturing process will no longer be shared with the entire industry

Therefore the existing framework of R&D where pharmaceutical piggybacks on the research of each other will not exist.

The development of new and better drugs will thus take longer, meaning more people suffering and dying of HIV/AIDS in the interim.

Debate 5: THW cancel the debts of developing nations



The debts of developing nations refers to the foreign debt owed to external creditors by the governments of those nations. This includes the repayment of financial and developmental loans, as well as debt transferred from former colonial powers to their former colonies. External creditors include individual countries, as in the case of the debt Haiti owed to France as the price of independence, as well as international monetary institutions, as in the lending schemes offered by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Often, this external debt is crippling to the economies of developing nations which cannot afford to repay, especially with the relatively high interest rates attached to loans.

Initiatives seeking to cancel or reduce developing nations’ debts have been attempted by various parties before. This includes individual state actors, as in the case of France’s reduction of Haiti’s debt in the 1800s, and global activist groups like the Jubilee Debt Coalition, which calls for the abolition of ‘unpayable’ debt.

The central questions of this debate are:

  1. Who, in principle, should shoulder the burden of debt?
  2. What is best for the developing world?
  3. What are the effects of debt cancellation on the developed world and the international community?


We advocate a complete abolition of all external debt owed by all developing nations. This will be a once-off policy; loans undertaken after this cancellation takes effect must be repaid. We also support ongoing global efforts to improve the transparency and fairness of all loans made by corporations, governments, and international financial institutions, such that future loans can be made in a just fashion.


We stand for a variety of possible measures to help the developing world with its debt burden, including the restructuring of debt, reduction or cancellation of interest, and extending the time period across which the sum must be repaid. However, the principal sum must be repaid.




Debt cancellation is the duty of the developed world

Thesis: the developing world should not be forced to adhere to agreements it had no control over.

We hold individuals responsible for their own actions. This principle is extended to democratic states – if the people of a nation have chosen a particular government to represent their interests and make agreements on their behalf, then they are responsible for the actions of that government.

However, the vast majority of developing nations currently saddled with debt are non-democracies. This means that citizens of those nations had no control over the financial agreements made by their dictatorial rulers.

The problem is that debt repayment often incurs great costs to the citizens of developing nations. Developing nations that have emerged from the dictatorial regimes that incurred the debt in the first place are forced to utilize their own financial reserves and taxpayers’ money to repay, while in developing nations which are still ruled by dictatorships, dictators simply increase taxes or divert resources to finance debt repayment, ignoring the harm caused to their people.

Thus it is unjust in principle to force the burden of debt repayment onto a people who had no say in the creation of that debt in the first place.

However, this injustice is even more severe in the case of developing nations’ debt, for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, because developed nations which gave loans to dictatorial regimes often knew these loans would be used to fund brutal and oppressive practices, or that large portions of the loans would be siphoned off through corruption. This happened in the case of South Africa, where lenders essentially fueled the Apartheid regime; it is unconscionable that South Africa was forced to repay the very loans used to brutalize them. This was also seen in Zimbabwe, where the Ian Smith regime borrowed heavily to finance military spending to maintain its fragile grip on the nation through violence and terror; creditors in the developed world knew full well where the money was going.

Canceling debt is unfair to the developed world

Thesis: it is unfair in principle to deny citizens of the developed world what is rightfully theirs

Monetary loans are fundamentally taken out of the pockets of citizens in the developed world. Whether it comes from governments, in which case they are extracted from taxpayer’s money, or from corporations, in which case they are the property of the owners and shareholders of those companies, they are the property of citizens.

Citizens of the developed world deserve to have their money returned to them. This is especially relevant to developed nations struggling to deal with financial troubles brought about by the recent financial crisis. The repayment of loans goes to funding welfare programs in the developed world which support the poor and needy.

Furthermore, the loans made to developing nations did bring about benefits. Other than direct developmental loans which contributed to infrastructure building, even monetary loans used by dictators to support their regimes were paradoxically better for citizens of those countries.

This is because the dictator’s alternative to using funds from external creditors would have been to extort that amount from his people; hence, the loans actually allowed them to retain a greater portion of their property.

Thus, there is a principle obligation for the developing world to pay off its debts.

Debt cancellation is the duty of the developed world (cont.)


Secondly, because of the legacy of colonialism. After former colonies declared independence from their colonial masters, they were often forced to pay reparations or shoulder part of the colonial masters’ debt in return for independence. France forced Haiti to pay 150 million francs in return for French recognition of Haiti as an independent state.


Thirdly, because the developed world is responsible for the creation of monetary institutions that cripple the developing world. Institutions like the World Bank and the IMF impose conditions on monetary loans that cripple developing economies, which will be further explained later.


Thus, it is unjust to compel a person to pay for the actions of another, and it is the duty of the developed world to cancel debt because it was complicit in the creation of poverty and suffering.

Debt cancellation gives the developing world the freedom to grow

Thesis: debt cancellation removes a massive financial burden from the developing world

To finance debt repayment, developing countries divert their national financial resources to pay off debt.

This is highly problematic because it means a reduction of spending on social services. In developing countries like Angola, Liberia and Lebanon, total external debt dwarfs government expenditure on public services. In 2004, Ecuador spent 12% of its GDP paying off debts and just over 3% on healthcare and education.

This is very significant in the developing world. The expenditure on debt repayment prevents developing nations from providing basic standards of living for their people. This means fewer people have access to hospitals, keeping disease rampant and difficult to cure, and children have less access to schools, which denies them their ability to learn and grow. In fact, some extrapolations based on UNICEF data suggest that several million children in sub-Saharan Africa who perished due to extreme poverty could have been saved by the huge sums of money spent instead on paying off debt since the 1980s.

Thus, canceling debt allows the developing world to spend on protecting its citizens.

Furthermore, canceling debt aids the growth of the developing world. The poor living conditions of citizens prevents them from contributing effectively to the workforce. Citizens who are not afflicted by rampant disease can contribute more effectively; greater access to education would add to the skills of people in the workforce. Many Chinese corporations, in their operations in the African continent, have placed a premium on ensuring that their local employees are kept in decent working and living conditions.

Thus canceling debt allows developing nations to increase the living standards of their people, as well as to develop their economies better.

Canceling debt undermines the growth of the developing world

Thesis: debt cancellation undermines investor confidence in the developing world

Realistically, the developing world still requires a great deal of investment and borrowing in order to grow. This is because the developing world requires the raw capital to kickstart expansion into new sectors; it also benefits greatly from infrastructural investment. For example, China’s investment in the African continent is expected to increase to $50 billion by 2015; it commonly undertakes developmental projects, including the construction of roads, railroads, and ports, which facilitate internal movement and growth.

The problem is that debt cancellation creates the perception of a moral hazard. Even if debt cancellation is only once-off, at the point where the developing world succeeds in securing a complete debt cancellation deal, it creates the fear of such a deal being secured in the future.

This undermines investor confidence, because it suggests that the developing world might begin to undertake reckless borrowing schemes without regard for the consequence, as someday developing countries might simply secure another debt cancellation deal. This skews the risk/reward analysis of investors away from developing nations by adding significant uncertainty in the returns of investment.

Consequently, the growth of developing nations is undermined by the loss of investor confidence when all debts are cancelled.

Debt cancellation frees the developing world from the shackles of the developed world

Thesis: debt repayment forces the developing world to stay beholden to international financial institutions set up by the developed world

Often, developing nations are forced to take loans to pay off their debts. These additional loans usually come from international financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF. This is problematic because these loans come with conditions that stifle development.

The first general condition is a restriction of public expenditure in order to keep the nation’s budget balanced. This is detrimental because it means decreased access to hospitals and schools, which not only leaves citizens unable to take care of the sick and educate the young, but also hampers development by keeping developing nations mired in disease and illiteracy.

The second type of condition is the opening up of markets, supposedly to allow developed nations to compete with local industries. The problem is that the developed world continues to provide subsidies and support to its own industries; this means that they can flood the developing world’s markets with cheaper goods that undercut local producers, driving them out of business and creating rampant unemployment.

The third type of condition is the privatization of public services. Problematically, the desire of private corporations to maximize profits has led to an increase in the price of public services across the developing world; in some countries, water supply has been cut off by private corporations to those who cannot pay, which is unconscionable, since access to water water is a basic human right. Additionally, legal recourse is lacking when a relatively small number of private companies hold strangleholds over public services.

Furthermore, even if these loans didn’t come with harmful conditions, they only succeed in trapping the developing world in a vicious cycle of debt repayment, as additional borrowing only increases debt which will still have to be paid off later.

Thus canceling debt allows the developing world to escape from entrapment in poverty.

Canceling debt denies the developing world the dignity of repaying debt

Thesis: debt repayment is a symbol of a nation’s departure from its difficult past

Debt is seen as a remnant of a previous era. This is because debt is often the consequence of historical injustices, such as reckless borrowing by dictatorial regimes, or the result of the legacy of colonialism. Thus debt is a symbol of an era which represents oppression and suffering.

The act of repaying debt dignifies an entire nation. This is because it is a clear sign that the nation has moved on from the era which incurred the debt in the first place. This is among the reasons why South Africans were very much in favor of repaying debt, for the symbolism of having moved on from the Apartheid era.

Furthermore, canceling debt demeans the dignity of the developing world. The dignity of a nation is fundamentally rooted in its ability to survive and progress on its own; a nation forever reliant on the assistance of others is nothing more than a puppet nation, an extension of another. The act of canceling debt represents the inability of the developing world to move on from its own problems without the help of the developed world.

Conversely, allowing the developing nations to pay off their own debts demonstrates their capacity to help themselves.

Thus canceling debt denies developing nations the chance to dignify themselves by paying off the debts of the past.

Possible readings:


Globalization and its Discontents by Joseph Stiglitz

Making Globalization Work by Joseph Stiglitz

The Bottom Billion by Paul Collier

The End of Poverty by Jeffery Sachs

No Logo by Naomi Klein

Open World: The Truth about Globalization by Philippe Legrain

The post Debate Matters: Development appeared first on Debateable.

My Observations from WSDC 2012 Cape Town Tue, 31 Jan 2012 04:05:20 +0000 I have just returned from an interesting World Schools Debating Championships (WSDC) in Cape Town, South Africa.

The post My Observations from WSDC 2012 Cape Town appeared first on Debateable.

I have just returned from an interesting World Schools Debating Championships (WSDC) in Cape Town, South Africa. Cape Town is a beautiful city and the organisers and the hosts were some of the friendliest people I have ever met. Going to the townships to judge was a very memorable experience and learning about the debating efforts of the schools in these poor neighbourhoods was a heartening moment. Although there were many hiccups, the organisers worked hard to make sure that everyone had a splendid time. That said, the 2012 edition of the tournament proper left me with mixed feelings. Although I am very happy to have had the opportunity to have accompanied an outstanding Singapore team to the event, I feel that many components of the tournament could have been improved. This report will focus exclusively on the debate related components of the tournament, namely, the motions, the debating and the judging. I personally believe that the quality of the motions could have been much better and that there are some puzzling and possibly detrimental developments in the debating and the judging as well.




2              I feel that the motions used in for WSDC 2012 could have been selected with more care so that they would have been more appropriate for a World Schools Tournament; one which features high school level debaters debating in front of audiences of a similar age. I do not know for sure if the outcome of the tournament would have been different with a different set of motions. I am also aware that it is not possible to come up with a perfect set of motions for an entire tournament. I also appreciate that the individuals setting the motions had done so with the best of intentions. However, I also believe an after-tournament evaluative process is critical to ensuring high quality motions suitable for future WSDCs. It is with this intent that the following observations are made.


