Full Debate Panama WSDC 2025 Grand Final (India vs Australia) – TH prefers a world with a strong belief in Seriti

• Motion: TH prefers a world with a strong belief in Seriti
• Info Slide: Seriti is communitarian philosophy found in the Setswana, Sesotho, and Sepedi cultures. According to this philosophy, a person’s moral, spiritual and social standing – their seriti- is bestowed upon them by their ancestors, living and dead. Individuals who abide by this philosophy prioritize living in line with the values and desires articulated by their ancestors, and maintain a relationship with them by not ignoring, disrespecting, or dishonoring them.
• Proposition: India
• Opposition: Australia
• Result: India won this debate unanimously (9-0)
• Tabulation: https://wsdc2025.calicotab.com/_/results/debate/450375/scoresheets/
• Video attachment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kjeQW-RNyw

This debate is transcribed by Nad for the Debating404 Project.

Proposition 1st Speaker: Veda Kalra

Opening:

When you die, your life flashes before you for seven minutes. In these minutes, Team India does not want you to think of how many figures were on your paycheck, or how many friends came to visit you in the hospital, or what your speaker rank at WSDC was. What we want you to remember is your community. That you lived a life of models, a life that generations before you would be proud of and a life that leaves behind a remnant of the values you cared about.

Set up:

• What is our stance in this debate? We prefer a world where there’s a strong belief in Seriti and we ask you, panel, to broaden your minds because this is a different world. We think Seriti looks like having a unique form of respect and appreciation for your ancestors, the generations before you. And this is important because Seriti is not about what your grandfather wanted from you. It’s about the generations before, the values they upheld. It looks like if your ancestors prioritized honesty, that’s the one value you wish to carry on to your children.
• That if your ancestors valued community, you wouldn’t move out, that you’d stay within the joint family and maintain relationships with your relatives, for example. How then is this conceptualized on our side of the house? We think it’s largely via memory.
  • So the stories your grandparents have told you, the ones that you then tell on to your grandchildren. And that is why, because these are values, they tend to adapt with context as these generations move forward. The community back then could have meant like marrying someone within your own community. But now it’s different. It looks like for example, not moving out as early.
  • But secondly because these are values they tend to be more vague, they’re not as specific. This is not about the job that you’re choosing but rather they have to apply to all generations. And that means it’s about values such as honesty, kindness, community, to take care of your elderly.
  • Overall then, the choices you make on our side are guided by your ancestors so that you feel validated when you stick to their vision, that you honor their wishes, that you respect them even when they’re gone.
• And I want to note this debate is about where you derive your spiritual, moral and social standing from. We prefer Seriti. Team Australia then has to defend the status quo, where it is capitalism that tells you how much money you have, or your appearance, or your race and other fleeting ideas is where you’re primarily taking away your social standing from.
• That being said, two arguments from team India in the speech. First on why Seriti rewards people a unique source of meaning. Second on why we’re able to revive communal values and support systems on our side of the house.

Argument 1:

First argument then on why Seriti rewards people a unique source of meaning. There are two parts to this argument; The first is that Seriti ensures meaning for current generations. Second we’ll show you why Seriti gives the elderly meaning in the last few years.

Firstly then let’s talk about the current generations. We think that current sources of social standing are fleeting and external. It looks like your source of validation to the money you earn, the job that you’re at, the number of friends around you, and what they tell you to begin with.

Why is this uniquely harmful? Three structural reasons for this:

1. The first is that a lot of this is completely out of one’s control. That is to say, the reason you’re succeeding at your job interview is something that is arbitrary. The friends you have or the money you have is often shaped by conditions that are just out of your control, where you were born, for example, the kind of family you grew up in.
2. But second, a lot of these forms of standing are unattainable. There will always be someone who is richer than you. Always someone who is more popular, who is more successful. And in most instances, you can’t strive to reach the top when it comes to these other forms of social standing.
3. But third, is that these are fleeting. That is to say, you can never continue to be liked for long periods of time. You will not always be successful. There are highs and lows in life and that is something that is natural.

On the comparative then, why is Seriti a far more meaningful way of assessing social standing on our side of the house? Two reasons for this:

1. The first thing is that it’s far more personal to you. That is to say, this is your family, your culture, and so you feel far more in line with it. That your great grandmother really cared towards animals, towards her community. And that means when you’re donating to an animal welfare charity, you feel in line with it. You feel as if you have purpose.
2. But second, you can control these kinds of narratives. And I want to note, there is no one telling you on our side that you aren’t perfectly in line with your Seriti. That is to say, you determine it yourself; the way in which you’re sticking to your ancestors’ values and that means you have the leeway to decide what it looks like. So the way you’re finding your social standing or morality is something you’re able to control far more on our side when it’s something you can determine on your own.

And I want to weigh this: this is you feeling far more reassured that you’re not just a speck in the 8 billion people that are living out there. That when your grandfather told you to be confident, I am confidently speaking on the stage today. And that’s something I feel purpose with, value associated with, as opposed to something that is so fleeting on their side.

But the second part of this argument deals with how Seriti is uniquely meaningful towards the elderly. That is to say, Seriti gives the elderly a chance to leave behind a part of themselves i.e. a legacy. And this is important because death is unfair, it happens so suddenly, it happens so unfairly. When your mother passes away at 60, you wish you could be clinging on to her more. On our side then, we give you the ability to care about your values, to ensure that you’re leaving something for generations to follow behind. The fact that the things you care about is something that the grandchildren in front of you are going to be following at the same time is something that’s going to last for so much longer. There is no other way of controlling the image you leave behind when you’re gone, Seriti uniquely gives you the ability to do it on our side.

POI: Your social standing is determined by what your ancestors did which you cannot control. Is that good?

We think that the ancestors, this is not about what your ancestors did, but rather what your ancestors believed in. So things like community, honesty, support systems on our side the house and that means you can interpret it in the ways you want. So if your ancestors was very big on honesty or like caring about community that’s something you interpret on our side. You carry on with a legacy, you move forward.

It’s not like if your grandfather or like your great-grandfather had one specific job you have to do that on our side. This is not what this debate is about.

Argument 2:

Second argument then on why we’re able to revive communal values and support systems far better on our side.

What do we think the values pushed down actually look like? And we would posit that these are far more community oriented. And that is because with our ancestors there were far more closed and tight-knit communities. They had cultural ties, festivals. These were things they prioritized on either side of the house because that is how our ancestors lived in the past. Over time however, we would posit that we have gotten far more individualistic and that is for two reasons.

1. The first is due to the pressures of competition and capitalism. That you have to work more and more, that you have to strive to get that promotion, that that’s the thing that decides your worth.
2. But second is due to increased urbanization. That is to say, people flocking to these cities for work, leading to nuclear families that sever these familiar ties.

It is only then, with a strong belief in Seriti that changes this, that makes people far more community oriented. And the impact of this is twofold.

