Full Debate Indonesia WSDC 2017 Grand Final (England vs Singapore) – This House Supports restrictions on free speech to combat the rise of right-wing populism.

WSDC 2017 Grand Final (England vs Singapore)

• Motion: This House Supports restrictions on free speech to combat the rise of right-wing populism.
• Proposition: England
• Opposition: Singapore
• Result: Singapore won this debate with 8-1 split.
• Video attachment: WSDC 2017 Grand Finals England vs Singapore – YouTube

This debate is transcribed by Farhana Rahman for the Debating404 project.

Proposition 1st speaker: Arthur James

Opening

Ladies, gentlemen, fellow wizards, muggles — right-wing populist parties, individuals and activists worldwide are a threat to minorities and to democracies. Side government solves this problem.

Set-up

What are our definitions in this debate? We think courts should decide if these are right-wing populists using five criteria.

The first is nativism, i.e., the scapegoating of immigrants and ethnic minorities. The second is hostility towards elites, particularly institutions like media and the courts. The third is accessible to authoritarian approach to law and order. Fourth, disregard for political correctness and truth. And faith and crucially is that because of a desire to appeal to a broad coalition of disaffected individuals spanning the socio-political divide, and often with different political desires, they often have a shallow policy agenda designed to appeal to as many people as possible. What does it look like? It looks like Trump in the US, Duterte in the Philippines, the AFD in Germany.

What’s our model for dealing with these individuals and groups?

We would institute a range of restrictions on free speech of political parties, and practice that goes from shutting down websites and individuals which advocate on their behalf, like Breitbart or My No You’re Not List to not providing them with a platform, not reporting on them in the media or allowing them to speak in town hall events to banning them from social media or in some instances, being happy to ban them from contesting elections entirely. We think that’s an extension of the precedent set in the banning of the neo-Nazi party in Germany and of states around the world in banning hate speech. We would note that while the unique phenomenon of right-wing populism is a problem today, were a similar problem to arise with left-wing populism, we would support this policy there too.

We have two burdens in this debate:

The first is to show you that this policy is justified. The second is to show you that this is an effective way of dealing with the danger that right-wing populists present

With that in mind, we’re bringing you three arguments:

First, we combat the threat to minorities. Second, this harms the development of solutions to the problems which lead to right-wing populists coming about at all third In Ed’s speech: how this is a fundamental affront to democracy

Before I move on to my first argument about how we actually combat the threat to minorities. What are the principal parameters within which this debate takes place? Two things.

The first is that democracy necessitates a balance of rights, because the rights of individuals sometimes contradict each other. My right to wave my wand in the air contradicts Kenzie’s right not to get poked in the eye. We believe that protecting the most vulnerable from physical harm weighs up more than the ability of certain individuals to have freedom of speech. I’m going to be dealing with that principally in my speech.

The second principal parameter which this debate takes place within, is that democracy can only happen if its truth led. When you have are anti truth, you forfeit your right to the protections of free speech. Ed is going to be talking to you about that principally in his speech.

POI: What exactly is this one characteristic that is so exclusive to right-wing populism? Wouldn’t you end up banning a lot of other ideologies that have similar characteristics.

Answer: Okay, we told you that courts are good at deciding whether things and individuals fall into certain categories. We gave you literally five characteristics that define right-wing populist movements. If courts decide that an individual or a group is part of that movement, then they’ll ban those movements. Then they’ll institute these kinds of free speech protections. Not sure what they’re getting at there.

Argument 1: How we combat the threat to minorities?

Onto my first argument, which is about how we combat the threat to minority groups.

Because right-wing populism thrives on riling people up and channelling their anger. That’s because right-wing populists are overwhelmingly problem- and not solution-oriented. Why?

Because the reason that they’re so popular is that they’re able to appeal to diverse coalitions of individuals often with very little in common. Someone living in a trailer park in northern Florida has basically nothing in common with a soccer mom living in the Midwest. But they’re united by being broadly disaffected with the status quo. The policy demands of these people, economically and socially, are very different. So in order to maintain this coalition, right-wing populists do two things:

Firstly, they promise very shallow things. They have very unspecific policies or unsubstantiated catch-all magic wand policies.