3              The motions used in the tournament were as follows:





THW ban alcohol


THBT newly democratised Arab nations should not allow religious parties to participate in elections (prepared)


THW allow single parents in prison to raise their children behind bars


THBT developing nations should place limits on internal rural-urban migration (prepared)


THBT the police should use racial profiling when fighting crime


Reserve: THBT government-run broadcasting stations should give airtime to racist political parties (Used  for India vs Mexico)


THBT the feminist movement should seek a ban on pornography (prepared)


THS Child Labour in the Developing World


THBT states should enshrine legally actionable socio-economic rights (prepared)


THBT the govt should create schools that teach in endangered indigenous languages


THBT Gay rights organizations should out gay public figures


THS a 100% tax on all inherited wealth


TH regrets South Africa’s decision to use the Truth and Reconciliation Commission rather than prosecuting perpetrators of crimes committed under Apartheid (prepared)


4              The motions are limited to a narrow set of topics. The majority of these motions relate to social issues as well as possible measures to address these social problems. Missing at the tournament were topics ranging from sports, the environment, technology and science, war and terrorism, international relations and so forth. This narrow set of topics had the following effects:

  1. Punishing good preparation:Debaters who had prepared for the tournament by reading up on a wide range of topics and examples were not able to take advantage of their hard work. Teams which happened to have been more comfortable within this narrow range of topics would then have had an advantage over more well-rounded teams. A possible concern should the motions continue along this trend is that teams stop trying to read up on a wide range of areas and instead try to focus only on social motions in anticipation of similar topics at the next tournament.
  2. Preventing growth as debaters:Speakers are able to grow tremendously when they face off against teams bringing different national and cultural perspectives to a wide range of issues. When the topics are limited in range, the speakers are unable to learn as much from the debates during the tournament.
  3. Preventing growth for judges: Judges, especially those who are new to WSDC, benefit greatly by being able to judge different types of topic areas. They would learn how to assess arguments made on economic grounds in international relations topics as much as they learn how to evaluate speeches made on civil liberties on social topics.

5              The motions were generally not topical and were esoteric: WSDC and the Schools format have always had the interest of the audience at heart. This is partly why there is a strong emphasis on style (more on this later) and a tradition of bringing the debates to different parts of the community and in particular to different schools. However, many of the motions did not relate to issues which were likely to be on the minds of the audiences. This could thus lead to the audience members being more disengaged from the debates. Some motions were so obscure that even the teams did not know clearly what the main issues in the debate were. In Round 5, some teams even had to ask what “racial profiling” referred to as it was not a significant issue in their countries. The worst outcome was that the narrow and esoteric nature of the motions led to most teams not having many examples in their constructive and rebuttal arguments. This is not to say that all the motions must always be related to the host country or to current world events. However, at least half, if not the majority of the motions should have been topical.


6              The motions were limited to policies: One of the best qualities of WSDC debating is that debaters are asked to handle two teams of motions:

  1. “change motions,” where teams must advocate for a specific policy to address a problem or issue (This House Would Ban Firearms);  and
  2. “judgement motions,” where teams must make a judgement on a specific issue (This House Believes that the UN has failed or This House would rather national security than individual rights).


7              At WSDC 2012, the vast majority of the motions were policy motions, which generally required the proposition team to develop a “model” for their policy. In fact, one could argue that the only motion which was a judgement motion was the one chosen for the grand final. This uneven distribution would have the following effects:

  1. Rewarding teams more comfortable in policy debates:The lack of judgement motions meant that teams which could not handle these types of motions were not punished. These teams could instead have benefited narrower type of motions at the expense of teams which would have been more comfortable with both types of motions.
  2. Lack of education on judgement motions: This was the worst of the two outcomes. Teams lose the opportunity during the debates to learn from each other and from the judges on how to approach judgement motions. In fact, given the propensity for polices, teams could indeed come to believe that ALL motions needed to be policy motions. We had already seen this happen at a previous WSDC, where a team tried to run a policy on national identity cards on a civil liberties judgment motion. We saw this again at WSDC 2012 at the grand final itself, where I felt the proposition team ran a policy even though it was not needed. The judges also lose out as they do not get the opportunity to learn how to adjudicate different types of motions.


8              Too many motions were Big, Red Ball motions: Big, Red Ball motions are those that require the Government to use a specific instrument to attain a specific outcome. An example would read: “This House would control population through legislation.” Big, Red Ball motions can often lead to good debates, since the focus of the debate is clear and both sides are likely to find areas of clash. At the same time, the proposition team generally has a lot more work to do, since they would have to argue in favour of both the outcome and the instrument. The opposition, in contrast, could choose to attack just one or the other. I argue that a typical should not have more than 1 or 2 Big Red Ball motions. WSDC 2012, however, may have had 5 such motions (R5, R6, OF, QF, SF).


9              Some motions required extreme instruments: One of the mitigating factors for proposition teams who are asked to defend a specific policy is that the motion is usually worded in such a way to provide some flexibility. Thus, the team could use the power of definition to make the policy as reasonable and debateable as possible. However, some of the WSDC 2012 motions forced propositions into advocating very specific and extreme instruments, which in turn made the job for the proposition significantly harder.  For instance,

For R6, the proposition had to approach the issue of banning pornography from the specific angle of the feminist movement;

For the OF, the government not only had to defend that endangered languages had to be preserved but that they had to be reserved specifically through schools which taught in these languages;

For the QF, the proposition not only had to argue that it would be better for gay public figures to declare their orientation but that they should be forced into doing so if necessary;

For the SF, which really takes the cake, the proposition not only had to argue that inheritance should be taxed but that it should be taxed at 100%.


10           Some motions were not balanced: In addition to the above factors, some of the motions set were not balanced in terms of the arguments available for the proposition and opposition. This applied, in particular, to the motion in R1. The motion on banning alcohol completely proved to be difficult for many debaters and this motion had already been found to have been weighted at a previous WSDC in 1992. However, even though this motion was specifically mentioned in the WSDC Notes for Adjudicators as being weighted, it was once again used in Cape Town. The motions in the knock out rounds were generally a little more unbalanced as well.



11           On the whole, there tended to have been some unusual tendencies in the way the teams were debating. In general, I believe these tendencies could lead to poorer quality speeches and poor quality debates.


12           Use of lists of arguments in lieu of deep analysis: During the debates, some speakers tended to have multi-layered or multi-tiered substantive arguments. For example, the first proposition speaker in a round would say he has 2 substantive arguments. However, each of his arguments had 3 tiers. In actuality, each of these tiers would have been strong enough to stand on their own as arguments. Thus, this speaker really had 6 substantive arguments to deliver. However, with only a limited amount of time available, none of the 6 points were analysed and explained properly.


13        Some debaters also had this habit of merely listing several “responses” to a particular argument. However, if these were proper rebuttals, they would have taken way too much time to be articulated in full. Thus, each “list” tends to consist of one or two-liner counter-arguments and thus should have scored badly on content. This habit signalled to me that the debater was unable to make a decision on which rebuttal was the strongest for the argument. It generally also compromised the ability of the Third Speakers to demonstrate their ability to generate new rebuttals. Judges noted that they were increasingly having to “fill in the blanks” for the debaters to get a grasp of the arguments and rebuttals being used. The audience watching, without the benefit of significant debating experience, would have been at a loss as to what these points actually meant.


14        Lack of examples. With some notable exceptions, most teams did not have sufficient examples for their substantive material and their rebuttals. Granted, some of the motions were obscure and generating examples might have been difficult. However, the teams still had access to the almanac and 3-5 collective heads should have brought up more examples. What was surprising was that many of the teams did not have that many examples even for the prepared debates. However, some of the judges, in their oral feedback or the individual feedback, also failed to raise this issue entirely. Until this is addressed, the debaters are not likely to put more emphasis on examples. More on this issue later.


15        Lack of style. Again, with notable exceptions, many of the debaters were not speaking in the clear and persuasive manner associated with WSDC. In general, the speakers talked faster and with less variety and variation. This was compounded by the lack proper structure and sign posting to make the transition from point to point clearer for the judges. During some of the knock-out rounds at WSDC 2012, some audience members had trouble following arguments due to the lack of clarity and many of the audience members were switched off or asleep as a result. Even in the grand final, many audience members had difficulty following the arguments.  Again, the judges could have given more feedback on this issue. More again on this issue later in para 19.


16        Failure to get feedback. It is understandable if teams failed to get feedback from judges due to time pressure. However, it is unclear why teams would not bother to get feedback from all the judges in the room if time was available. If the judge had given the team a loss, the team should check with the judge and see what it was that they did wrong. Even if the judge had given them a win, check to see if more could have been done. When I was a debater, I found that I didn’t learn much from the judges who had nothing but praise. I did learn a lot from the judges who had criticism and advice on how to get better. Even if the team thinks the judge is an idiot, talk to the judge still, because the team could get the same idiot again in a later round and not know what the judge wants in the debate. Lastly, it’s just common courtesy that the team at least have a chat with the judges, who had flown hundreds of KMs, often at their own expense, to judge the teams.



17        It is always important to have good quality judges at a tournament and WSDC 2012 may have suffered as a result of a number of judges withdrawing closer to the start of the tournament. However, this was not as big a concern as the divergent judging paradigms were.


18        Single issue dominance. Some judges at WSDC appeared to be focused on single issues during the debate and would often gave less weight to all the other elements in the debate as long as one team was able to find that single issue and talk about it. This got to the point where even though a team may lack style, evidence and structure, they may still be chosen as a winner by the judge just by being able to yell repeatedly about a single issue. The concern is that judges would ignore the examples being used by a team, even if they had not been challenged by the opposing team. WSDC should not be about single issue debating. It should be a balance of identifying the correct core issues, exploring the various elements of the motion in a thorough manner and ensuring that these elements are supported by analysis, style and structure.


19        Ignoring Style. Worryingly, some judges appear to put less emphasis on style. In fact, some were candid enough to state that they were just giving “average” marks on style and were instead determining the winner purely on content. This is a dangerous trend if it should become prevalent. First, these judges are blatantly ignoring the WSDC rules, which state that 40% of the score is to be given on style. Second, the judges are indirectly encouraging teams to ignore the style element of the debate, which makes them worse speakers than before. Teams are more likely to chosen on the basis of content alone and at the expense of clarity and cohesion and speech. The people who suffer the most are the audience members at WSDC, who attend the matches expecting the best orators in the world bringing ideas and clash to their classrooms. The lack of style would turn debates into insular little yelling matches in rooms occupied by no one but the speakers and the judges. This is not the way to go.


20        Since I am edging close to 3000 words, I shall draw this to a close. Again, I note and appreciate the efforts made by everyone, including the motions setters, the speakers and judges in trying to give everyone the best debates possible. It is also possible, that with many more tournaments on the circuit and debaters being exposed to different schools and formats of debate, there are bound to be difficulties in keeping the different debating and judging paradigms distinct and separate. However, unless we try to remember the core elements of WSDC and practise it in speaking and judging at the WSDC, the best qualities of WSDC debating may be lost. I genuinely believe that once upon a time, a random person walking into a WSDC debate would leave the match engaged, enlightened and entertained. I fear that if some of these trends continue, this spectator will leave the room disorientated, dismayed and disgusted.


Debate It: Economics Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:35:39 +0000 Debate It: Economics


A compilation produced by the Singapore National Team that won the 2011 World Schools Debating Championships

Series editor: Benjamin Mak Jia Ming


Coach: Mrs Geetha Creffield

The post Debate It: Economics appeared first on Debateable.

Debate It: Economics



Series editor: Benjamin Mak Jia Ming


Coach: Mrs Geetha Creffield


            Ludwig von Mises may not always be considered as the most moderate economist, but he certainly said it right when he asserted that, “Economics is not about things and material objects; it is about men, their meanings and their actions.’ In a world now at the beginning of recovering from the most catastrophic recession we have yet seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s, issues in economics have never been closer to the forefront of our concerns.