The first thing is that you care far more for the living elderly. This looks like not sending them to old age homes, spending time with them when you’re taking off work to ensure you can spend time with them during their last few years and that it doesn’t have to feel like a checklist on a to-do list to spend time with them, that you genuinely enjoy doing them, that you want to learn about the stories they had, the kind of life they had before you.

But the second thing is that you extend far more support towards your family and that is incredibly important, because in the status quo we lack a lot of support systems, our friends are constantly changing. Because there’s so much competition, people prioritize their own selves. Families have slowly started to get diluted. It is uniquely Seriti that brings this back, that brings your culture back. That looks like women for example when they’re dealing with their children, other relatives stepping in. Support systems becoming far more important. These are people you can rely on, people you can trust on our side of the house because Seriti ensures that you want to live by these values of community that your ancestors set out for you.

Weighing & Closing:

And I want to weigh this argument. The reason we are here today is because of our ancestors. The land we live on was once farmed by our ancestors. These were the families that were formed. Our parents, the ones who took care of us throughout our lives, put in life savings. We then owe a reciprocal obligation to abide by these values to support these parents and generations ahead. For all these reasons, we’re incredibly proud to propose on team India.

Opposition 1st Speaker: Lucas Lu

Opening:

Unlike what team India tells you, this isn’t just a debate about community, or living by values which they are unable to name on and which seem vague and amorphous throughout that entire speech. This theme traps people into living lives that their ancestors wanted them to live. They are shackled to customs and values and traditions that they had no role in shaping.

Set Up:

Team Australia’s stance is very clear. The dead ought not control the living. You deserve agency over your own life.

One thing in setup, the alternative is this world where people’s moral, social, and spiritual worth are judged on their own merits and by their contemporary communities etc. And unlike what this team tells you, these things are not fleeting. People are still able to find meaning under our side of the house, which is something that they able to opt into rather than being forced upon them, as this team says.

Rebuttals:

Two pieces of extraneous rebuttals before I get into the arguments.

1. The first thing they tell us is the characterization that values are likely to change over time. And I want to observe it’s quite bad when team India tries to dodge their burden at first because it explicitly says as the definition of this Seriti thing that you have to live in line with the values of your ancestors. But secondly, presumably, that this knifes their own stuff, because presumably if values change over time and people become more individualistic they obviously lose their benefits on community.
2. Secondly they tell us, ah, but you become more community-oriented under their side. Yeah people still love their families. They still have friends and communities they are able to opt into. This team never proved to you why this is something, a tipping point, that accesses more community.

Two arguments in the speech. First, why this is incredibly bad for individuals. Secondly, why this inhibits social progress.

Argument 1:

In the first argument, there are three parts;

The first is why this team significantly limits agency and why that is a principal harm. Secondly, on why this team causes extreme anxiety and unhappiness for the vast majority of people in the world. Finally, I’ll illustrate a series of practical bad outcomes that this team causes.

The first part of this argument will simply prove why this team significantly diminishes people’s agency and why this is a massive constraint and imposition on your life.

• It’s because this thing is something that is embedded within your culture. This motion says, strongly believe in this sort of thing, and cultures often times self-perpetuate.
• But secondly, often times this is something that is applied at a young age and so you’re likely to internalize this for the rest of your life and you cannot opt out.
• The final thing is people’s moral and social standing is incredibly important for people. People crave social worth because it is within our biology. So this is a powerful compulsion on people’s lives.

The implication of all this is very simple. This philosophy massively limits people’s choices to only what their ancestors expect of them and only what their ancestors ultimately value. Why is this incredibly bad?

• The first, that this is something which is just principally wrong. The analogy I want to draw here is that, religious coercion is viewed as wrong. Forcing people to do something or not do something based on the threat of heaven and hell is something which significantly limits people’s choice. A similar thing is applied here when you’re literally challenging like people’s social and self moral worth.
• But secondly, only you know your own preferences. Only you know yourself best and you inherit the consequences of your own actions. Which means that you ought to try to live your life according to what you believe in and not what your ancestors believed and whatever values they try to impose upon you.

But secondly, observe that the ability to choose your own values shapes who you fundamentally are as a human. This team robs people of the chance to shape their own identity to pick and choose the values that they ultimately believe in and that diminishes your personhood and your humanity.

But secondly, observe that this just results in deep amounts of unhappiness. You feel suffocated and trapped by what your ancestors believe, by the values that they uphold. And that’s quite bad.

POI: In such a capitalistic society where one’s success measures their worth, how do you think people judge merit in the status quo?

But people still live under capitalism under your side, right? Like your entire case is: But we get more community. But why does having your ancestors bestow upon you a social and moral word is something that creates more community is incredibly unclear to me.

There are three reasons why this causes an extreme amount of anxiety for a lot of people.

1. The first is that, often times the desires of yourself and the desires of your ancestors often conflict. That’s for the reason that often times people have hidden taboo desires that they ultimately have. Or secondly, you’re just influenced by contemporary influences that also shape your desires and shape what you want. And this is incredibly bad when people feel like their social and moral and standing is dependent on what their ancestors believe and they are conflicting against that. Often times that does result in a lot of guilt and anxiety for a lot of people. It probably looks like if you’re attracted to someone but your ancestors like value things such as puritanism, obviously you’re going to feel incredibly bad and guilty about yourself. If your ancestors value things such as like being frugal or donating a lot, if you want material possessions, obviously that conflicts, obviously that makes you feel incredibly incredibly awful.
2. But secondly, there is uncertainty in applying values to modern life because the life of your ancestor looks very different from the contemporary life that you are existing in. These are very different experiences that you are living. Trying to apply those lessons across is something which is incredibly hard, is incredibly stressful.
3. But thirdly, people often times try to live up to their ancestors and they fail. And that’s for the reason that ancestors on their side are glorified. They are lionized. All of their like imperfections are ones that are wiped clean. And so you were never able to live up to the standards that your ancestors put on you and that causes a lot of stress and anxiety. It makes people feel like they are inadequate all the time.

The impacting of the end of this is very simple. This is about a different world. This team subjects billions upon billions of people to feel shame and awful and inadequate or they’re unable to live up to this standard.

The third argument will simply prove why this is practically bad for people.

1. The first mechanism is that values passed down are simply bad or at least internalized badly by people who have to internalize them.
   • The first thing is that the values of your ancestors oftentimes are incredibly outdated, they oftentimes are incredibly regressive. Even a generation or two generations ago, people were incredibly sexist, they were homophobic and they were racist. And so they’re likely to perpetuate those things across generations or at least the person who is like younger, and the child has to internalize this because their moral and social worth depends on this and it’s incredibly bad for you if you are a queer individual and your desire conflicts to those of your parents.
   • But secondly, observe that even good values that this team talks about often times are presented without nuance. Often times these things are glorified. Obviously the most extreme versions of these things are often times presented to a lot of people. And that is incredibly bad because extreme values, extreme versions of even good values, are often times incredibly harmful. Extreme forgiveness is often times bad especially for women who want to leave relationships which may ultimately be bad for them.
2. But the other reason why this is just practically bad for people is that it gives parents and grandparents disproportional control over your life because even if you have a bad relationship with them, even if they mistreated you because you were gay or queer or whatever or did not conform to their standards, you cannot escape and distance and cut ties with them for the reason that your social standing and moral worth with other people diminish to the extent that you’re not seen as following what your parents wanted.