Secondly, they focus on the problems that their followers face as opposed to the solutions which divide them. In an attempt to flatten the causes of these problems into something nominally easily solved, they often blame minority groups for all of these issues. That means drug dealers in the Philippines, Mexicans in the US, Moroccans in the Netherlands are blamed for all of the problems which the followers of populists face.

The reason for blaming minorities leads to increased violence is threefold:

The first, They take the anger that individuals have and direct it at a minority for a political advantage. This anger goes beyond normal anger because the issues that these individuals face every single day suddenly become tied to minorities.

Secondly, they change permission mechanisms because they make these views mainstream. That means people think it’s okay to be or act racist because views have been legitimized by others, whether in rallies or in votes.

Thirdly, when these populist parties get in power, because they can’t implement legitimate policies without alienating a segment of their voter base. Instead, they’re forced to use discriminatory policies to distract from their failure to solve problems. So, Trump is forced to try and implement a Muslim ban to distract from the fact that he can’t actually solve the problems that his voters are facing without alienating other parts of his voter base.

What are the impacts of this?

You create a society where minorities live in fear — fear of being attacked, fear of being spat on, on their way to school, fear of not being able to get a job because they’re discriminated against in interviews. In extreme cases, their freedom of movement is restricted when they’re too afraid to leave their homes. Look, we don’t think it’s surprising that in the aftermath of the Brexit vote hate crimes went up 40%, that during the US presidential election, hate crimes against religious and ethnic minorities went up 41%. That’s not surprising. And our policy solves this by reducing the ability of right-wing populists to spread their hatred.

Argument 2: How these harms the development of solutions which affect the disaffected?

My second argument is about how these harms the development of solutions which affect the disaffected.

Look, we think there’s a legitimate debate to be had over some of these issues, right? We think that disaffected people’s concerns unquestionably should be listened to, and there’s a conversation that we should have about, for example, how undocumented workers are able to undercut wages. Why does the free speech of right-wing populists actually undermine that debate? Two reasons.

First, because it drags politics to the right-wing populist gutter. Because right-wing populists try to take chunks out of the voters of centrist parties by doing things like scapegoating minorities, those centrist parties are forced to move to the right in order to try and keep hold of those voters. The DPP in Denmark was able to pull the Danish Liberal Party right to the point when a party that previously was pro-immigration and asylum seekers ran on a platform of explicitly limiting the number of asylum seekers able to come into that country.

The second way that they distort the politics and harm the development of solutions is because of a lack of nuance in the language that these politicians use. Populists campaign using charisma and shocking language to get free airtime and to show themselves to be saying what the people are thinking. Other parties, in order to compete, are forced to also use shock tactics. So one nation in Australia was able to change the debate on immigration to the point when “the yellow peril” was a phrase that was actually commonly used. We think you can’t have a proper political debate when the language that you’re using is un-nuanced, when you’re conflating asylum seekers and refugees and immigrants in a way that only populist parties force politics to do.

On our side of the house, we’re able to escape the noise of populism. We’re able to rise above the din, and we’re able to have a conversation between centrist politicians which leads to actual nuanced, legitimate solutions to these problems. In Canada, they were able to have a nuanced conversation about immigration, free from the noise of populists, which means they were able to impose an immigration policy that is actually fair and that actually helps the individuals on the ground.

Closing

Because Team England is the side which protects minorities and actually helps solve the issues which lead populist parties to come about in the first place, I beg to propose.

Opposition 1st speaker: Wei Shu Yang

Opening

Proposition’s argument is that right-wing populism is an ideology that can be distilled into five key characteristics. That’s actually scientific dissection. Honestly, I think it is very demeaning for their side to say that, a quarter of all French people and millions of people all around the world are fundamentally nativistic. They are not politically correct, they just want to lash out at the establishment. I think that what they are doing is to reduce the legitimate viewpoints of all these people, and I think it’s evidence of their liberal arrogance to see that these views should be dismissed from society. We stand against that.

Set-up

What’s our stance?

1. We will not impose any restrictions on right-wing populist speech.

2. Obviously, we don’t have to stand for threats to an individual’s safety, like death threats, and we will prosecute for acts of violence accordingly.