            One of the central problems the Western world now faces is a looming sovereign debt crisis. Despite receiving billions from the European Union last year in a financial recovery package, Greece remains mired in economic chaos, with many experts outside Europe suggesting that Greece needs to default on its debt as it currently stands. Moreover, the sovereign debt crisis has expanded to the rest of Europe through the contagion effect, as seen from the string of debt-ridden countries which have sought international assistance, including Portugal, Ireland and Spain. To that extent, economic issues are at the forefront of the lives of numerous ordinary people, affecting their ability to get a job and sustain their families.

            At a broader level, economic globalisation has become an increasingly entrenched phenomenon everywhere. One of the largest obstacles towards further movement in this regard is the failure of free trade negotiations under the Doha Round which was kicked off in 2001 under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation. While many developing countries continue to be beset by difficulties in industrialising and creating a more productive workforce, developed countries remain unwilling to compromise on protectionist measures used to subsidise their own domestic agricultural industries. To the extent that the division between these two blocs remains unbridgeable, further economic integration on an equitable basis is unlikely to be achieved in the present.

            Such long-standing multilateral disputes are further complicated by the renewed vigour with which protectionist measures are being pursued in the developed world as it struggles to spur an economic recovery. In the United States where unemployment stood in May 2011 at 10.4%, a host of excesive duties levied against exports like electric blankets from China from late 2009 onward have strained relations between the world’s 2 largest economies. This makes it increasingly unlikely for the world to see a G-2 alliance that can lead the world in dealing with the most pressing problems facing the whole of mankind that require political solutions, chief among them being climate change and now the dispute between China, Vietnam and the Philippines over lucrative islands in the South China Sea.

            Thus, it is evident that economic issues have an impact on global and local politics that extends far beyond the rarefied realms of academic analysis. While the issues we have explored above are often categorised as economic within most media publications, there remains at the heart of this an unanswered question: What makes an issue an economic concern? If we accept the definition given at the start of this introduction by von Mises, it would seem that economics should cover nearly every issue concerning mankind and leads us to question whether economics can explain everything. While some authors like Robert Nelson have gone so far as to suggest that economics is now a religion, this obscures our purpose in clarifying how economic thinking can be used in debates.

            To explore this therefore, we need to be clear about the fundamental questions which underlie economics. Broadly, economics centres itself on the production, allocation and distribution of certain resources which are called factors of production. Within this, the major clash in economic ideologies has long been between capitalism and socialism, especially before the 1990s. In this conflict, the principal contention is that of the importance of the right to private property. While capitalists construct the economy with private property as its basis, socialists would argue that the economy should not be based upon private property but instead collective ownership. Capitalists believe that private property rights are essential to providing individuals with the incentive to produce and innovate because they can keep their share of the profits. Socialists, on the other hand, would be inclined to argue against private property because they suggest that it is used by the rich (termed as the bourgeoisie) to exploit the labour power of the poor and keep them entrenched in their plight. The recent rise of the Chinese and Singaporean economies from the doldrums of the past has led some to question whether the capitalist-socialist distinction remains the most relevant method for us to categorise the economies of the world, with the suggestion by authors like Ian Bremmer that the clash is really between the liberal and authoritarian capitalists.

            Apart from the question of categorising economies, we must also pay attention to the growth in stature of non-state actors in the global economic order. Two of the most important actors are the transnational corporation and the sovereign wealth fund, both of which will now be discussed in turn.

            Transnational corporations have been a major feature of the global economy ever since the 1960s when businesses, especially in the United States, were looking for alternative markets and bases of production to those at home. By 1969 for instance, 5 out of 10 of the largest firms in the United States were making 80% of their profits overseas. What is clear though is that with the liberalisation of markets in emerging economies such as Russia and Nigeria, transnational corporations are now exerting an impact not just on their economies, but also their environment and politics. Since the 1990s, firms like Shell have been excused of conspiring with the corrupt regime of Sani Abacha to exploit the Ogoni people and have been complicit with the assassinations of political activists such as Ken Saro-Wiwa. Similarly in Russia, Janine Wedel reports in her 2010 book ‘Shadow Elite: How the World’s New Power Brokers Undermine Democracy, Government, and the Free Market’ that in Russia after the fall of the Soviet regime, multinational firms like Goldman Sachs have gained numerous concessions on the basis of their connections with professionals recruited to build market mechanisms there, such as Harvard professor Andrei Schleifer. While the record of transnational companies has certainly revealed itself to be less than savoury, it remains crucial to study them as separate foci of power which lack the accountability to populations that democratic governments must provide.

            The significance of sovereign wealth funds has surged principally because of the rising amount of government foreign reserves that they manage. As early as 2007, the IMF reported that sovereign wealth funds controlled US$3 trillion worth of reserves and were taking stakes in many high-profile global firms. On occasion, such acquisitions have sparked consternation on the part of local populations who see it as impinging upon their countries’ national sovereignty. This was made apparent in Thailand following the purchase of a major stake in former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s Shin Corp by the Singapore government investment vehicle Temasek Holdings, an event which contributed significantly to the subsequent violent protests which occurred in Bangkok, injuring hundreds. On other occasions however, such acquisitions have been viewed through even more hostile lenses. In 2005 for instance, the China National Offshore Oil Company, which possesses links to sovereign wealth fund China Investment Corp, was banned from purchasing a controlling stake in the American energy firm Unocal because it was considered as threatening national security. In these cases, the tension created by the economic decisions of sovereign wealth funds seems to be fulfilling a dictum Michel Foucault first asserted in a lecture he made on 7 January 1976 published in a recent compilation entitled ‘Society needs to be defended’ : ‘Power is war, the continuation of war by other means.’

            Thus, it is clear that economic debates demand an understanding of both ideas and institutions. What this introduction also emphasises however is the fact that there really is no such thing as a specifically economic issue which should be handled only through the lens of economics in any debate. Instead, a sound understanding of any of the issues mentioned above requires us to acknowledge instead the multiple interlinkages existing between the political, economic and even sociocultural spheres of the world. That in fact explains why when economists are asked to state what their field is about, they prefer not to answer by explaining what their subject matter covers and excludes precisely. Instead, they choose to answer with the view that economics teaches you a method of thinking. What is unique about this method is that it focuses on human beings specifically as rational individuals seeking to maximise their welfare and acting in ways which can increase that welfare. Labeled often as homo economicus, economics does not claim to explain all human behaviour though it does seek to provide suggestions as to how human beings will behave in response to the altered incentives presented to them by a new policy measure for instance. Economics hence creates a pathway for us to isolate a part of our lives and assess it without the complications that arise from having to explore all aspects of human behaviour.

            Accept that economics is viewed more usefully as a method of thinking rather than a subject matter does not however mean accepting the status of economics as a science. In debates, it means recognising that just because someone argues that something is true based on economics does not mean that it has been derived from a scientific basis which cannot be challenged without actual experimentation. As the Cambridge economist Alfred Marshall acknowledged almost a century ago in his seminal work ‘The Principles of Economics’, ‘in economics … changes are continuous’. The real world makes it difficult for idealised economic models to translate directly to actual gains. That is why even if someone argues that free trade is beneficial according to Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage for example, you can still respond by questioning the applicability of the theoretical causal linkages to real-world processes and developments. It is therefore a cardinal principle in economic debates to always remember to question theoretical orthodoxy and never to get squeezed within the box of theory without comparing it with reality. As the Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman once suggested in his famous 1953 essay ‘The Methodology of Positive Economics’, economic theories should be judged by the accuracy of their predictions.

            In conclusion, economic issues are rooted at their heart in a concern for the welfare of human beings, even if it sometimes seems confined only to the pecuniary sphere of life. Economic issues and the academic discipline of economics have close relations and can shed light on each other, but debating about economics requires us to always have a close eye on the practice of the subject rather than the mathematics which has seemed to overtake the major journals of the subject in recent decades. For a poignant reminder of how important economic issues can be to our social existence, one can look no further than to the then Democratic presidential candidate in 1992 Bill Clinton who once exclaimed exasperatedly, ‘It’s the economy, stupid!’




This motion requires a decent level of understanding of how corporations and bailouts function. Many factors are causally interlinked and resist simple demarcation. As far as is possible, this sheet attempts to present arguments in terms of the binary opposites of Proposition and Opposition, though there are areas where the contrast may not be as neat.


Senior management

– a class of corporate executives at the highest level of organizational hierarchy, who have the day-to-day responsibilities of running the corporation. Their powers are conferred onto them with and by the authority of the board of directors and shareholders, who can decide the termination of their contracts.

Individuals falling under this category could include Richard Fuld, the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the now-defunct investment bank Lehman Brothers and John Gerspach, the Chief Financial Officer of Citigroup.

Government bailouts – a loan or grant of capital from the government to a corporation that is in danger of failing, in an attempt to save it from bankruptcy, insolvency, or total liquidation and ruin

Proposition Policy

The resignation or dismissal of the entire senior management of a company seeking a bailout would be a precondition for the disbursement of government bailout funds. The government will then work in collaboration with the firm to conduct a global search for a new senior management team which will then be installed to revamp the firm in question.

 Opposition Policy

The shareholders and directors will decide if the senior management has in fact been derelict in their duties, and act accordingly. Governments can provide advice if requested, but they will not directly interfere in such proceedings. However, they will still be able to impose a host of restrictions which include, but are not limited to, how the bailout money is used and what repayment schedules the firm being bailed out has to abide by.



Senior managements are directly culpable for the straits of the company they are in.

They have a direct say in establishing corporate culture. Policies put into place at the very top have transformative power over the outlook and practices of the entire corporation.

Deep structural flaws build up in the corporation over years, as antiquated business practices are repeatedly left unreformed.

Large corporations usually do have sufficient capital leeway to make the required reform. The fact that the reform has not been completed is thus surely the fault of a negligent senior management.

Senior managements have a fiduciary duty to maintain the health of the company. They are in charge of strategic planning and implementing the recommendations.

·         Present corporate practice following the revolution in managerial influence of the 1960s has resulted in shareholders being increasingly removed from day-to-day management because they tend to be investment funds who have little specialized knowledge of the industry. This phenomenon is described as the divorce between ownership and management by Nobel economics laureate Oliver E. Williamson. This gives rise to a principal-agent problem where CEOs have a perverse incentive to pursue short-term profits over long-term restructuring and cuts, while withholding that knowledge from its shareholders.

1. Unproductive investments

2. Focusing on perks and prestige

3. Short-term share prices (because stock options are often part of the contract) over long term value of the firm.

4. Focusing on revenue instead of profitability

5. Excessive risk-taking instead of sustainability

Even if the above were not deliberately pursued, the fault still remains with senior management for not having insulated against the recession.

Eg: The US automobile industry suffered from decades of mismanagement at the hands of its senior management. Incompetent CEOs like Robert Nardelli at Chyrsler did not allocate key funds to research and development, allowing their advantages to slip. The focus was constantly on cost-cutting rather than seeking

Senior managements are only part of a wider shared responsibility for the company.

Directors and shareholders have a significant indirect influence over the workings of the company – they preside over the bottom line, and the macro-direction of the company. In many organizational cultures, their approval is required for major decisions.

Speculators and investors want their dividends paid, which results in excessive risk taking. Directors may sometimes insist on certain appointments. These realities would strongly illustrate that true blame should be more widely and evenly spread.

All these stakeholders were the ones who engaged top executives on contracts that rewarded short-termism through excessive bonuses based on immediate annual profits.

Direct culpability is no indication of systematic underlying wrongdoing. Such a policy would perhaps unfairly scapegoat many top managers who were merely following guidelines, instead of being a true demonstration of accountability.