The impacting of this is incredibly simple. Team India screws over the most vulnerable people. People who are queer or women, who do not conform to societal standards ─ these people suffer the most. Either they are coerced into making choices which are not good for them but are imposed upon them. Things such as not entering into a queer relationship because that is something that your parents frowned on. These things are ultimately very unfulfilling and very bad for a lot of people.

Argument 2:

The second argument will simply prove why this is incredibly bad for social progress.

The reason is that people are far less likely to support progress or even having social movements form in the first place because social movements by nature emerge as a reaction to the regressive customs that this team is forced to glorify. It’s much harder to change people’s minds if they fear that they are going astray from what their ancestors wanted. People are far less likely to opt into social movements if they feel like they are disobeying the values of their ancestors and so they fear a lot more.

But secondly, people just don’t express their dissatisfaction with the status quo because that feels like expressing dissatisfaction with the values that their ancestors placed upon them. The impacting of this is incredibly, incredibly simple.

1. One, there are simply far less resources, far less mobilization that social movements are able to tap into because people are afraid to join them because it feels like conflicting with the values that the ancestors put upon them. Things such as like not supporting gay people because you consider yourself to be like, I don’t know, a traditional family, etc. People are far less likely to donate and join, etc.
2. But secondly, even if this team tries to symmetrize these things by saying, conservative value still exists on the outside. Comparatively, it is comparative, it is just better under our side if we’re able to achieve social change a couple of decades earlier. It means billions of people access better lives, access more fulfilling existences. I’m very proud to oppose

Proposition 2nd Speaker: Avni Khaur Chadha

Opening:

Team Australia had a very utopic case in this round. That people get to decide their own values, that they live freely. But this is a case that does not cohere with reality. Where individuals are shackled by chains of capitalism, a fleeting metrics of their appearance, of their money. That when they look back at what gives them meaning, it is their race, it is how other people judge them, it is a figure on their paycheck. That is what team India wanted to break free from in this debate.

Two questions I’m going to ask. First, where do you get more individual meaning? Second, how does this change the communities we create? After that, I’ll forward a third substantive argument on why social change is actually far more likely on our side.

Point of Contention 1:

First, let’s talk about individual meaning. There are two pushes that you hear coming out of opposition.

1. The first push is that this is incredibly limiting to people’s choice.
   • First, I think this is an unfair characterization of what this actually looks like. Because often, the values that you are asked to abide by are not incredibly specific instructions. Think about this, this is upholding the values of your ancestors. Your ancestors, not just your grandparents, but rather ancestors before you, three to four generations before you. And as a result, it is very rarely likely to be specific things that limit your choice, but rather values that you are told to abide by, rather it is things like being kind, it is things like being honest with yourself and honest to others.
   • But second, I think they fail to recognize that this is a radically different world. This is a world where everyone grows up with a strong belief in Seriti. This is a world where people conceptualize their own identity differently. So yes, it is the case that your choice might be constricted from having to abide by your ancestors. But that is not a limitation of choice that people actually think is bad because people have grown up with it, have been normalized to it and is actually something that gives them incredible amounts of value because they think they are being a good person if they live by the values of their ancestors. They think this is something that makes them far more moral.
   • But finally, I think if they really wanted to make this argument, they needed to be comparative in this debate. That is, they still have alternative expectations that are imposed onto people for their social standing. They still tell people that (they) need to make more money or how they need to look. Those are all alternative expectations that continue to exist on their side for meaning. I’ll talk about the implication of that more, later.
2. The second thing they then tell you is that there are values that are likely to be regressive.
   • I want to note we already preempt this in first. That is, these are values that are incredibly likely to adapt. And this doesn’t really cut into our benefits, but rather it’s just a more realistic conception of the world. If your ancestors tell you that you always need to be honest, you always need to love others, obviously, that means different in 2025 than it did in their time. This is something that people themselves are able to recognize. So, we don’t think you’re going to be a raging homophobic because you recognize that societal context have evolved. Rather, what you are being true to is the value that your ancestor told you is really important to them or the desire that they had.
   • But second, what is their comparative again for this argument? Because if it is the case, that your family is one that is incredibly unaccepting, if it is the case the community you grew up in will never actually accept you, we think in their side you still face similar restrictions of progression. You still face the same beliefs, your parents are homophobic or don’t believe that women should have as many rights and therefore we think that’s why a lot of the world is still conservative in the status quo. This doesn’t deal with what this actually looks like.

What was then our very clear push to you under this clash? This debate was about where you derive your moral, spiritual and social standing from. And we thought the alternative sources of meaning that people had were incredibly negative to their own perception because they were out of your control, because they were incredibly fleeting, because they were incredibly competitive given the capitalistic world that we see today.

There are two assertive lines we hear in response.

1. The first thing they say is well people will still be able to find meaning. But what are the alternative values that people are turning to? We think you have to look to the status quo here. It is how much money you make. It is judging people by their appearances and that is incredibly negative because it is uniquely something that you can never control. But even if you could control, would always be unattainable, because there’s someone who’s always making more money than you perhaps.
2. But second, they say capitalism still exists but that’s just not good enough right. Because this is a debate where we fundamentally change how people conceptualize of their identity. This is a world where a strong belief in Seriti, is something that is incredibly popular and we think therefore, far more people are looking to this as a source of meaning. When you think back about your life, you’re thinking about whether you were true to the values you were supposed to be. And that is something that is incredibly rewarding to people. We think individual meaning is great on our side, it is incredibly damaging to their case, but they never give you what the alternative is on their side. We tell you that it is likely to be incredibly damaging, it is similarly restricting in choice, but it is one that you cannot personalize because only you can decide how true you are being to your ancestors and no one does. On their side, all of the metrics they have are ones that society gets to judge you on.

Before I move on to the second clash, I’ll take a POI.

POI: Why do people have to find meaning from their ancestors? Why can they not find meaning in communities like social movements or clubs that they can willingly opt into?

Great. I’m just going to my community clash. That was lovely. All right.

Point of Contention 2:

Second clash then on community. We tell you that this world is one that is increasingly individualistic where people live their lives at the expense of community and therefore are not able to find support systems, are not able to find well-being. Their response is: well other communities still exist and you can find them. But this is just not good enough. Look at the world we live in.

First, this is a world in which you’re far more likely to move out for economic opportunities because you don’t have the same communal bonds. Far more likely to prioritize your own individual success because there is the counter-narrative that tells you to prioritize that.