3. We broadly believe in the value of free speech even those that are racially tinged. There may make a point, when the intent is so malicious and the expressive function of such speech is marginal, in those cases we will judiciously prosecute for hate speech. The distinction might be porous and when it is unclear, we will err on the side of free speech.

4. Proposition’s burden is not just to defend current laws restricting free speech, but they need to define restricting the entirety of this political ideology — notice the white noise but also the very legitimate viewpoints they are communicated.

We are going to follow three arguments:

1. That right-wing populist speech is legitimate and should not be restricted. This deals with the fundamental premise in their case, the right-wing populism is something we don’t want in a society.

2. On the risks of government abuse.

3. My second speaker will explain how they harm political discourse.

Rebuttal

But before that there’s some rebuttals.

They first told us that, “the ban is justified because democracy is a balance of rights.”

But this assumes that their policy is the only way to protect minorities. This is not true, because ethnic and racial minorities can always vote for the Democratic Party with democratic checks and balances there in place. But you know who doesn’t have an alternative? The millions of disenfranchised workers within the Rust Belt who cannot get another way to express their political views on the political spectrum. We allow for representation, we allow legitimate viewpoints to be expressed.

They then say, “But these are just distractions, it’s just white noise. Right-wing populism isn’t solution-oriented.”

I think this is honestly very demeaning for to say that half the people in America don’t want to vote for actual policies. There are very legitimate policies that can be carried out for instance- immigration quotas, trade protectionism, etc. It is not just all white noise.

They then told us about how women instil fear in minorities.

Now a person’s response to such speech could be fear but it could also be one of more indignation. And the many reasons we suggest why more indignation seems the more likely response rather than feeling threatened. The reason for this is because the cost of expressing free speech in the status quo is very low. A lot of this speech happens within social media, so these are people who agree with view etc. There’s a reason why when many African Americans listen to Trump tweet, the way they respond is not in fear or threat, but they respond by retweeting, anti-Trump messages, and having them shared and have fun by people who share their beliefs.

POI: Do support restriction on hate speech, slander on silent violence when spread by right wing populism? If not, why?

Answer: I just told you my policy as to why at a certain point the speech is so egregious and the intent is so malicious and there’s very marginal expressive function, we think we will censor those. But we think for the vast majority of right-wing populist speech, it is not like that. That’s the majority burden that you have to prove.

Their second argument was about discourse. The fundamental premise is that right-wing populism is harmful.

They never provide us an alternative to the problems we see today. My first substantive will now show you why right-wing populist speech is legitimate and should not be restricted.

Argument 1: Why right-wing populist speech is legitimate and should not be restricted?

The premise of my first argument: Why is free speech valuable?

Our identities don’t exist in a vacuum. They only gain meaning through expression and interaction with other beliefs. Hence, free speech is a fundamental right that we should not discard for mere convenience.

Why is right-wing populist speech particularly vital?

Since the 1990s, there has been a radical convergence towards neoliberal centrism in politics. Until recently, most major parties were pro-free trade and globalization. Democrats under Clinton, converted Republicans on free trade, while Labour in the UK cropped in many aspects of Thatcherism under Blair.

Why is this consensus harmful?

1. Because a democracy without choice is not a democracy. When there’s no party that comes close to representing your interests, then democracy has failed you. What right-wing populism does is to embrace and endorse viewpoints which are perfectly defensible, like the government having a foremost duty to its citizens. So, when they tell us its “white noise”, we think it’s a legitimate standpoint.

2. Because it disenfranchises the millions of workers in the Rust Belt whose livelihoods have been imperilled by free trade and immigration. They are neglected by a Democratic Party preoccupied of identity politics, and a Republican Party that stands for an unbridled free market. These are people that exist now, they have no solution. Those left behind by free trade are left voiceless.

What right-wing populist speech does is to signal that: One, these communities have been disenfranchised and two, they’re electorally determinant.

It’s absurgence demands the attention of the political establishment. It has catalysed a rise in class-based left-leaning politics as Sanders rises in the Democratic Party, and Corbyn brings Labour back to its socialist roots. So even if we can agree that right-wing populism itself is a bad idea, it does result in a recalibration of the political spectrum that we think is good for representation. Now we acknowledge right-wing populist speech may have unsavoury elements. This deals with their premise: that this unsavoury speech is [inaudible].