Meritocracy is thrown by the wayside. Such a culture of finding scapegoats leads to uncertainty and unpredictability in decision-making.

Corporations fail for all sorts of reasons, not just bad senior management. Even corporations with competent leadership could require bailouts, for a number of reasons:

1. The risk could be systemic to the industry – it could be heavily export-based, leaving it open to the vicissitudes of global demand – beyond the control of senior management.

2. The corporation could simply be one victim in a chain of cumulative causation which caused a collapse in demand and ruined supply chains

Bailout money is paid for by the taxpayer, who as a stakeholder should have his/her interests and preferences taken into account.

Democracies need to be accountable to electorates. All bailouts have to rely on taxpayer approval.

The job security of senior management staff have already been compensated for through their obscenely high salaries and golden parachutes. Claiming that any of them should be immune from being fired is sure to invoke public ire against the bailout in totality, by association.

Public confidence in the bailout is important for a number of reasons

1. The effectiveness of the bailout as a fiscal stimulus could be improved if the public views the bailout as reformative and positive in effecting change, rather than it being more of the old.

2. More importantly, this would be important towards ensuring the democratic viability of future bailouts. Bailouts have become established as needed weapons in any government arsenal in times of financial and economic crisis. (best if both sides agree on this!) Naysayers, as we have seen in the events of the 2008 financial crisis, have alleged cronyism and portrayed bailouts as ‘handouts to the rich’, leading to massive discontent and massive unpopularity. Thus, upholding the image of the bailout is important.

The public needs to be mollified, and decisive steps need to be taken. If bailouts were to be hijacked in such a manner that makes proposing them political suicide, politicians could well be handicapped from taking the best course of action.

It is in taxpayer’s interest to have an effective bailout. Such a blanket policy is likely to be counterproductive because it removes expertise vital towards managing crisis and moving the company forward.

If the taxpayer is to foot the bill, he would surely want it to work.

There could well have been voices within senior managements which dissented from the majority decisions. There is no reason to assume that the entire senior management is a single hive mind which had a single opinion on the management of the company.

Instead of firing everyone, there could be internal redeployments and promotions of people who demonstrated foresight and proposed restructuring which would have forestalled the crisis. The events of crisis would give credence to these alternative voices, who would now have the authority to put their policies into place.

People do learn from their mistakes. People in senior management are best endowed with knowledge about the situation they created, and on hindsight they would know what exactly to avoid.

Few people in this modern day and age get to senior management levels without flexibility in thinking and adaptability on the job. Their industry experience and high ability to prevent past mistakes make them good choices for the job which cannot be automatically ruled out.

They are often also in possession of the contacts and personal relationships that are indispensable toward the corporation’s daily workings. Suddenly terminating all these could only be counterproductive.

Some elements of top management are truly irreplaceable.


In many cases, senior management are people within the industry who have risen steadily through the ranks, watching the transformation of the industry, with a good sense of strategic positioning.

In fact, the very negotiation of the bailout often requires the input of senior management, who have intimate knowledge of the company and its underlying strengths and weaknesses.

Automatically removing them with no regard of their actual crisis management gives them very little incentive to help make the bailout work, shooting ourselves in the foot.

There is no such thing as an irreplaceable part of the top management.

CEOs frequently jump between industries. A study of 5972 CEOs worldwide showed an average fixed contract length of only 2.6 years, after which they often rotate to other industries.

Top managerial talent, while highly sought after, is very much fungible. The skills are extremely transferrable, and can be applied to various industries.

Firing senior managements allows for complete restructuring to take place.

The objective of bailouts is often to retain jobs in the economy. For this to happen, extensive restructuring often has to take place to replace the senior management teams are symbols of certain operative paradigms. Should they be removed, it would allow for comprehensive change and structural reform.

Corporations desperate for credit lines and preventing bankruptcy are ripe for fundamental changes towards competitiveness and sustainability.

In any case, senior management officers no longer have transformative power over an organization they have steered to near ruin. They are the perceived perpetrators of a paradigm that failed, and cannot possibly inspire trust for genuine reform anyway.

In fact, their management styles are often archaic and ossified, obstructing significant change.

Firing all senior management works against the restructuring that is needed

We begin with the premise that restructuring should be effective, not just comprehensive.

Dismissal of all senior management leads to uncertainty in the leadership of the corporation. Having to hunt around for new and suitable members to staff the senior management is an additional burden on the corporation, detracting from the massive and fast reforms which have to be nimbly managed. Uncertainty resulting from not having tried and tested leadership only leads to a lack of investor confidence in the corporation short run, leading to a lack of funds to pursue sustained long-term reforms.

THBT central banks should place limits on government debt


Context:          Excessive government spending does cause much harm to the economy, and that is why countries like the USA have debt ceilings to control government spending. These debt ceilings can only be raised with approval from both houses of Congress (the legislature). However, this only works as a check and balance if the executive (i.e. the president and his team) is elected independently of the legislature, such as in the Philippines which has a political structure modeled on that of the US.

                        In other countries, there is only one house of parliament, and the majority party also takes control of the executive branch (i.e. the prime minister and his team). While members of the ruling party may vote against their own party sometimes, in many cases they don’t, or the party whip forces them to vote for their own party. Hence the legislature is a limited check and balance on the executive, and the possibility of excessive spending is higher (see Greek sovereign debt crisis).

                        The alternative is to have an independent body set a debt ceiling, like a central bank. While governments do have some degree of control over central banks (the governor of the bank may be appointed by the prime minister), central banks generally work independently of the government, and if a governor is appointed by the president rather than prime minister, his independence is enhanced.

                        This, however, poses its own set of problems: is it justified for an official who was not directly elected to dictate government spending, especially in a democratic system? Furthermore, are debt ceilings necessary good from an economic point of view, especially during an economic recession?



Preventing economic crises

Thesis: Debt ceilings are necessary to preclude sovereign defaults and other economic problems, which harm the country

  • When government incurs debt i.e. it spends far beyond its revenue, it causes economic harm
  • Firstly, excess spending is financed by borrowing à raises interest rates à too expensive for businesses to borrow to expand à less goods/services produced and traded à less welfare for everyone
  • Secondly, debt creates its own debt – interest rate payments add to the debt, which increases interest rate payments, etc. which cannot be paid off because government is running a deficit in the first place
  • This causes the last problem – when government cannot pay up, it defaults (i.e. people who lent money to government never get money back). Investors become too scared to lend government money, or lend them at higher interest rate to cover risk of defaulting
  • This causes government to have less money to fund welfare and development programmes, resulting in harm to the people least responsible for the
  • Debt ceilings solve this by preventing govt debt from going far beyond its ability to repay à hence debt ceilings should be used
  • The consequences of excessive spending that a country may suffer include rising inflation, a depreciation of exchange rate, and recessions as the economic uncertainty discourages firms from investing in new capital equipment or expanding their labour force.  

Mitigating economic crises

Thesis: Debt ceilings prevent government from quickly implementing stimulus spending, which worsens recessions and harms people

  • Economic recessions usually occur when overall demand for goods and services drops, hence businesses lose income and employees are made redundant and lose their jobs
  • Stopping recessions thus involves stimulating demand by having government spend in consumers’ stead; this usually incurs debt
  • Furthermore, government spending must be increased quickly, or else recession gets worse – unemployment results in less spending by consumers, which worsens unemployment and creates a vicious cycle for the economy.
  • Debt ceilings prevent government from increasing spending quickly.
  • This creates uncertainty in the international investment climate for 2 reasons.,
  • Firstly, financial institutions overseas are likely to remove or postpone their investments in the country in question.
  • Secondly, international investors may choose to bet against the currency of the country in question, believing its current level of government spending to be inappropriate.
  • This could generate further financial havoc, as seen with the collapse of the Thai baht in 1997 following speculation against it by international investors like George Soros. 
  • Indeed, if the debt ceiling is not raised, the government will be forced to renege on its loans.
  • As a consequence, domestic and foreign banks will choose either to not lend money to the government at all or do so only at higher interest rates.
  • This reduces the funds available for the  government to implement crucial spending e.g. welfare / infrastructure
  • Hence debt ceilings should not be implemented because they harm the economy and the people.

Enshrining the people’s will

Thesis: Letting central bankers set limits on government debt protects people’s will by preventing runaway spending by government between elections

  • Within a democracy, government exists because citizens give up some rights to it in exchange for security
  • Thus the government exists to serve the people’s will
  • People’s will is expressed through voting for their government representatives
  • However, representatives may not always act in people’s interests in between elections
  • Existing checks and balances don’t always work – in most countries the executive and legislature are controlled by the same ruling coalition, as seen now with the Greek sovereign debt crisis
  • We need other legal measures to ensure government can do limited harm, such as a constitution which guarantees citizens’ rights against government abuse of power
  • Debt ceilings are similar; they prevent government abuse in the form of excessive spending which harms taxpaying citizens in the long run.
  • Furthermore, it makes sense for central banks to implement debt ceilings because it is the central bank that loans money to government
  • Thus enforcing debt ceilings protects the people’s will.

Protecting the spirit of democracy

Thesis: Giving unelected central bankers control over government debt policy goes against the will of the people whom government should be serving

  • Thus the government exists to serve the people’s will.
  • People’s will is expressed through voting for legislative representatives, which debate public policy on voters’ behalf
  • But allowing central bankers, who are not elected, to dictate debt ceilings deprives people of representation and denies their will – defeats role of government in first place
  • FM: central bankers are trained in how to achieve certain economic aims – what those aims are is and should be citizens’ decision
  • In fact this may encourage abuses of power by central bankers because they are legally beholden to no one if they are given such independence (which is necessary to make Prop’s policy effective)
  • Under our policy, control of debt ceilings remains under legislature’s purview which represents the people’s will
  • Therefore central banks should not place limits on government debt

THW choose the environment over the economy



Side Proposition’s main burden is quite obviously to show why the environment is more important than the economy. However, Proposition teams should not be lulled into the trap of thinking that this necessarily means that they have to debate in a zero-sum environment – it is eminently possible for Proposition teams to argue that in the long-run prioritizing the environment leads to stronger economic growth. While this might seem to contradict the wording of the motion, I would suggest that the spirit of the debate implies a short-term rather than long-term choice.


In line with this, Side Opposition should not fall into the same trap. An Opposition that attempts to “swallow” the debate by saying everything Proposition advocates is actually geared towards the economy is not doing themselves any favors. Furthermore, Side Opposition does not actually have to advocate choosing the economy over the environment: proving that both should be of equal importance is sufficient grounds to oppose the motion. Teams with confidence in their ability to nuance their cases may choose this ground for a more analytical debate.

Set Up


The definitions in the debate seem pretty straightforward, though as mentioned earlier teams should avoid trying to have overly encompassing definitions of either “environment” or “economy”. Proposition, for example, should not argue that as factories are present in an “environment”, building factories is not prioritizing the environment over the economy.

 What may be more contentious would be the setting of this debate – at first glance this debate seems most pertinent to developing nations, but Propositions should also consider including developed nations as recent events like the BP Oil Spill and Fukushima Dai’chi may open avenues for interesting arguments. It is also important for Proposition to give concrete examples or a clear principle under which they would choose the environment over the economy as vagueness and the subsequent confusion will undoubtedly make for a sub-par debate.

The yardstick for this debate may prove more problematic. Teams presumably will choose to debate about what is “best” for a country’s people, but should avoid the temptation of having an over-specific yardstick or criteria as to what “best” entails. While narrow yardsticks or criteria may seem to provide strategic advantages at first, the mess involved in defending the inevitable attacks by the opposing teams far outweighs any preliminary advantage gained.