But second, empirically we have seen things like a rise in nuclear families, we have seen things like being far more  individualistic. And even if it is the case, that people have some communities, we think that is incredibly different because even then the way you are judging yourself is by the kind of community you are living in. Maybe you have some fleeting moments of happiness with your family, but most of your time is being spent at work. What we needed then was for you to have control over how you conceptualize of your own community and for you to think that being with my community is something that is I’m supposed to do, something that is actively increasing your social standing.

And I want to weigh this argument very clearly:

1. We think that there are many factors first that limit people’s choice. The fact that they’re living in conditions of poverty or suffering, the fact that they might not have as many resources that is also incredibly constricting to their life. The one thing that is then able to give people solace, is the fact that they’re able to live within a community, the fact that they’re able to confide in others and they have more people to rely on around them.
2. But second, even if we take them at their best and assume that this is a norm that is regressive in some instances, it will be exclusionary to certain communities, we think those are still people who are able to benefit from the fact they have closer-knitted support systems. They might not turn to everyone in their family, but just having more of a community around you is helpful. Therefore, the benefits of community are universalizable and therefore far more important.

Argument 3:

I’m now going to forward a third argument for if individuals behave more positively, this will continue taking down their case. Two strands to this argument.

1. First, individuals are far more likely to care about the legacy they leave behind in our world. Right now, the idea of your legacy is incredibly abstract. Who is looking back on their life and thinking about the values you had? Probably not a lot of people because this is not an active norm. A world with Seriti makes this far more concrete because you know that your values will now be carried down generations. More people then, are averse to leaving a legacy of hatred or discrimination behind, and therefore are far more willing within their own lives to evaluate the beliefs they have. To try to be a good person who donates to charity because they want to be someone that they can be looked up to. They want to be someone that is an inspiration to the generations after them. And we think therefore if they wanted to talk about social change, it is on us that the people are more likely to contribute because they want to leave behind a legacy of positive values that others have to uphold.
2. But second, values that are propagated by Seriti are structurally broad-based. They are not ones that restrict agency.
   • First, this is because often people have multiple ancestors and therefore if they are not broad-based, you risk them being contradictory. People are propagating different values and as a result you want to default to things like love or things like honesty.
   • But second, people themselves are willing to recognize that society evolves and changes over time. You know that your life is very different from the life of your parents or the life of your grandparents, and therefore you avoid being overtly specific. This is incredibly important because this means they are not values that are incredibly likely to be regressive, or incredibly likely to be constricting, but rather are positive values that people are expected to abide by. This means that people are much more likely to do things like be less discriminatory, donate to charity, help out strangers. This is a world in which people are far more likely to be moral.

They try to say that even too much of extremely good values is bad. But that’s just weird panel. Like no one’s asking you to go overboard with these values, but rather embrace them more within your lives.

Closing:

So Seriti then is incredibly unique, because often being moral is hard: It requires you to be selfless, it requires you to sacrifice. We want people to have an active impetus to this. At the end of the day, we are shaped by our past. We must honor our ancestors. Thank you so much. Thank you very much.

Opposition 2nd Speaker: Maya Garg

Opening:

Every individual in the affirmative team’s world spends their one fickle hour on the stage living out as a hollowed-out version of themselves. Their own preferences are crushed by the overwhelming weight of ancestral morality, overrun by a communal doctrine of servitude. We wouldn’t support a world where people are coerced in supporting one religion, and that’s for the reason that even though religion may give you consolation and hope, it is a form of [inaudible] violence. We do not cop, we do not support religious coercion, we never support moral coercion, and that is because the most the most inherent thing to humanity is bodily autonomy. It is agency.

I’ll do three things in the speech. Firstly, I’ll talk about which side is better for individuals. Secondly, I’ll talk about communal values and then social progress.

Point of Contention 1:

Firstly, on which side is a unique source of value for individuals. Their first claim is that there are current sources of social standing that are temporary and that is bad. They give three reasons for this.

1. The first reason is that meaning is out of one’s control.
   • But firstly, there are obviously sources of meaning that are not. You do not need money, you do not need privilege to make friends, to make art because all you need is love and values and qualities you can learn by yourself. You do not need privilege, those are all in your control.
   • Secondly, I note that people on our side find sources of meaning they can control. That’s for the reason that humans are always trying to find sources of meaning. That’s why I say artwork is universal across all societies. People can obviously find meaning under their side. People in the status quo have, empirically.
2. The second reason is that some sources of meaning are unattainable. Such as the fact you cannot strive to reach the top. But the problem with this mechanism is that people do not care about unattainable sources of meaning. It’s psychologically less painful to get and value achievable goals, and goals are often born out of a comparative goal which is better than where you started out.
   • For example, if you were born in a country with low social mobility, then you wouldn’t strive to be the CEO. You would strive to go to university and get a good job. If you were born in a country with lots of mobility, then you would strive to be a CEO. Obviously, it is comparative. People do not set unattainable goals for themselves because their families won’t, their society won’t, they won’t, because it is psychologically painful.
3. The third thing they say is that meaning is fleeting.
   • But firstly, I note that you often derive satisfaction from many sources of meaning, such as your own values, such as your friends, such as just spending time with yourself, such as reading books. So, you usually have some way to find meaning in your life. This is a cherry pick, even if some sources of meaning are temporary.
   • But secondly, I think there are just many parts of your life (which are permanent). Your family is often permanent, you often do have lifelong interests, you have a job at the very, very least and usually have some friends. Maybe some friendships die out over time, but I don’t think it’s unlikely that all friendships will die at the same time. And we know that when some people start losing some source of meaning, people often rush and urgently replace it. So, I think it’s very unlikely.

What do they say? They say they actually have sources of meaning for two reasons.

1. 1. Firstly, Seriti is personal, so you can feel more aligned. But the problem with this is they had to prove that families and individuals are aligned, and obviously they are not. They have incredibly different experiences, they have incredibly different personalities and they have incredibly different needs.
      • Even if you want to claim that you have good general values such as honesty under their side, that still factors in for different personalities. Maybe someone is naturally quite kind and then when their mom is like, “You should be forgiving,” then that turns into subservience. Maybe someone is naturally quite assertive and their dad is like, “You should be assertive,” then that turns into bossiness.
      • People have incredibly different personalities from their parents. And that explains why they do internalize this in bad ways and it certainly isn’t personal.
   2. Their second reason for why Seriti is personal is that they say that you are in control of the narratives and therefore you have leeway to decide what it looks like.
      • First, this is such a strong imposition that I would just say you cannot pick and choose. And that’s for the reason that if you say take a plain English reading of the motion, it says a strong belief. And I would analogize this to God looking over you, to religion, where people do often commit choices that are bad for them because this is an overwhelming philosophy.
      • And importantly, I’d note that this isn’t just listening to your parents and deciding what to pick and choose. The info slide says you cannot dishonor them, you cannot disrespect them, otherwise, your relationship is broken. So, you can’t just pick and choose the parts that are good, you must not contradict anything that they ever say.
        • They’re like, “No, but values can adapt to context,” but this is asserted and status quo biased, and the status quo values have adapted to context. You guys can’t claim that. We note that often people do believe values are true and therefore timeless. Homophobia isn’t a specific value, but it is something that can be very strong at and can actually persist under your side.
      • But secondly, I know that people assume all things are good things under your under their side. That’s for the reason that they think that their ancestors empowered them with this. They think that all of those values are good because this is the main philosophy. And I know that it’s often easy to frame bad things as good if you only tell your side. It’s often easy to frame violence as being justified. It’s often easy to say submissiveness allows you to maintain friendships or allows you to tame marriages. All of which explain that this is a bad philosophy.
      • And I’d make the general observation that if people can pick and choose and if there’s so much leeway then they cut through their very benefits of people having good values in the first place because someone who is a bad person is unlikely to pick up the good values from their mom or from their grandma because they like I can just pick and choose.