POI: Right-wing populists like Trump are known for fake news and lies. Why does that provide a valuable choice for voters if their votes are based on misinformation?

Answer: One. I think the fact that they believe in this fake news or even know it’s fake news but still vote for it — it’s still a legitimate form of political expression, that they may not care this much about those facts. My second argument will show you how you worsen everything you’re talking about.

We think that even unsavoury elements of speech have immense expressive value for two reasons:

1. Because it is unreasonable and elitist to demand that the disenfranchised speak only in the language and vernacular which elites find palatable, what they call their policy “political correctness”. Anti-immigration sentiment expressed with the extensive qualifications and hedging that we are familiar with in our political discourse that’s often sound quite racist. But not everyone has access to this sanitized language of Team England, particularly the worst off.

2. Because problematic language is a unique signal to desperation. Saying, “we need to overhaul immigration quotas” doesn’t convey the same intensity as “immigrants should get out of our nation.” The level of development is fundamental disillusionment towards globalization and the belief that integration is hopeless.

Hence, right-wing populism is an indispensable part of speech and democracy that should be preserved.

Argument 2: The risks of government abuse.

My second argument is on the risks of government abuse.

My thesis is that Proposition’s policy is a vast expansion of the state’s regulatory power over free speech. Given all the ambiguities involved, this is a huge target for abuse. Just consider the five criteria they presented: What is nativism? What is an attack on the establishment? If I critique the New York Times — is that considered under their policy?

These means all the “anti-truths” and “hate speech” are incredibly vague. And this is particularly true because fake news — as they want to talk about in the POI heavily involves judgments of character. Like claims that Bill Clinton is a womanizer, or causal judgments like saying the police shot a Black man because of racism. The truth of these claims cannot be objectively proven.

Furthermore, whether something passes the threshold of hate speech is highly dependent on context and intent. They can’t just throw this away with a mechanism in their policy. For instance, Jeremy Corbyn has said that immigrants undermine labour standards, but presumably, he wouldn’t be prosecuted under Proposition. Therefore, the content of such speech is subjective. But beyond that, the prosecution is subjective as well. In most of criminal law, governments don’t prosecute every case because there are too many of them. This means they pick and choose. This is itself political because the legal process only begins once the case is brought to court. However, prosecutors have very strong personal incentives to act in the interest of their partisan masters because they want to gain a promotion and curry favour. This means that often, the kinds of speech that are prosecuted are those that hurt the government’s partisan interests. This means that other governments can artificially entrench power because the prosecution will only choose to attack those news and those forms of hate speech that disfavours them. It also means that on their side, journalists are either forced to self-censor, because they don’t want to be dragged to court and forced to reveal confidential speech and confidential sources when they have to defend themselves in court.

Closing

Therefore, we believe that silence is oppression. We oppose.

Proposition 2nd speaker: Edward Bracey

Opening

It is problematic for side opposition to stand up and simply deny the racist vitriol that is not only endemic when we look at actual examples of right-wing populists on the ground: the Front National in France, Trump in the United States, Duterte in the Philippines, Gert Wilders in the Netherlands, the list goes on. But second of all, when we give you three mechanisms in our first speech as to why this kind of racist vitriol is not only endemic and the result of the fact you have a very wide but very shallow coalition but second of all, is almost inevitably transferred to the minorities about whom it is made. That’s not good enough from side opposition in this debate.

I’m going to bring you an argument as to how right-wing populism constitutes a fundamental affront to democracy and the rights of everyone else in a democracy who does not vote for these people.

Rebuttal

But before that, five pieces of rebuttal.

The first thing they say is that minorities don’t actually feel afraid, and the only evidence they give for this in their first speech is “Oh you have some African American women retweeting anti-Trump tweets.” Two responses.

First, they do not engage with the three lines we bring you in our first speech as to how it is actually horrific to have someone who is in their political incentives, to stand up and say that you are a less valuable human being to someone else. But I challenge side opposition to tell the women who are raped by Duterte’s army because he legitimizes that, or for example, the women who face race-based abuse in the United States as a direct response of Trump’s rights, the Mexicans who are beaten up after Trump rallies, that they shouldn’t be afraid in any meaningful sense of the word.

Second thing they bring us is that “Ah these are voicing concerns that would otherwise be avoided.” Four responses here.