Sample Set Up

By environment we refer to the natural surroundings in which human beings operate – the air, land, sea, forestry etc of a nation.

When we say we would “choose the environment over the economy” we mean we would not cause environmental damage even if this entails a reduction in economic growth. For example, we would insist that firms install carbon filters in their factory smokestacks even though this would increase their operating costs; we would also regulate the car industry to make sure they implement environmentally friendly technologies like catalytic converters, even if this means they will charge consumers more. We believe that this will provide for a better future for the people of our nation.

While we accept that this debate takes place all around the world, we would choose to focus on developing countries as that is where this dilemma seems most pertinent.



Protecting Our People

We live in a world increasingly threatened by environmental disaster. Hurricane Katrina, Cyclone Nargis, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill are just some of the examples of environment-related disasters that have befallen us in recent times. Protecting the environment must be our first priority in order to protect the people who will suffer at the hands of such environmental disasters. Focusing on short-term growth is short-sighted, for is not the end result of growth creating better standards of livings for people? What use is a hundred more dollars to a child in Mexico City dying of asthma, or to a man in Hubei poisoned by polluted water? Economic growth improves our material standards of living, but nothing material can ever match up to our health and our lives – things environmental disasters will threaten.

Furthermore, damaging the environment causes third party harm. Innocent people will have their health destroyed and livelihoods taken away by air pollution caused by unclean factories and floods caused by agricultural soil erosion. Choosing economic growth at the expense of the environment is allowing a few individuals to benefit from the suffering of many. Side Proposition rejects this.

Securing our people’s survival

  • Thesis: fulfilling the government’s duty of care to the people requires us to put the economy first.
  • In many developing societies today, people continue to suffer from the horrific effects of starvation, poverty and illness.
  • Today, 800 million people continue to go hungry according to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation. 2 billion people continue to live below the UN-defined poverty of US$1.25 daily and much of sub-Saharan Africa continues to suffer the scourge of AIDS and malaria epidemics.
  • Governments are duty-bound to solve these problems, because their legitimacy is derived from their ability to protect the people’s welfare.
  • In order for them to solve such problems, they need to generate economic growth to boost national income and tax revenues.
  • In today’s world, this means moving away from low-value primary agricultural sectors to secondary industries like manufacturing.
  • This means increasing amounts of carbon emissions, to the extent that the cheapest form of energy remains fossil fuels.
  • We think governments are perfectly justified to do this, because placing the economy gives their people jobs, incomes and the ability to uplift themselves from the stranglehold of poverty and disease.
  • By contrast, putting the environment first would mean denying the people gainful employment opportunities in the short run when they need them most.
  • In this case, governments would be guilty of sins of commission against their populations.
  • Indeed, the continuing debate over the existence of a close causal relationship between carbon emissions and climate change suggests that governments are hedging their bets the right way.
  • While we can be certain that delaying economic development will mean people dying today, we can’t even be certain that prioritising the environment will really stave off any environmental climate that will befall humanity.
  • Since governments must err on the side of the caution and support their people’s welfare in the best way they know how to.
  • In fact, economic growth is one of the most important ways for us to deal with the environmental catastrophes Proposition has attempted to shove into their arguments.
  • The strongest case in point is China. Following its rapid economic growth over the past 20 years, it has gained the wealth necessary to sustain a thriving solar energy sector in Hubei. This has dramatically reduced the number of asthma cases there and truly enhanced the people’s welfare
  • Thus, governments should hedge their bets in favour of those who voted them in, not the environment that surrounds them.  

Ensuring Sustainable Growth

In the long-run, it may well be that economic growth is best served by protecting the environment. Many developing countries depend on primary industries like agriculture and mining to provide growth in the initial stages of their development, but find that these industries die out in the later stages of their growth. This happens primarily because irresponsible economic management – Nauru’s loss of its phosphate mining industry and subsequent collapse in national living standards is but one example amongst many nations who have fallen into this trap.

Sustainable growth allows us to avoid these problems. Limiting the ability of firms to damage the environment will ultimately provide for more growth in the long-run. Indonesia’s slash and burn agriculture may produce quick results now, but encouraging more environmentally friendly forms of agriculture like irrigation-based farms will surely preserve the fertile land that allows agriculture to be a viable industry in the first place. Proposition’s policies will make certainly make it more expensive for firms to exploit a nation’s resources, but this encourages diversification into other industries and careful husbanding of the resources available to exploit – strategies that will prevent a nation from falling into the “resource curse” that has hurt so many others.

Securing sustainable growth

  • Thesis: Truly sustainable growth only occurs when the people have the ability to lead the movement towards environmentalism.
  • In prioritising the environment over the economy when a country is in a decrepit state, governments end up alienating their electorates who find their lives unimproved and the apparently serene environment hardly a sop to their woes.
  • If the balance is reversed however, the people will be able to become wealthier faster.
  • When people are wealthier, they will be able to transcend the base considerations of survival and shelter that lie at the bottom in the hierarchy of their needs.
  • Hence, they will be able to move to examine larger issues that affect the lives of others beyond themselves, including the environment.
  • With the enhanced wealth gained through economic growth, they will now have not just the intention, but also the means, to make positive changes for the environment.
  • When this occurs, the population will prioritise the environment on its own from the bottom up.
  • This is far more sustainable than a state directive which the Proposition currently advises.
  • Indeed, this explains why the leading environmental groups today with the largest arsenal of resources and influence like Greenpeace and the Worldwatch Institute are located in developed nations.
  • When citizens are able to pressure their governments to consider the environment and the economy in tandem rather than as competing considerations, we can truly maximise our agendas on both fronts.
  • This is seen in the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol in 1976 following the strong activism of Western environmental groups which had witnessed the explosive economic growth of the 1960s but did not want to world to now be blighted by ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons.
  • Hence, we should place the economy over the environment from the state’s perspective in order to give our people the space to take growth in a truly sustainable direction.   








Debating the Topic of Economics: A Coach’s Advice

1.      Debate using communicative and plain Standard English.

2.      Don’t debate using jargon that no one understands, especially yourself.

3.      If you have to use economic jargon, explain yourself simply and lucidly.

4.      Only use economic concepts that you actually understand.

5.      Illustrate the implication of all the economic concepts that you employ in your speech with clear examples.

6.      Draw your examples for the debate from the real world and from arenas of daily life that are relevant to the average reasonable man.

7.      Don’t pretend that no one needs to understand what you are saying; the adjudicator certainly has to.

8.      Read the digital or print newspapers and keep your knowledge topical and contemporary.

9.      Don’t invent concepts.

10.  Don’t Lie!












Useful books and references


  1. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman’s blog:
  2. Monetary policy at the Bank of England:
  3. Nobel laureate Gregory Mankiw’s blog:
  4. Monetary Authority of Singapore economics guide for students:
  5. BBC profile on World Trade Organisation:


Friedman, M. &. (2002 ). Capitalism and freedom . Chicago : University of Chicago Press.

Gray, J. (1998 ). False dawn: the delusions of global capitalism . London : Granta Books.

Ormerod, P. (1997 ). The Death of Economics . New York: John Wiley & Sons .

Roubini, N. (2010). Crisis Economics: a crash course in the future of finance . London: Penguin Press.

Stiglitz, J. (2010). Freefall: America, Free Markets and the Sinking of the world economy . New York: W.W Norton & Company .

The post Debate It: Economics appeared first on Debateable.

Singapore National Debate Team Sat, 18 Jun 2011 07:25:10 +0000 Singapore National Debate Team 2011 – Team Message In 2011, the World Schools’ Debating team from Sunny Singapore comprised five strapping young men, who, despite […]

The post Singapore National Debate Team appeared first on Debateable.

Singapore National Debate Team 2011 – Team Message


In 2011, the World Schools’ Debating team from Sunny Singapore comprised five strapping young men, who, despite their size, are all between the ages of 17 and 18.


Ng Liki has straight A grades and is an otherwise perfectly rational human being – yet doesn’t believe in global warming. His explanation for rising temperatures? Water vapour. We’ll be the ones laughing when his house near the coast is drowned by rising sea levels.

Adil Hakeem has dreamed of flying ever since he was a child. His one experiment has left him with a metal plate permanently embedded in his arm. He plans to try again – except this time he won’t use a school gate as a launchpad.

Ashish Kumar’s dream, on the other hand, is to be a champion chessboxer. He’s got the chess part down pat, but judging by his size boxing will take him a long while yet.

Benjamin Mak is the team’s philosopher and resident conversationalist. Between the obscure quotes and random musings he peppers his speech with, no conversation has ever survived Benjamin unscathed.

Teoh Ren Jie, as their long-suffering team Captain, often cries himself to sleep at night, despairing at ever reforming this motley bunch of fools. His friends try their best though – they usually try to keep up the illusion that he’s in charge.


Team Singapore has following in its wake, its rue-filled team manager and coach who both wish to remain anonymous.

This motley crew has now some claims to fleeting fame.

Team Singapore is the 2011 World Schools Debating Championships victors at Dundee, Scotland and hence is World Champions. The speakers also brought glory to the nation with Teoh Ren Jie emerging individual world champion. Ben Mak ranked as the second best speaker of the tournament and Ashish Kumar was ranked the fourth best speaker at the event.

The team would like to thank all those who made their debating success possible, their national team manager, their teachers in charge, past and present, their coaches, past and present and all the team mates from the various debate squads that they have been a part of throughout their careers. The team would also like to thanks the various well wishers who came to all their exhibition matches locally and followed their debate adventures online.

The team salutes all fellow debaters and wishes them joy and a life long fascination with debate.


Team Singapore 2011 

Singapore National Debate Team Alumni



1995  –  Cardiff, Quarter-Finalists
Team members:
Frederick Teo (ACS, HCJC)
Harveen Singh (SAS, SAJC)
Jason Chan (ACS, ACJC)
Jonathan Yuen (ACS, ACJC)
Tournament Coach:
Geetha Creffield

1996  –  Canberra, Semi-Finalists
Team members:
Celina Chua (CHIJ TP, ACJC)
Kelvin Tan (CHS, ACJC)
Ng Ker Min (NYGH,ACJC)
Tan Lee Meng (SCGS, ACJC)
Vernie Oliveiro (CHIJ STC, ACJC)
Tournament Coach:
Geetha Creffield

1997  –  Bermuda, Semi-Finalists
Team members:
Aaron Maniam (RI, RJC)
Benedict Teo (CHS, VJC)
Celina Chua (CHIJ TP, ACJC)
Lisa Gan (RGS, RJC)
Vernie Oliveiro (CHIJ STC, ACJC)
Tournament Coach:
Geetha Creffield

1998  –  Jerusalem, 7th
Team members:
Cheryl Chan (RGS, RJC)
Ida Siow (RGS, RJC)
Michelle Quah (CHIJ KC, RJC)
Paul Tan (TCH, CHJC)
Sanjeev Upadhiah (ACS (I), ACJC)
Tournament Coach:
Geetha Creffield

1999  –  London, Quarter-Finalists
Team members:

Chan Yu Ping (RI, RJC)
Chia Yu Hsien (ACS(I), ACJC)
David Low (ACS (I), ACJC)
Kristy Tan (MGS, ACJC)
Nicholas Tan (RI, RJC)
Tournament Coach:
Geetha Creffield

2000  –  Pittsburgh, 5th
Team members:
Jolene Tan (RGS, RJC)
Jonathan Pflug (RI, HCJC)
Kristy Tan (MGS, ACJC)
Liu Feng Yuan (RI, RJC)
Samuel Myat San (ACS (I), ACJC)
Tournament Coach:
Geetha Creffield

In 2000, Team Singapore defeated England, New Zealand, Peru, Bermuda, Pakistan, Ukraine and Germany and lost to Canada in the Preliminary Rounds. The team defeated Lithuania in the Octo-finals and lost to England in the Quarter-finals.