The next claim they give is, that this is good for the elderly because they can leave a legacy. The problem with this is, that this isn’t specific. You can leave a legacy because of you as a good person. A legacy does not come from people following you. It comes from people cherishing you and remembering you. Secondly, many people do not care if they leave a legacy or not. Many people just care about the experiences we have that they have with people.

What do we explain? We explain that this is just terrible for the individual. And the first thing I want to do is just symmetrisize the fact that people will pick up good values for two reasons.

1. Firstly, we know that there are already strong social media applauding good values because they benefit society such as kindness, such as selflessness.
2. Secondly, I know that you often learn good values because you get rewarded. You figure out through experience that honesty allows you to maintain friendships. You get rewarded by popularity. You get rewarded by feeling good. And the implication of that analysis is that if your ancestors taught you good uh values that were good, that is symmetric. So their benefits are symmetric.

What isn’t symmetric is the harms of their bad values, cuz we explained values are likely to be outdated, values are likely to harm you. And values, at the very, least are likely to cause you huge amounts of anxiety and huge amounts of uncertainty. They give a few responses.

Their first response is: this is symmetric because there are social pressures. So for example there, your family would be homophobic under either word.

1. Firstly, empirically, this is not a credible claim. Feminism has made phenomenal strides in the last tens of centuries. People have stood out and rebelled against their family.
2. Secondly, the structural reason for this and why we’re exclusive is because your relationship to your family is one of the most focal parts of your life. And often your family will still love you under our side. But under given philosophy, this necessitates the ending of your familial relationship. You didn’t have to have the same values under our side for your family to love you, but you did under their side.
3. Thirdly, we know that often people hide their rebellion from their family under our side. But under their side, you feel internally guilty even if you’re hiding it because you feel like you are severing a connection with ancestors. So that also stops you, so it isn’t symmetric. Before I move on, I’ll take a point.

POI: Ancestors cannot come back from the dead and tell you that you aren’t living up to them. Why will you interpret this in a way that is so regressive?

Because on your side, you feel like you are dishonoring and disrespecting your ancestors and it is a universal philosophy. You think that it is something important, in the same way that say, God or deities you may not ever meet. You still think they’re important, you think they are ever present, you think that they are looking over you.

Point of Contention 2:

Next on communal values. There are a few problems with this.

1. Firstly, there are already incentives to love your grandparents and love your parents. You love your family. You love spending time with them. You want to make the most of your time with your grandma who might go soon. It is not a checkbox to spend time with your grandma.
2. But secondly, in the cases that you do not spend time with family on our side, that is fine. Many people do not get along with their relatives who are chosen by chance and not connection with their friends. So that argument was out of the debate.

Next on social progress, they claim that they get more social progress because people care about their legacy being good.

I think the problem with this is that people in your world don’t want this legacy and that’s for the reason they want to follow their parents’ legacies. And that’s because people don’t know what a good legacy is, right? Like people don’t know that social progress is a good legacy under your world because their legacy and their whole belief system is social conservatism. It’s what happened before them. So they do not think that rebellion is a good thing because they think that rebellion is something their grandma would have said no to, it is something their mother would have said no to. So you never explain that premise.

Secondly, I’d note that they actually do not get a lot of social progress. That’s for the reason I think people are just likely to have far more inertia in their beliefs, there’s likely to be far more social division under their side. That’s for the reason that if people change their views over time, if conservative people or regressive people change their views over time, they think that they are letting their ancestors down, they think that they fundamentally cannot do this, which means that it is much, much harder to forward social progress when you cannot actually change people’s views because they think that their family will hate them. For those reasons, vote negative.

Proposition 3rd Speaker: Uday Vir Khosla

Opening:

I think team Australia might benefit from a closer read at the motion because according to the info slide, this is about your social standing and how you view yourself in relation to society. So at the end of the day, it was not enough for second opposition to talk about clubs. It was not enough for them to come up and give flippant responses about the art you view. At the core of it, it was that you assessed your worth and you judged how valuable of a person you were, on the basis of how much money you earned, on the basis of how good you looked, on the basis of how many friends you can form. Crucially, second opposition can tell you all they want about other sources of meaning, but they don’t engage with the core of the case from team India and it loses them the round.

There are three things I want to talk about in the speech. First, what are the kinds of values that are passed down by Seriti? Second, which side provides better meaning and improves the self-worth of individuals? And thirdly, and finally on social change.

Clash 1:

First, let’s talk about the kinds of values that are passed down via Seriti because I think more broadly this characterization clash makes or breaks the debate for either side of the house. Opposition’s case down the bench is that Seriti means that ancestors will guide your every single choice, literally every moment of your life. But this simply wasn’t realistic and we gave you reasons down the bench.

1. The first is that ancestors would clearly know that context would change. They would not be aware of the kind of life you would be leading or their great grandchildren would be leading or what the world would be look like, and so the values would be broad-based, which means they’re not specific guides about specific situations, but rather instructions like honesty, instructions like kindness, which were generally important for people to follow.
2. But secondly and crucially, these are things that are shaped by memory. Which is to say, when I remember my grandfather, I remember his one [inaudible] kindness. I may not remember his specifics on everything, but the one thing that sticks, the one story that keeps getting told again and again is about specific value. This has two implications.
   • First, that these are in fact actually broad-based. But second, that the interpretation of these values is uniquely personal. That’s to say that you get to decide whether you’re in line with these values or not. No one else knows your thoughts. No one else can control your daily actions on a day-to-day basis. It is only you that can interpret these values because you have the most approximate understanding of it. That’s why unlike what second opposition would want you to believe, it is very different from religion where there’s a religious leader and a religious text giving you a strict doctrine to follow. These are broad-based guidelines we want people to personally interpret and live their lives through.
   • The final attack they levy on this is well oh you know values are broad-based and conflicting, it cuts through our benefit. But this doesn’t actually engage with the nuance of the case that we gave you, which is to say, it’s not to say that the values are conflicting rather that individuals have flexibility in how they apply them but they still follow the broad guidelines as a whole.