First, they concede in their very generic characterization of freedom of speech that and when they stand up and say, “we support things like hate speech”, that there are circumstances under which we are happy to tell people that they cannot vote for a particular individual. That is, if we can prove to you that the harms to wider society i.e. the democratic norms of that society and specific minority groups are undermined. That is why they themselves do not believe that people should be able to vote for the neo-Nazi party, and in doing so, they concede that democracy has to operate within a range.

Second of all, they give us no analysis as to why specifically addressing the concerns of these people is unique to right-wing populists and not just right-wing movements. We point you, for example, to the Republican Party in the US, the Conservatives in the United Kingdom, groups that attack the very kinds of policies that they stand for on their side of the house things like – having tighter immigration controls but do so without saying that Mexicans are rapists.

Third, this falls down because they fundamentally have to prove to you that the benefits accrued to these people are actually achieved. We gave you structural analysis in our first speech that has not been responded to, as to how the shallowness of your coalition necessarily means you do not help the people in the Rust Belt, you do not help the people who fundamentally give you their democratic mandate.

Third point of rebuttal: they say these are legitimate policies. Again, two responses.

First, we would challenge the factual legitimacy of lots of the policies individuals like Duterte or Trump have passed, because the vast majority of them are not restricting trade or placing limits on the power of big businesses or giving more welfare to the working man. They are instead avoided, because they recognize there is inherent conflict between supporting Obamacare for those that want it, and also not supporting Obamacare for those in your mandate who do not want it. The kinds of policies you actually get passed are the ban on trans individuals in the army, the ban on Muslims from particular countries because those are the ones it is easiest to unite your base behind.

Second of all, again, this is predicated on these policies actually being fulfilled and people actually wanting that. We point the example of the fact that only 28% of United States citizens now support Donald Trump as evidence of the fact that no matter what he says about these policies, he’s probably not implementing them.

Fourth and finally, there’s this really generic argument about how this policy could possibly be abused because of the vague criteria we implement.

We tell you that the courts make exactly this kind of calculation the whole time and you know how we know that’s effective? Because they stand by exactly the same mechanism when they talk about things like slander, when they talk about things like hate speech, when they talk about things like incitement to violence. If you can disseminate specific criteria and attach them to those instances of racial abuse, presumably you can also attach them to the five criteria we brought you in our first speech.

POI: Would you also prosecute every single person who calls those in the rust belt areas immoral, horrible neo nazis?

Answer: Come on, this obviously operates on a scale, right? So only on the smaller end of things, if an individual person is racist and inciting other people to go and physically harm someone else then possibly. If that person does so with a hundred thousand Twitter followers and the direct response of that policy is that hate crime increases 41% in the week after they are elected — yes.

Argument 3: How right-wing populism is a fundamental affront to everyone’s rights?

My argument: Right-wing populism affronts democracy.

We think right-wing populism undermines the integrity of democracy and is therefore a threat to the democratic rights of all. Two strands.

First, it poisons real democratic debate. There are a couple of pieces of context we need to understand for this argument to make sense.

First: Right-wing populists abuse the truth and shift their stances.

That’s because they have broad but shallow coalitions brought together by conflicting vague promises, i.e. they promise simultaneously to slash Obamacare but also to provide welfare to those in need. We put the example of Duterte as someone who literally has a team of 20 people hired to act as internet trolls and spread misinformation on the internet.

Second of all: They dress up their opponents as conspiratorial elites and fundamentally use that as a tool to not engage with them.

They demonize their portrayal of their opponents, and as a consequence, when you try and challenge someone like Duterte or Trump or Gert Wilders on their prejudices, the response you get is “see, see, look – this is exactly what the liberal media is doing, time and time again.”

Third thing on this: They rely on propagating fear and prejudice.

Again, because they cannot unite their coalition through legitimate policy, because the people they draw together are brought in through vague and conflicting terms. They are reliant on common fears and prejudices.

The takeaway from this argument is that the key tenet, the key appeal of lots of these individuals is inherently irrational. That is to say, they rely on the propagation of a fear that probably should not exist. All of these fundamentally undermine the debate necessary to productive, competitive electoral politics. Why?