2001  –  Johannesburg, 3rd
Team members:
Elizabeth Chen (RGS, VJC)
Jonathan Pflug (RI, HCJC)
Natalie Morris (RGS, RJC)
Pao Pei Yu Peggy (RGS, RJC)
Rohini Singh (CHIJ TP, ACJC)
Tournament Coach:
Geetha Creffield

In 2001, Team Singapore defeated New Zealand, The Netherlands, Namibia, Argentina, Israel, Lithuania, Zimbabwe and lost to Pakistan in the prelim rounds. The team defeated England in the Quarter-finals and lost to Australia in the Semi-finals.

2002  –  Singapore, 7th
Team members:
Nabil Mustafiz (ACS (I), ACJC)
Rohini Singh (CHIJ TP, ACJC)
Sushma Ananda (MGS, ACJC)
Wong Shi Ming (RI, RJC)
Yeo Shenglong (ACS, HCJC)
Tournament Coach:
Geetha Creffield

In 2002, Team Singapore defeated Greece, Kuwait, Indonesia, Canada, Brunei, Hong Kong  and lost to New Zealand & Scotland in the Prelim rounds. The team beat Hong Kong in the Octo-finals and lost to Scotland in the Quarter-Finals.

2003  –  Lima, 2nd
Team members:
Chan Yongwei (ACS (I), ACJC)
Hansel Ng (TCH, VJC)
Jonathan Chong (CHS, VJC)
Joshua Tan (ACS (I), ACJC)
Li Shengwu (RI, RJC)
Tournament Coaches:
Geetha Creffield & Aaron Maniam

In 2003, Team Singapore defeated Canada, Greece, Slovakia, The Philippines, Bermuda, German and lost to Scotland & South Africa in the prelim rounds. The team defeated Wales in the Octo-finals, New Zealand in the Quarter-finals, Scotland in the Semi-Finals and lost to Australia in the Finals.

2004  –  Stuttgart – 8th
Team members:
Diane Lim (HCJC)
Howard Tan (ACS(I), ACJC)
Marcus Lim (ACS (I), ACJC)
Sheila Pakir (NYGH, RJC)
Timothy Yap (RI, RJC)
Tournament Coach:
Inderjit Singh

In 2004, Team Singapore defeated Kuwait, Estonia, Israel, Peru and South Korea  and lost to England, Lithuania, and Scotland in the prelim rounds. The team defeated Canada in the Octo-finals and lost to England in the Quarterfinals.

2005  –  Calgary, 10th
Team members:
Jonathan Yap (RI, RJC)
Lucas Li (HCI)
Neha Prakesh (MGS, ACJC)
Tan Lifeng (MGS, ACJC)
Tan Yixun (RI, RJC)
Tournament Coach:
Tan Wah Jiam

2006  –  Cardiff, 3rd
Team members:
Chere See (RGS, RJC)
Gayle Goh (DHS, ACJC)
Joshua Hiew (ACS (I), ACJC)
Mark Lim (RI, RJC)
Suhas Malhotra (RI, RJC)
Tournament Coach:
Ngoei Wen-Qing

In 2006, Team Singapore defeated the Netherlands, Romania, Kuwait, Indonesia, Montenegro and Croatia and lost to Scotland & New Zealand in the prelim rounds. The team defeated Greece in the Octo-finals, South Korea in the Quarterfinals and lost to Australia in the Semi-finals.

2007  –  Seoul, 2nd
Team members:
April Cheah (SCGS, ACS [I])
Dana Miller (UWCSEA)
Jonathan Au Yong (RI, RJC)
Samuel Cheam (ACS [I])
Scott Tan (VJC)
Tournament Coach:
Inderjit Singh

In 2007, Team Singapore defeated Peru, Bermuda, the Czech Republic, Romania, Wales,  Canada and India .and lost to England The team defeated Israel in the Octo-finals, Australia in the Quater-finals, Canada in the Semi-finals and lost to Scotland in the Finals.

2008  –  Washington DC, 10th
Team members:
Anish Hazra (RI, RJC)
Lee Jia Wei (RI, RJC)
Teoh Ren Jie (RI, RJC)
Beulah Li (MGS, ACS [I])
Rebecca Goh (MGS, ACJC)
Tournament Coach:
Ngoei Wen-Qing

In 2008, Team Singapore defeated the Philippines, Slovenia, Montenegro, Qatar, Hong Kong, and Romania and lost to Estonia and  New Zealand in the prelim rounds. The team lost to Greece in the Octo-finals.

2009  –  Athens, 3rd
Team members:
Anish Hazra (RI, RJC)
Lee Jia Wei (RI, RJC)
Teoh Ren Jie (RI, RJC)
Benjamin Mak ((RI, RJC)
Rachael Quah (PLMGS, RJC)
Tournament Coaches:
Geetha Creffield & Ngoei Wen-Qing

In 2009, Team Singapore defeated Qatar, Kuwait, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Mexico, Thailand  and lost to England and Canada in the prelim rounds. The team defeated Slovenia in the Octo-finals, Australia in the Quarter-finals and lost to New Zealand in the Semi-finals.

2010  –  Doha, 3rd
Team members:
Teoh Ren Jie (RI, RJC)
Benjamin Mak (RI, RJC)
Ashish Xiangyi Kumar (RI, RJC)
Ng Li Ki (TCH, HCJC)
Adil Hakeem (RI, RJC)
Tournament Coach:
Geetha Creffield

In 2010, Team Singapore defeated the Czech Republic, Mexico, Turkey, Qatar,Nepal, Hong Kong, Russia, and Ireland in the Prelim Rounds. The team defeated Scotland in the Octo-finals, Slovenia in the Quarter-finals and lost to Canada in the Semi-finals.

2011 – Dundee, World Champions
Team members:
Teoh Ren Jie (RI, RJC)
Benjamin Mak (RI, RJC)
Ashish Xiangyi Kumar (RI, RJC)
Ng Li Ki (TCH, HCJC)
Adil Hakeem (RI, RJC)
Tournament Coach:
Geetha Creffield

In 2011, Team Singapore defeated Argentina, the Philippines, Thailand, Serbia and Nigeria and lost to the Netherlands, Pakistan and New Zealand in the Prelim Rounds. The team defeated New Zealand in the Octo-finals, Canada in the Quarter-finals, Ireland in the Semi-finals and Australia in the Finals. 

2012 Cape Town, 5th 
Team members:
Teoh Ren Jie (RI, RIJC)
Benjamin Mak (RI, RIJC)
Darion Hotan (HCI)
Tan Teck Wei (RI, RIJC)
Rabin Kok (SJI, ACJC)
Tournament Coach:
Geetha Creffield

In 2012, Team Singapore defeated Canada, Bermuda, Mongolia, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Indonesia and Sri Lanka in the Prelim Rounds. The team defeated South Korea in the Octo-finals and lost to the Philippines in the Quarter-finals.

2013 Antalya, 3rd
Team members:
Lee Chin Wee (RI, RIJC)
Tan Kuan Hian (RI, RIJC)
Darion Hotan (HCI)
Tan Teck Wei (RI, RIJC)
Rabin Kok (SJI, ACJC)
Tournament Coach:
Geetha Creffield

In 2013, Team Singapore defeated Swaziland, Thailand, The Philippines, USA, Scotland, Barbados and Mongolia and lost to New Zealand in the Prelim Rounds. The team defeated Slovenia in the Octo-finals, England in the Quarter-finals and lost to Swaziland in the Semi-finals.

2014 Thailand,14th
Team members:
Lee Chin Wee (RI, RIJC)
Tan Kuan Hian (RI, RIJC)
Etsuko Lim (HCI)
Chong Ee Shiun (RI)
Ernest Goh (RI)
Tournament Coach:
Geetha Creffield

In 2014, Team Singapore defeated Sri Lanka, Swaziland, China and Morocco and lost to Germany, Ireland and Australia  in the Prelim Rounds. The team lost to England in the Octo-finals.

2015 Singapore, World Champions 
Team members:
Arthur Lee (ACS(I))
Bryan Yan (HCI)
Ernest Goh (RI)
Chong Ee Hsiun (RI)
Samuel Loh (RI)
Tournament Coach:
Geetha Creffield

In 2015, Team Singapore defeated Morocco, Indonesia, Sweden, Turkey, The Philippines, Slovakia, The Netherlands and South Africa in the Prelim Rounds. The team defeated India in the Octo-finals, South Africa  in the Quarter-finals, Pakistan in the Semi-Finals and Canada in the Grand-final.

The post Singapore National Debate Team appeared first on Debateable.

Debate Videos Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:35:31 +0000 JC and Secondary School Debate in Singapore  ACJC Oratorical and Debating Society {youtube}vm0_XZZBjl8{/youtube} 2013 MOE ACJC Intercollegiate Debating Championships Finals: ACJC v TJC (Ban on […]

The post Debate Videos appeared first on Debateable.

JC and Secondary School Debate in Singapore

 ACJC Oratorical and Debating Society


2013 MOE ACJC Intercollegiate Debating Championships

Finals: ACJC v TJC (Ban on Political Wings of Terrorist Organisations)

The Motion for the finals was “This House Believes That the political wings of terrorist groups should be banned from national elections.” The Debate was won in a 3-0 decision by Anglo-Chinese Junior College, featuring Annabel Tan, Rabin Kok, Samuel Wittberger, Tamasin Tan and Jessica Nagulendran.

Semi-Finals: ACJC v TPJC (Lower Taxes vs. Extensive Government Services)

The Motion for the semi finals was “This House believes that low taxes are preferable to extensive government service.” The Debate was won in a 3-0 decision by Anglo-Chinese Junior College, featuring Tamasin Tan, Rabin Kok, Samuel Wittberger, Annabel Tan and Jessica Nagulendran.

Quarter-Finals: HCI v ACJC (State Funding for Political Parties)

The Motion for the finals was “This House Believes that state funding should be given to political parties to cover their running costs and election campaigns.” The Debate was won in a 3-0 decision by Anglo-Chinese Junior College, featuring Tamasin Tan, Rabin Kok, Samuel Wittberger, Annabel Tan and Jessica Nagulendran.

2013 Prometheus Cup

Finals: ACJC v Canada Red (Impact of US involvement in Middle East). 

The debate was won by ACJC, featuring Low Ee Ning, Aloysius Chan and Annette Yeo.

Semi-Finals: ACJC v NYGH (tying aid to democratic change). 


Quarter-FInals: RI v ACJC (Banning from Olympics countries which bars females from competing).

The debate was won by ACJC, featuring Low Ee Ning, Aloysius Chan and Annette Yeo on a 3-0 decision against RI, featuring Hari Kope, Ryan Sam and Joel Nee. 

2013 SCWO NUS Challenge Shield

Finals: Singapore National Team v ACJC
Motion: This House Believes that Organised Feminism has lost its relevance.
Proposition: Singapore National Team, with Lee Chin Wee, Etsuko Lim and Ernest Goh speaking. Opposition: Anglo-Chinese Junior College, with Annabel Tan, Rabin Kok and Tamasin Tan speaking. The debate was won by ACJC.