The implication of all of this analysis is clear. The clash they give you on choice is not really relevant in the round because we actually think that people still do have significant degrees of flexibility as long as they stay within the broad guidelines of these values.

But second, we actually think that people find significant meaning in listening. You have to remember panel that this is a radically different world, where people have always believed in these values from the first place. That’s why they actually do find value in listening to what their ancestors believe. Opposition would want you to think it is people today being told tomorrow that they have to listen to everything their ancestors said. No, in that sense, we would say it’s true many religious people do find so much order and value in the structure. That’s why people voluntarily choose to wear hijabs. That’s why people voluntarily choose to follow strict religious practices even if it might come as a personal inconvenience to them. They find meaning in it. They find salvation in that. They view their own self-worth as an extension of that.

And I think it is frankly demeaning for second opposition to dismiss that as nonsense. Before I move on to the clash about meaning, I’ll take the point.

POI: Yeah. So you can’t pick and choose. There are values that are broad-based that are both good and bad. You had to explain why good values don’t exist under our side, but bad values do to make your case exclusive. Okay. One, we think that individuals want to leave a really good legacy behind. They don’t want to be remembered as someone who proliferated hatred, who proliferated violence. So that’s why values like love your neighbor, be kind to everyone and the kinds of things they promote as a part of this philosophy. But second, it’s just true that without this being moral is incredibly difficult. It is so difficult to make the moral choice in every instance. It’s often easy to choose convenience. We want people to have that force that reinforces them to make the right choice in more instances.

Clash 2:

Second, let’s talk about meaning because we were clear. Your meaning is tied to your self-worth. And in status quo, self-worth is fleeting. There’s a crisis where people do not know what their impact on the world is. They do not know amongst the 8 billion people on this planet where they will ever leave a change behind. What were the responses we heard to this idea down the bench?

1. The first thing we hear at first opposition is well you know capitalism still exists. Obviously this doesn’t engage with the broad parts of our case which is suggested that maybe you’re in a capitalist society but you don’t derive your meaning from how much money you earned. You derive it from how you’re living in line with the values of your ancestors.
2. The second thing, and these are just a list of responses from second opposition that are just lies. You don’t actually need money or privilege to be reassured in your self-worth at all. Blatantly untrue. The vast majority of people feel incredibly bad about the fact that they look around and see people that have nicer things than them, live nicer lives than them.
3. Second, they tell you that, people actually don’t care about reaching the top because, you know, poor people just don’t have dreams and aspirations that they never want to make it high up the ladder. I think these responses are incredibly unrealistic and devoid of any relation with reality.
4. The final thing they say is, well, oh, you know, people will still spend time with their relatives. Of course, again, this is yet another assertion from second opposition. Incredibly flippant responses given we’ve proven to you down the bench that people don’t have the time and in the kind of society we live today, they’re forced to make trade-offs that come at the expense of their family, at the expense of their community.

But let’s take them at their best. Let’s say that maybe people do ascribe some level of meaning on their side of the house. The unique difference is this is a meaning that gives people a broader purpose. That’s to say that you’re living the life of your ancestors, you’re leaving a real legacy behind. Any of the meaning they do get is fleeting, any of the meaning they do get depends on your context for where you are. This is one thing that universally persists for all individuals. So just on scale, given it impacts everybody in the world, and also the extent to which it gives them satisfaction and fulfillment, this is independently the round-winning issue.

Clash 3:

Finally, let’s talk about social change because the main push we get is, ah well these values are very regressive and they’re going to cause large degrees of discrimination.

But we actually flipped this at second proposition to no response. Which is to say that many of these values do oppose discrimination. That values like love and kindness are easy justification to take stance for feminism. Values like pursuing what you believe in, working hard, the pursuit of excellence are all things that are likely to be passed down and we have no reason to suggest that the specific conservative practices, which we’ve already proved to you are unlikely the ones carried down, undermine that.

What then are the responses we heard to this idea? The first thing we heard is, ah well a lot of these good ideas will come up anyways. I don’t think this engages with the majority of our case, which is to say that it’s very difficult to make good decisions in most instances.

Weighing:

At the end of the speech I just want to weigh these two issues, which is to say that a lot of the discrimination they talk about happens anyways. Until the past 50 years, we did live in an incredibly conservative and regressive society across the world. It is only now that we’ve seen trends of liberalization increasing. There are still other factors like religion. There are still other reasons to discriminate, like feeling like you have a feeling of superiority that still exist on their side of the house that they don’t do much to solve to begin with. So it is unclear how much discrimination or how much targeting might actually increase. But what is clear and certain benefit that you should vote on is the idea that people are finally able to find a sense of meaning, that they finally feel like they have a purpose in their life. That’s something that team India wants to protect and it loses team Australia the round.

Opposition 3rd Speaker: Alice Liberman

Opening:

India’s strategy is to minimize their own impacts in the way that they are able to get any change. They try to outframe everything we say, but they don’t give a single reason why things like homophobia or hating interracial marriage are not also values. Why people don’t believe things that aren’t also true, because there is a group of people up there above you who is not living your life and not understanding your specific context, but they do hold beliefs that you don’t agree with anymore and that you now have to listen to. When you mess up, someone is watching you above you on their side. Someone who knows and believes you are a bad evil person. You internalize that too. They cannot get away with minimizing their own impacts and trying to outframe the bad one.

The first way I’m going to win is explain why bad values do persist and what that easily wins us this debate. But second, I’m going to talk about why even if only exclusively good values exist, we are still the ones who win.

Clash 1:

And first on those bad values, because India only focuses their case on good values, so try to do that at the same thing, try to have this on their ground. But this is a debate about values and desires and some of those are bad and things some people don’t believe in anymore. What do they say on why bad values or things that people don’t agree with anymore that are regressive aren’t passed on?

1. First they say they adapt well and they are vague. No, they don’t. The comparative is, things that adapt well cuz you learn morals from things like film and media, from scriptures that are constantly re-evaluated like religion. But they just do not change over time on their side, because they ask you to imagine a radically different world and that radically different world is one where someone learns something from the previous ancestor before them. They give no example of how this is able to change. If every single person is learning what the previous person told them, I’m unclear where the change happened. They need to tell you specifically why that was something that was able to happen. These are vague, but a lot of these things are preserved really well and they are not vague. These things are turned over time and it is really easy to say that you should not marry someone of a different tribe. It is really easy to say that you should not be gay or that you should suppress any desire you have. That is damning for their side.
2. Then they say that people are able to recognize societal context. So those bad things aren’t passed down. But like why? In this radically different world, I think the person who is your great great grandmother who is up there in the sky actually does not understand that things change. Maybe has never met a queer person. They don’t explain why this actually changes. This is a person who is judging you. The people up there have not seen change.