First, because when you twist and muddy the truth of a debate, you challenge the reality in response to which that debate existed in the first place. When fake news and alternative facts are placed on the same pedestal as actual factual realities, you cannot have a functional discussion about certain issues. You cannot have a functional discussion about undocumented workers in the United States when it is a “fact” that Mexicans are rapists, in the same way that it is a “fact” that Nieto is the president of Mexico.

Second of all, likewise, you also cannot have a debate between two reasonable sides that engage with each other and provide for the voter fundamentally a response that is which of these two options is probably better for your interests. When one of those sides systematically fails to engage with the other, both as a consequence of the fact that they use literally who those other people are as a way of attacking them rather than attacking their policies. Second of all, they have terrorized the people that support them and struck fear into their hearts to the extent that they will not hear logical reason.

 

Second strand of this argument is that: these individuals attack the very framework of democracy.

Part of that anti-establishment narrative on which they rely is to attack institutions like courts, like electoral processes. That is why we see individuals like Gert Wilders in the Netherlands and Donald Trump not only threatening to punish the courts if they get into power but refusing to accept election results. Insofar as democracy relies on the balance of power, this is supported both by the fact you give a massive mandate to the individual you give your vote to, but also by the fact that there are some checks and balances by an independent body to stop that person abusing that power. Democracy is fundamentally perverted when justices and the courts are fundamentally too afraid to do their job.

The takeaway of this whole argument is twofold:

First: If you weigh this debate based on democratic integrity and the rights of individuals, the very presence of right-wing populists makes it harder for people on the ground to come to terms with who they are voting for, why they are supporting that person, and ultimately what they should draw out of that.

We would draw the analogy to perjury insofar as we’ve been happy to limit free speech in the short term, if it ensures the integrity of a process that is vital to our society in the long run.

Closing

So proud to propose.

Opposition 2nd speaker: Wee Jin Yang Ryan

Opening

Let me be clear. This is a debate about the individuals whom politics has forgotten. The individuals alienated when factories closed down. Individuals who may not be experts in governance but they’re experts in their own lives.

Team England wants to talk about fear. I tell you; fear is when you lose hope because mainstream political parties no longer represent you. And honestly, it is very demeaning for team England to come up here and tell us that the millions of individuals have been duped, they’ve been deceived, and they do not know what is right for them. We reject that on team opposition.

Two questions: First, why is right-wing populism a legitimate viewpoint? Second, how do we improve politics?

Point of contention 1: Why is right-wing populism a legitimate viewpoint?

First, why is it a legitimate viewpoint?

Now, I’d like to point out their characterization actually shifted from first to second. In first, it was about these nice five scientific characteristics about what right wing populism is. Second speaker it’s, incitement of violence and hate speech.

To be clear, we were very clear on our stance. All their problems about violence — we can prosecute the act of violence. They need to tell us why persecuting the speech is the most important thing in this case. Furthermore, we talked about how we are willing to err on the side of caution when it comes to hate speech, we think is generally clear when conditions are egregious enough.

I want to be clear; they did not actually touch our analysis about the general centrist consensus. All they say is “the Republican Party can represent you”.

Do you know why the Republican Party represents them now? Because Trump was elected. Because the Republican elites realized that for far too long, we have been leaving these individuals behind and not caring about their interests. To be clear, the Republicans did not represent these people before the right-wing came to power.

That is why, when they say, “this drags politics into the gutter”.

I would say it is not a gutter. I would say it is views that people want, views that they actually stand for, policies they actually care about. And I think that these individuals do know what is good for them. So, we can agree with their first speaker’s principle, that “democracy is about a balance of rights.” Yes, we think you’re taking away the fundamental right for these individuals to have a party stand for them. And we think that is a right we should protect.

They said, “Ah but that’s fake news and it’s misinformation and people are debating on truth and facts.”

I think generally people are becoming more aware of partisan biases. I think democracy actually solves for fake news, because fake news discredits its source. Think about it: Alex Jones basically spread the lie of how Sandy Hook was a conspiracy created by the government. After that, he pretty much lost all the credibility he had. I think people can discern. And people who are voting for Trump, maybe they understand there is fake news, but they decide the policies that he is standing for are more important than this fake news. I think that is a choice they should be able to make, even if they don’t believe everything he says. It’s just that the fundamental things he stands for are important.