2012 SCWO NUS Challenge Shield

Finals: HCI v ACJC

The Debate was won by the opposition, Anglo-Chinese Junior College, featuring Mark Lim, Rabin Kok, Joshua Jesudasen, A Singh and Annabel Tan

2012 Singapore Red Cross International Humanitarian Law Debates

Finals: HCI v ACJC (Truth and Reconciliation Commissions)

The motion was : THW abolish truth and reconciliation committees in favour of criminal prosecution.The Debate was won in a unanimous decision by the opposition, Anglo-Chinese Junior College, featuring Mark Lim, Rabin Kok, Joshua Jesudasen, A Singh and Annabel Tan

2012 Bratislava Schools Debating Championships (ACJC Matches)

Finals: DISA v ACJC Part 1, Part 2

Semi-Finals: CS Lewis v ACJC Prop 1, Opp 1, Prop 2, Opp 2, Prop 3, Opp 3, Opp R, Prop R

Quarter-Finals: Czech White v ACJC Part 1, Part 2

Round 6: Czech Black v ACJC Part 1, Part 2

Round 5: ACJC v DISA Part 1, Part 2

Round 4: ACJC v Czech White Part 1, Part 2

Round 3: ACJC v CS Lewis Part 1, Part 2

Round 2: GJHA v ACJC Part 1, Part 2

Round 1: Baarguments v ACJC  Part 1, Part 2

2012 Eurasian Schools Debating Championships

Semi-Finals: ACJC v Lahore Grammar School (Pakistan)

ACJC won 5-2 on the motion “THBT states are justified in ignoring civil liberties in their fight against terrorism.”ACJC was represented by Annabel Tan, A. Singh and Rabin Kok.

2011 Bratislava Schools Debating Championships

First Proposition, First OppositionSecond PropositionSecond Opposition, Third PropositionThird Opposition,Opposition Reply & Proposition Reply

The Finals of the International Bratislava Schools Debating Championships that was held from 7-11 April 2011. The Championship match was contested by the Slovakian Schools National Debate Team in Proposition and Anglo-Chinese Junior College (Singapore) in Opposition. The debate was won by the Opposition team, featuring Joshua Jesudasen, Toh Ghee Wei and David Aw.  The motion was “This house believes that developed countries have a moral duty to open their borders to immigrants from developing countries.”


The motion for the semi-finals was “This house would limit how much an individual or a corporation may donate for political purposes.” The semi-finals were contested by the teams from ACJC comprising the following debaters:

Team 1
Joshua Jesudason (Fairfield Methodist Secondary School ’10, ACJC ’12)
Toh Ghee Wei (Pei Hwa Secondary School ’09, ACJC ’11)
David Aw (ACS Barker Road ’09, ACJC ’11)
Natalie Wang (Tanjong Katong Girls School ’09, ACJC ’11)
Su Jia Zhe (Bukit Batok Secondary School ’09, ACJC ’11)

Team 2
Andrew Pflug (ACS Barker Road ’09, ACJC ’11)
Marie Ee (CHIJ St. Theresa’s ’09, ACJC ’11)
Meaghan Lim (Methodist Girls School ’10, ACJC ’12)
Kwok Yingchen (Nan Hua High School ‘09, ACJC’11)
Lum Xin Ci (Paya Lebar Methodist Girls School ’09, ACJC ’11)

 Quarter Finals: ACJC v Romania (PC Language)

The motion for the quarter-finals was “This house would tolerate the public use of politically incorrect language.” The debate was won by the Propostion, featuring Joshua Jesudasen, Toh Ghee Wei and David Aw.

2007  MOE Invitational Debating Championships


The semi-finals of the 2007 MOE JC Invitational Debating Championships, which was contested by ACS (I) vs ACJC. The debate was won by ACJC, featuring Tamojoy Chatterjee, Jazlyn Chua and Nicholas Tan. The motion was “This house believes that globalisation has widened social inequality.” (The video ends near the conclusion of the 3rd opposition speaker due to a technical error)


The quarter-finals of the 2007 MOE JC Invitational Debating Championships, which was contested by AJC vs ACJC. The debate was won by ACJC, featuring Tamojoy Chatterjee, Jazlyn Chua and Nicholas Tan.  The motion was “This house would partition Iraq.”


This match features Temasek Junior College vs Anglo-Chinese Junior College on the motion “This house would presecute teenagers as adults.” The debate was won by ACJC, featuring Tamojoy Chatterjee, Jazlyn Chua and Nicholas Tan.

2000 ACJC InterCols (SF) ACJC v HCJC (Nat Sov/HR) 

Match Video

For added variety, this site will feature debates from different eras. This is the semi-finals of the 2000 ACJC Inter-Cols which was contested by ACJC and HCJC. The debate was won by HCJC, featuring  Dominic Soon and Jonathan Pflug. ACJC was represented by Rohini Singh, Samuel Myat San and Nabeel Vilcassim. The motion was “This house would sacrifice national sovereignty for human rights.”

2013 MOE ACJC Intercollegiate Debating Championships

R1 HCI v RI (Mandatory Voting)

The Motion was: This house believes that voting in national elections should be optional. The debate was won by the opposition, RI.

2011 MOE ACJC Intercollegiate Debating Championships

Finals: HCI v SJII

The motion was on cutting aid to Israel. The debate was won by HCI.

Semi-Finals: ACSI v HCI

The motion was on offering debt relief to dictatorships. The debate was won by HCI.

NCS 2009 (F) RI vs HCI (Trial by Jury)

Match Video

 MIDC 2008 (F) HCI v NJC (Tied Aid Environment)

Match Video


Singapore National Debate Team


WSDC 2012 QF SG v Phi; (Outing gays)

Quater Finals (Singapore v Philippines)

 First Proposition, First Oppositon, Second Proposition, Second Opposition, Third Proposition, Third Opposition, Opposition Reply, Proposition Reply.

Motion: THBT Gay Rights Organisations should out Gay Public Figures. The debate was won on a 5-0 decision by Team Philippines against Team Singapore which featured Benjamin Mak, Darion Hotan and Teoh Ren Jie as speakers.

WSDC 2012 OF ROK v SG (Endangered Languages)

Motion: THBT the govt should create schools that teach in endangered indigenous languages . The debate was won on a 2-1 decision against Team Korea by Team Singapore which featured Benjamin Mak, Darion Hotan and Teoh Ren Jie as speakers.

WSDC 2012 R8 Can vs SG (Soc-Ec Rights in Constitution)

Motion:THBT states should enshrine legally actionable socio-economic rights. The debate was won against Team Canada by Team Singapore which featured Benjamin Mak, Darion Hotan and Teoh Ren Jie as speakers. The rest of the speeches may be found at

WSDC 2012 Round 5 Singapore v Korea (Racial Profiling)

Part 1, Part 2. THBT the police should use racial profiling when fighting crime. This match was won by Singapore.

WSDC 2012 R3 HK vs SG (Raising Children in Prison)


Motion: This House would allow single parents in prison to raise their children behind bars. The debate was won against Team Hong Kong by Team Singapore which featured Benjamin Mak, Darion Hotan and Teoh Ren Jie as speakers.

WSDC 2011 Finals Aus v SG (Internet & dictatorships)


Motion: The Grand Final This House believes that autocracy is doomed in the age of facebook. The debate was won by Team Singapore.

WSDC 2011 SF Ire vs SG (Right to Independence)

 First Proposition, First Opposition, Second Proposition, Second Opposition, Third Proposition, Third Opposition, Opposition Reply, Proposition Reply.

Motion: THBT every region should have the right to independent statehood if majority of it’s members wish. The debate was won on a 5-2 split against Team Ireland by Team Singapore which featured Benjamin Mak, Ashish Kumar and Teoh Ren Jie as speakers.

WSDC 2011 QF Can vs SG (Free Immigration)


Motion: TH Supports Free Immigration. The debate was won on a 5-0 decision against Team Canada by Team Singapore which featured Benjamin Mak, Ashish Kumar and Teoh Ren Jie as speakers.

 WSDC 2011 OF NZ vs SG (Nuclear Energy)


Motion: TH Would Abandon Nuclear Energy. The debate was won on a 3-2 decision against Team New Zealand by Team Singapore which featured Benjamin Mak, Ashish Kumar and Teoh Ren Jie as speakers.

WSDC 2011 R8 NZ vs SG (Sports Teams’ Fans)


Motion: THW penalise sporting teams for the poor behaviour of their fans. The debate was won by Team New Zealand against Team Singapore which featured Benjamin Mak, Ashish Kumar and Teoh Ren Jie as speakers.

WSDC 2011 R5 Pak vs SG (Organ Sales)


Motion: This House would legalise the sale of human organs. The debate was won by Team Pakistan against Team Singapore which featured Benjamin Mak, Ashish Kumar and Teoh Ren Jie as speakers.

 WSDC 2011 Rd4 Thai vs SG (Mandatory Voting)


Motion: THW make voting in national elections mandatory. The debate was won by  Team Singapore, which featured Benjamin Mak, Ashish Kumar and Teoh Ren Jie as speakers. The speeches may be found at

WSDC 2011 R3 SG vs Hol (Pri Education)


Motion: This House believes that Universal Primary Education is a misallocation of resources for the developing world. The debate was won by Team Netherlands against Team Singapore which featured Benjamin Mak, Ashish Kumar and Teoh Ren Jie as speakers.

WSDC 2011 R2 SG vs Phil (Free Internet Music)


Motion:This House would allow free distribution of music on the internet. The debate was won against Team Philippines by Team Singapore which featured Benjamin Mak, Ashish Kumar and Teoh Ren Jie as speakers.

WSDC 2011 R1 Arg vs SG (Dictators’ Immunity)


Motion: This House would offer dictators immunity in return for leaving power. The debate was won against Team Argentina by Team Singapore which featured Benjamin Mak, Ashish Kumar and Teoh Ren Jie as speakers.

WSDC 2009 SF NZ vs SG (Aid for Dictators)


Motion: THBT Dicatorships should not receive international aid. The debate was won by Team New Zealand over Team Singapore, which featured Anish Hazra, Lee Jia Wei and Teoh Ren Jie as speakers.

WSDC 2009 QF Aus vs SG (Voting Age)


Motion: This house would lower the voting age. The debate was won by Team Singapore, which featured Anish Hazra, Lee Jia Wei and Teoh Ren Jie as speakers.

WSDC 2009 Rd 6 Eng vs SG (Spanking)


Motion: This house would ban the physical punishment of children by their parents. The debate was won by Team England. Team Singapore Anish Hazra, Lee Jia Wei and Teoh Ren Jie as speakers.

WSDC 2005 Sco vs SG (Negotiate with Terrorists)


WSDC 2003 Gre vs SG (Compulsory Voting)


Motion: THBT voting should be made compulsory in a national election. The debate was won by Team Singapore, featuring Chan Yong Wei, Li Shengwu and Hansel Ng.

 WSDC 2002 Exhibition (Civil Lib v Sec)


WSDC 2001 QF SG vs Eng (Negotiate with Terrorist)


WSDC 2001 Israel vs SG (Death Penalty)


Motion: This house supports the death penalty. The debate was won by Team Singapore, featuring Natalie Morris, Peggy Pao Peiyu and Jonathan Pflug.

 WSDC 2001 Rd 8 SG vs Zim (State Sponsored Art)


Motion: TH Supports government sponsorship of the arts. The debate was won by Team Singapore, featuring Natalie Morris, Peggy Pao and Jonathan Pflug.

WSDC 2001 Prep Aus vs SG (Nuclear India)


Motion: This House Fears A Nuclear India.

WSDC 1999 Argentina vs Singapore (ICC)


WSDC 1997 SF SG vs Eng (Affirmative Action)


Motion: This House supports Affirmative Action. Team Singapore, featuring Aaron Maniam, Celina Chua and Vernie Oliveiro were defeated by England 4-3.


World Schools Debating Championships

  WSDC 2013

Octo Finals: Mexico v India  (THW cut welfare support for compulsive gamblers Prop: Mexico Opp: India)

Round 8: Israel v UAE (THW require university students to work in their country of origin for a number of years after garduation)

Round 8: India v Scotland (Prop: India, 1. Shriya Narayanan 2. Dhruva Bhat (Reply), 3. Siddarth Shrikanth, Opp: Scotland, 1. Sophie Corke, 2. Charlie Holmes (Reply), 3. Tom Clarke, Motion: THW require university students to work in their country of origin for a number of years after graduation)

Round 7: Romania v Israel (This house believes that sovereign debt default is a legitimate economic strategy)


Round 4: Israel v Hungary  THW let prisoners choose death over life imprisonment.