But we also give you another line of analysis which gets a very thin response. We tell you that even if there are good values passed on, they are internalized very very badly. And if people suspect that there is something that says they should not do something, for example, they should not be gay, that is something they do believe in.

They just tell you that no one is asking you to go overboard. You get to decide what your value is. But no, this person is up there dictating your life, dictating your social standing, dictating who you are as a person. You take that to be absolute. That is incredibly terrifying because the entire content of your self-worth, something you likely really care about, something that gives you a sense that you deserve to live on the planet, is entirely dependent on that thing. That means people are like incredibly likely to feel incredibly scared of overreaching and stepping out of that.

But second, we explain that these can be co-opted by bad actors who want you to believe certain things, who are really homophobic, that makes you believe you need to follow. So maybe no one is asking you to go overboard, but you do go overboard because you think that you need to, that explains then that even if you only got a few situations where someone held on to those terrible beliefs, that is horrible. It means that you can’t do things like come out to your family. You can’t divorce your hateful partner. You can’t get into a relationship with a person you love. That is the biggest impact in this debate and one that the response is so incredibly thin.

Third, because this is massive in your life and your severity, you cannot make decisions that would have been good for you.

But second, this is massive on scale. Cuz if you believe their characterization, that we live in a world where no one can ever change, where everyone believes this from birth, then obviously that is something that affects many, many, many individuals. That is something that stops you from being able to live out your life.

We then explain that that’s just stopped social progress. Their one response is to say that like kindness is something that will make you likely to accept social progress. First, this is contingent on their earlier characterization, which I told you was untrue. But second, that doesn’t respond to anything we tell you at first, or second, because we tell you that people are unlikely to consider other opinions because you are more beholden to your ancestors than the people around you. That gets no response. That explains uniquely why people are unlikely to accept social change in any situation.

But the last thing to say is that we told you this was a principled obligation. The people had a right to control their own lives, they give you no response to this principle, it’s independently debate winning for all the weighing we give you at first.

POI: If your entire family thinks it’s a sin to be gay, how are people coming out on your side of the house either? What’s the margin here?

Because maybe your family thinks you shouldn’t be gay, but you think it’s okay. You understand that feeling. You understand there are other people out there. On your side, your entire self-worth is determined by the people up above, your ancestors who existed many many years ago who do not understand that and do not understand that belief that is independently debate winning us, that is a thing that massively on scale affects people’s lives on severity and even if it only was a small number of people who slip through, that is massive for their lives that ruins them.

Clash 2:

Next I’m going to talk about their path to victory, why even if it is only good values that are passed on, it’s still bad for your life. Their claim is that you need this (Seriti) to have good values. But capitalism is symmetrical on both sides, they don’t explain why it doesn’t exist. But second, I just think this argument is an exaggeration, because yeah I do not live by (Seriti), probably no one or very few people in this room does. I do not think we are evil people, I think we do have a sense of community. We explain why that’s true.

1. First, because often morals serve us as well. Because if I give you a birthday present, I expect one back. That was a nice thing to do, but morals do serve you on the long term. Second, there are just plenty of ways that people receive these morals, but they change over time. They learn from things like film or TV because when people learn things, they push them out into the world. That is something that is able to change and able to adapt to certain situations.
2. But second, even if you thought people were slightly less moral, they never explain why that is the massive impact in this debate. Because the only thing they’re able to say is that you don’t prioritize individual success, so you are like better to the people around you, you prioritize your community. First, they never explain why this is individually a good thing. Because the worst actors slip through on both sides. The worst actors who don’t have a sense of self-worth and who don’t care about things, who are like morally corrupt and have no moral compass, still get through on their side. The difference is the good people who cared about their self-worth and cared about their morals never prioritized success, the bad people were them running in the world.

But second, we explained that sometimes you do need to put yourself first over your own values, because maybe on their side you never leave your partner because that would disappoint your family. That’s really bad for you. You stay in abusive situations. We would give people a right to be slightly morally discerning. That is really, really good for them. We explained that community is something that’s independently good. It gives you a chance to be with the people around you and love them. Those are the benefits you get, the difference in the way it is enforced on their side is particularly bad.

Clash 3:

Next then, on how people feel because they just say that current generations need this because social standing is so fleeting and so external, so you just focus on capitalism and how much money you have.

1. First, many of these things aren’t arbitrary that they describe. Many people are happier if you do have more friends and you put in the effort to make more friends. But second, in order to get any of this benefit of meaning, you have to follow everything your ancestors say perfectly. And people cannot do this. And when you stay on your deathbed at the end of your life on their side, you focus on the things that you did badly that your ancestors looked on and said that that gave you no sense of self-worth. People feel much, much worse on their side.
2. But second, we explain to you the unique set of harms that exist on their side. That your happiness like is dependent on every single time you mess up. Every single time you have an urge to do something bad, every single time you make a little mistake, which all of us do every day, that attacks your self-worth as a person. You are not only incredibly scared to make any mistakes, any issues, every time you think something bad, you are scared of that.

Why then is the fear of messing up much worse than the benefit of hope they might be able to give you? First, we explain that is a much bigger impact because feeling bad is a lot worse. But second, note that people just focus on the bad that they feel more than the good that they feel. You’re likely to be able to feel good from a lot of different external sources, which are probably much bigger like senses of happiness like they tell you themselves. But when you did something bad and you were focused on that, that was something that deeply messed with your self-worth and your happiness, that means you were just more unhappy on their side.

Then they tell you about elders. That these people get to leave behind a legacy and you can now care about your values and you leave something behind. But this is not a material legacy because maybe people would be happier if they made an impact in the life that they lived. Maybe too many people do go, like out of this world, without saying I’m proud of you or I love you because things like this make them feel like they are able to have control over lives otherwise. They are able to leave a legacy that is independent from them. We would prefer that people did this themselves. At the end of this debate, you should just believe that the bad values that are passed down are the worst things. They ruin people’s lives. They’re a massive scale. But second, the good values they pass down are at least very much mitigated. But secondly, they don’t explain why that is the most good thing they can bring. We were the ones who made people happier. They could make choices that served them rather than people who existed 100 years ago. So, so proud to oppose.

Opposition Reply Speaker: Maya Garg

First on the principle, we explain that this is an unjust imposition on one’s agency regardless of the consequentialist outcomes India stands behind. And we note that this is an analogist to any other good constraints of agency, because this controls the entire way you structure your life. It controls the lens through which you decide your ancestors or through (which) you decide your actions. And the weighing of this principle was simple. It was debate winning. It was absolute.

1. Because firstly, in a debate where some good values existed, some bad values existed, human psychology was different for every individual. Everyone had different ancestors. This was an incredibly certain harm that cut through human psychology.
2. But secondly, this principle is all-encompassing and absolute. It isn’t just an extra harm for us. It is a harm you must not take regardless of any practical consequences because we let people partake in dangerous activities, because we realize people ought make decisions, because they know themselves best and they live through the consequences of it.

Moral violence cuts through every practical harm because having choices in life is what makes us human. It is what makes us individual. This principle was the most important thing that stood under the at the end of this debate. Affirmative also never responds to the principle. So you should take our characterization and weighing as true.

Next, let’s talk about the individual. The first important thing I want to note is that we symmetricize people valuing good values at second, which means that people can find their source of meaning on our side, as they do on their side. So all of their benefits in their first argument is completely symmetric.

So what you should focus on is our harms.

1. The first and most important and certain claim that we explain is that regardless of whether these values are good or bad, the choice to make them instills anxiety and uncertainty into people when they feel guilty for rebelling, when they do not know what choice to make. And it doesn’t matter if these were good or bad values because you are different to your mother, you had different relationships to her, you have a different personality to her. You grew up in a different world, so her values are not applicable to you. Which means there will be a point in your life where you do not know how to follow or match up her values or the values of your ancestors into your daily life. There will be a point in your life where you have to evaluate whether loyalty is actually good for your relationship. And you will have a gut instinct that tells you you shouldn’t be loyal. But you will also know that your grandmother and your mother were loyal and it worked out for them, and that causes huge amounts of anxiety in an individual.
2. Secondly, we explain that values are bad, values are aggressive, values are sexist, and values are homophobic. And they try to symmetricize the harms of this and they claim that we don’t respond at third affirmative. But the problem is we do, because we explain that you can get away from your family and not feel guilty under our side, but you do feel guilty under their side. We explain that your family is far more accepting under our side, whereas it is far more less accepting under their side when your family believes that your philosophy should be shaped by those values.
3. The last claim we explain is that good values are not universal. They are bad in extremes and you should allow individuals to figure out their lives. This team is incredibly paternalistic, they think that individuals cannot, do not have the capacity to find meaning in their lives. But for 2,000 years, we have as humans. For millennia, we have as humans. We have found meaning in art. We have found meaning in interest. We have found meaning in friends. All of which we can control. Maybe you cannot control your economic and social mobility, but you can control whether or not you’ve work hard enough to maybe get a little bit of a better job. This team underestimates the power of humanity, and for that they must lose.

Lastly, I’ll talk about social progress. And the key problem with their claim here is that it is extremely circular. Their logic is status quo biased because maybe now we think that homophobia is unkind. But the problem is, back then people thought it was a sin, so they thought it was bad to be (homosexual). So their logic that you want to be kind and therefore you will not be homophobic does not stand. They are trying to co-opt the good parts of the status quo and let themselves have it. That’s not how it works, we get the status quo.

Our characterization is far more likely because we explain that people are far likely to have more inertia under their side, when people think that an attack to their values is also an attack to their ancestors, when people are empowered by their ancestors values. And because under our side people are just far braver to stand out, people are far braver to disagree with their families. And maybe this only sped up social progress by 10 or 20 years, but that impact was huge on scale, on magnitude. So you should let us win the debate on all three fronts.

Proposition Reply Speaker: Avni Kaur Chadha

Team Australia hinges their case on these being the most regressive values, but that fundamentally does not engage with the way Seriti is propagated. This is not oneliners and instructions that your ancestor has left behind, but these are values that they tell you to live by. These are values that are positive, these are values that are often vague and therefore you have the ability to interpret. This is living a good life, this is being honest, this is being integral. At the end of the day, that gave you immense value. Friends and clubs never determined social standing. On their side, they had to deal with the fact that shackles of capitalism made people feel worse about themselves and it’s horrific that they drop this in their third opposition.

I’m in this speech going to talk about how people conceptualize of their own identity and how they find meaning in social standing on either side. Because we were clear, Seriti is unique because it is a source of thinking about your social standing that you are able to control and interpret, and they can point to alternative sources down the bench in terms of your friends, in terms of your standing or community.

1. But one, those were sources of meaning that were incredibly hard to access given the way the status quo works. The status quo is one where we have an overemphasis of individualism and capitalism, that forces you to pursue success and money to be able to gain social standing and that often takes away from your other communities.
2. But second, even if these other sources existed, it never translated to anything as grand as your purpose and standing. Because hanging out with your friends as we tell you is fun in the short term, but when you get home, you feel empty from not being able to access higher social standing, or not having a sense of purpose or what your life is based upon. And that is a unique thing that we were able to give people on our side.

And I want to weigh this against the claims that they bring you.

1. First, I think this is a clash that is independent of whether these are good values or bad. We’ve given you reasons down the bench that these are more likely to be values that are good. But even if that is not the case, even if it is imperfect, that doesn’t negate the benefits that people are able to derive from it or the value they get from it. And I want you to intuition this; think about religion. Religion occasionally propagates incredibly conservative values, but people still find incredible solace within it. We understand that this is exclusionary to certain people, but those are people that still have the ability to disagree with their values of their ancestors because this is a strong belief and there are always people who will be outcasts to social norms. Strong doesn’t translate to absolute. You can still find alternative communities. But for most people, this was something of incredible value and this was something that gave their life a purpose that it otherwise lacked.
2. But second, they have a claim on restriction of choice. I think that claim doesn’t recognize how this changes the world. Because even if it is the case, this is incredibly restrictive to your choice, people are largely fine with that because this is how they’ve grown up, this is normalized. The restriction of choice is not something that feels incredibly harmful. In contrast, what they’re able to uniquely get is meaning.
3. Third, we think this is something that is uniquely accessible to most people because it is easy to abide by. These are often incredibly vague values, this is characterization they have not engaged with on the bench. We have no reason (as to) why your ancestors are giving you incredibly specific instructions. It is often very hard to do, so they don’t want to be contradictory and they don’t want to have values that don’t evolve with time. And what that means is it is often really easy for people to stick to these values. Even in the instance that you think you’re not being perfect, it is you who gets to interpret it and therefore you are likely to interpret this in a way that is far more positive.

In contrast, their benefit in this debate was one of social change. One, I think that is a benefit that is of far lower margin because it is true that people are still conservative, it is true that people are still regressive and that is largely because often you still have conservative values that will be predominant in families and that will still restrict agency for people that they care about. That is a lower margin claim.

Second, it is a claim that probably only accessible in the short term, because in the long term we think the reasons for why we get liberalization are quite distinct to this norm and we have the ability to be able to adapt. We have the ability to change our understanding of these values and apply them in a way that is more positive. So even if it is the case that this harm occurs for some time, we think this is a harm that we have the ability to correct for going into the long term. But finally, at the end of the day, social change was always going to be speculative. It was always going to be hard for people to contribute to movements, go out of their way to donate. If anything, we thought that was more likely in a world where you told them to abide by positive values that we told you in our second speech. This is a benefit they could not guarantee. What we could guarantee you was this was something that gave people incredible amounts of meaning. And that is why you bought Team India.