WSDC 2012

Slovakia v India: THW Ban Alcohol 

Slovakia v Mexico: THBT Developing Nations should place limits on Internal Rural Urban migration

Czech Replublic v Slovakia: THBT newly democratised Arab nations should not allow religious parties to participate in elections

WSDC 2011

 Slovakia v Ireland (THW offer dictators immunity in return for leaving power.)

Slovakia v England (THW make voting in national elections mandatory.)

Poland v Slovakia (THBT universal primary education is a misallocation of resources for the developing world)

WSDC 2011 QF RSA vs Aus (Immigration)

 The motion for debate was: TH supports free immigration. South Africa debated the proposition side, and Australia, the opposition.

Team Australia won the round 5-0. The videos the debate may be found at

WSDC 2011 QF Eng vs Sco (Immigration)


The motion for debate was: TH supports free immigration. England debated the proposition side, and Scotland, the opposition. Team Scotland won the round 4-1.

WSDC 2011 OF UAE vs RSA (Nuclear Energy)

 The motion for debate was: This House Would abandon Nuclear Energy. UAE debated the proposition side, and South Africa, the opposition.

Team South Africa won the round 4-1. The videos for the debate may be found at

WSDC 2011 OF HK vs Ned (Nuclear Energy)

 The motion for debate was: This House Would abandon Nuclear Energy. Hongkong debated the proposition side, and the Netherlands the opposition.

Team Hong Kong won the round 3-2. The videos for the debate may be found at

WSDC 2010 (F) Can vs Eng (Bail-outs)

The motion for debate was: This House would never bail out big companies. Canada debated the proposition side, and England the opposition. The debate proper begins at the 2 min 30 sec mark. Team Canada won the round 8-3. The videos for the rest of the debate may be found at the the following links:

Part 3Part 4Part 6Part 7Part 8, Part 10Part 11. (Parts 5, 9 & 12 have yet to be uploaded by the video owner)

 WSDC 2010 Rd 6 Can v ROK (Ec v Env)

 The sixth preliminary round of the World Schools Debating Championship 2010 in Doha between the Republic of Korea and Canada, on the topic “This House believes that the developing world should prioritize economic development before environmental protection”. Canada won the round three ballots to none. The videos for the debate may be found at the youtube channel for debaterandskeptic.

WSDC 2009

Bye Round: Ireland v Israel  (Motion: This house would ban the physical punishment of children by their parents. Ireland won 2-1)

WSDC 2008

Finals New Zealand v England (UNSC)

Held in the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in September 2008, this debate is the final round of the 2008 World Schools Debating Champiopnships tournament held in Washington DC USA. The decision was 5-4 for England. The motion was on expanding the UNSC.

Semi-finals: New Zealand v Scotland (Sanctions on Cuba)

This House would drop all US sanctions on Cuba. Semifinal round at WSDC 2008 in Washington DC USA. The debate was won by New Zealand 7-0.

 QF Eng vs Israel 

Quarterfinals round from the World Schools Debating Championship 2008 in Washington DC. England vs. Israel. Motion: This house regrets the hosting of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing (Debate was won by England 4:1).

OF Slovenia v Israel (This house believes that heads of government should be required to have a parliamentary majority to govern)

Round 5: South Korea v Israel Video

Round 5 of the World Schools Debating Championship 2008 in Washington, DC. South Korea vs. Israel. Motion: THW make the directors of multinational companies personally liable for environmental abuses committed by their companies in the developing world (Debate was won by Israel 2:1).

Round 4 Estonia v Israel  Motion: This house believes that humanities courses should be part of every undergraduate program

Rd 2 Isr vs Scot (Strikes) Video

Round 2 from the World Schools Debating Championship 2008 in Washington, DC. Israel vs. Scotland. Motion: THW Ban strikes by those working in essential state services (Debate was won by Israel 2:1)

 Rd 1 Isr vs RSA (Mil Intervention) Video

Round 1 of the World Schools Debating Championship 2008 in Washington, DC. South Africa vs. Israel. Motion: This House Supports Military Intervention in the delivery of emergency aid in humanitarian crises (Debate was won by South Africa 2:1)

WSDC 2007 Rd 6 Ire vs. ROK (Legalise All Drugs)


Motion: This House would legalize all drugs (Impromptu). The videos for the rest of the debate may be found at the youtube channel for jreznick99.

WSDC 2007 (OF)  ROK v Pak (Affirmative Action)


This House would force organizations to place more women in senior positions (Impromptu)The videos for the debate may be found at the youtube channel for jreznick99.

WSDC 2002 SF Sco v Aus (Civil Lib vs Sec)


WSDC 1997 SF Aus v Pak (Free Speech)


Other Tournaments/Events

QatarDebate Videos

QatarDebate has produced excellent training vides in preparation for the WSDC 2010 in Doha. The videos are found at the following links:

QatarDebate: An Introduction to Debate


Debating Games and Exercises


African Schools Debating Championships 2009, Final (China & Africa

South Africa (Government) is debating Botswana (Opposition) in the finals of the ASDC. The motion is about the role of China and the West in African development. The debate took place at the Nelson Mandela Foundation. The rest of the videos may be found at the following links: Part 1, Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5Part 6Part 7, Part 8


Adjudicator Training at WSDC 2008


Aaron Maniam of Singapore, the chief adjudicator at World Schools Debating Championship 2008, makes a presentation ad the adjudicator train ing workshop held in Washington DC.

The post Debate Videos appeared first on Debateable.

Growing Up Debating Sun, 12 Jun 2011 10:23:26 +0000 Growing Up Debating

by Darion Hotan & Tan Teck Wei




It was not too long ago when both of us were first-time entrants to the debating fraternity, green and keen for the thrills before us, yet a lot has changed since then. This year, as we move from debating for our secondary schools into the college circuit, a similarly new experience awaits us. In our first few months, our debating has changed tremendously, but the passion and intensity that originally fuelled us remains the same.

The post Growing Up Debating appeared first on Debateable.

Growing Up Debating

by Darion Hotan & Tan Teck Wei






The first change is both immediate and mandatory; the rules are different! Not everyone notices this, but debating in secondary school usually uses a modified version of the World Schools’ rules, and being in JC means coping with the full monty. Speeches are now 8 minutes long, rather than 6. There are more points of information (POIs) to be accepted and given; no more offering a POI as early as possible before gluing oneself to the chair! Last of all, the luxury of a 2 minute interval before reply speeches has been removed.


There are some debaters who find it hard, initially at least, to adapt to having 8 minutes of top-class substantiation. There are also those who wish they had more time for their speeches. The extra time we get in JC brings with it broader speaker roles. The opening speakers have to get used to delivering two substantives instead of one, while rebuttal speakers have more targets to attack, and more material to defend. At the same time, it gives us the scope to use rhetoric and rapier-like wit to the fullest. It all makes for a more electrifying debate, and ultimately a more challenging task for the debaters involved.


These changes are generally easy to understand, especially since most secondary school debaters have already been exposed to these rules in a few debate tournaments (such as the NUS Challenge Shield or open varsity tournaments). What’s the big difference then? The primary challenge is becoming so familiar with them that debating becomes almost second nature.


This is particularly challenging because it requires us to forget all the instinctive habits of our secondary school years. Most debaters grow into a rhythm as they debate more frequently, and some of these changes can be disruptive. It varies from speaker to speaker – some find it easier to adapt, while others work consciously to make these changes, but everyone ends up finding a new rhythm to debate with when moving into JC.


Beyond the rules of our debates, however, lies a deeper change in the argumentation that judges (and hopefully audiences!) expect. Adjudicators judging a secondary school debate are often more forgiving of loosely built content analysis; some debaters can still get by with well-chosen words and powerful styles, but in JC adjudicators expect a lot more. They expect the intellectual rigour that comes with both maturity of years and experience in debating, and this translates into a higher standard for substantiation in content. No more dropping links and ‘fluffing’ one’s way through substantives; in JC the playing field is more challenging in this regard.


Thankfully, the format is perfectly suited to this higher expectation, because more time means more space to fully explain and develop our points. But this also means that the debaters who expect JC debating to be easier than before, because of the extra time, are often proven wrong!


Regardless of age, good substantive arguments make for a good debate; a debate is nothing without material to argue over, and the better the material to begin with, the higher the quality of engagement. Getting carried away with rebuttals and neglecting substantives shouldn’t happen anywhere, but it is more problematic on the JC circuit, and will be punished by teams and adjudicators alike.


However, debating at its roots, regardless of secondary or JC level, revolves around the same essential qualities; engagement, teamwork, persuasion, strategy, determination, grit and having fun in what we do. These were the skills we picked up as young debaters all those years ago, and they continue to be relevant in our JC debating careers. As much as debating has become more competitive and more challenging since we transitioned into our college years, these remain the qualities that a good debater must have, and the qualities that we continue to aspire towards.

The post Growing Up Debating appeared first on Debateable.

Debate It: Democracy Mon, 23 May 2011 14:06:51 +0000 Debate It: Democracy



Series editor: Benjamin Mak Jia Ming


Guest contributor: Mr Lee Jia Wei

Coach: Mrs Geetha Creffield

The post Debate It: Democracy appeared first on Debateable.

Debate It: Democracy



Series editor: Benjamin Mak Jia Ming


Guest contributor: Mr Lee Jia Wei

Coach: Mrs Geetha Creffield

The editor speaks









Democracy: A backgrounder





















This House Believes That civil disobedience is never justified in a democracy

Case Basics














Case arguments


























Even nonviolent movements hold no purchase in a democracy.





























Case Framework









Case arguments































They have come to demand excessively from their elected representatives.






















Where the debate lies











Sample Definition




Case arguments



Democracy Dignifies Humanity




Democracy Causes Ethnic Strife





Democracy Ensures Peace



Democracy Causes Poverty





THBT the Internet has done more good than harm for democratization



  • The speed at which information travels
  • The amount of information that can be stored on the Internet
    • The ability to share information relatively anonymously


  1. Freedom of information
  2. Freedom of expression
  3. Right to privacy









Burden of proof required

Proving the motion involves defining:

  1. What democratization means
  2. What is needed for democratization to happen
  3. How the Internet inherently facilitates the meeting of such needs

Parameters  for the debate



Case arguments



The Internet undermines autocracies




The Internet strengthens the ideological grip autocracies have on their people




The Internet safeguards alternative views



The Internet helps to identify and eliminate alternative voices



The Internet stimulates political participation



The Internet weakens law and order







The Internet moderates political views




The Internet worsens political polarization


The Internet facilitates informed choice




The Internet inhibits informed choice











Useful references








The post Debate It: Democracy appeared first on Debateable.

Singapore National Debate Team Exhibition Match Mon, 23 May 2011 08:50:31 +0000 Singapore National Debate Team Exhibition Match The National Debate Team representing Singapore at the 2011 World Schools Debating Championships in Dundee, Scotland, will be holding […]

The post Singapore National Debate Team Exhibition Match appeared first on Debateable.

Singapore National Debate Team Exhibition Match


The National team will be facing a team of distinguished Sinapore National Team Alumni such as Aaron Maniam, Timothy Yap and Joshua Hiew. Everyone is invited to watch this debate, which will be on the theme of Politics.


Debate It: Religion in Politics Mon, 16 May 2011 08:59:46 +0000 The post Debate It: Religion in Politics appeared first on Debateable.