Furthermore, we think that on our side we pointed out very clearly how sometimes what they call “unacceptable” are things that we need to respect. They completely dropped my first speaker’s two tiers of how sometimes unpalatable language is essential to expressing thoughts. How in team affirmative, the police starts in a way that discriminates against the not well-off, being born into an elite aristocracy is not a privilege we all share. For some people, it is understandable that it is important for them to be able to express their thoughts in this language and we think that’s an important thing we should respect.

Furthermore, we talk about the colour and intensity of thought, how something they call unpalatable are a way and the only way for these individuals to express their true political choice. So, the solutions that these politicians stand for may not be perfect, but we think that the point is the solutions are far closer to what people actually want. Even if they’re not perfect, you’d rather have an imperfect solution that’s congruent with what people want better than a proper solution that does not align with what they want at all.

To be clear: Trump has done things. He’s withdrawn from the TPP. He has gotten many automobile factories back, creating jobs in America. We think these are important things we should have.  any chance popularity forces this piece. I see the point. If a politician doesn’t deliver, they become less popular. So, democracy corrects for this.

POI: Many acts of violence in the status quote, what did that do for the hundreds of Muslim women in America who were attacked after Trump was elected?

Answer: Sir, we think they actually fail to show the link between how right-wing populism is this exclusive thing that results in all of this violence. We think that all the mass violence has been happening for ages. And the point is that they have failed to show us why this is exclusively this is the way they can have. Furthermore, we think we were very clear that the idea of violence is something we can prosecute, and it is decreasing when we prosecute this violence.

Point of contention 2: How do we improve politics?

We think that the point is that we told you how they undermine democracy, and this deals directly with their second speaker’s substantive. We think it’s not irrational, when these individuals engage in this politics, there was never a golden age of politics when we all rationally debated opioid effects. Politics has always been about character, always been about who people are. And we think that if people on the ground vote us, decided that is what is most important for them, that is something that we should respect.

Furthermore, they say, “You attack on institutions.”

We think it is generally a good idea if you keep a check on courts, when courts are full of elites who do not care about people on the ground. When the entire judicial system is stand against you because it is views of elites who do not understand what you are — I think that is fundamental violence upon your dignity. So, if they want to talk about violence, I would say the lack of representation is violence to these individuals.

Furthermore, they just dropped my first speaker’s analysis about how it is incredibly insulting for them to tell us that minorities always cower in fear. We think that’s not true. We think many minorities are indignant, practically in social media, like this, there is actually a community of people around you, about you, who will tell you why this is important to you. We think on this ground alone minorities are protected on our side.

But the point is, second substantive on abuse. How these very five scientific criteria are incredibly subjective. What is political correctness? What is nativism? And in that case, we told you how they exercise a chilling effect on discourse, how they literally give governments the tool to crack down on individuals. We think that’s wrong.

Argument 3: How Team England harms political discourse?

My constructive for today on how team England harms political discourse. So, this argument takes them on the absolute highest. Even if this debate is to be judged on the metric of preventing misinformation, even if it is to be judged on the matter of making speech more palatable — why is it that on our side we are able to better meet these metrics?

Know that teams England’s policy is necessarily known to the public. For example, if Breitbart is punished, he would have to retract his statements and provide a public apology to people on the ground. This leads to a few harms.

Firstly, team England pushes people toward less credible news sources.

This policy literally reinforces the one strongest narrative that drives mistrust of traditional media sources like CNN and the liberal establishment is out to control what you read. Now that everything published in traditional media has the imprimatur of government approval, it is seen by right-wing populists as an extension of government control. This is terrible. They go to alternative news sources. They provide a less credible form of news. And obviously, we cannot completely censor WhatsApp chains, forums, face-to-face conversations that occur in daily life. Therefore, on the other side, they ensure that people turn toward these less credible news sources. And to be clear, this is not about the most extreme individuals. It is about the vast majority of individuals on the fence, who subscribe to both Bret Ryback and The New York Times on Twitter whom team England pushes straight toward less credible news sources.

Secondly, team England only ends up amplifying the unsavoury aspects of right-wing populism.

In the status quo, many right-wing populist leaders are exercising a significant moderating effect because they want to become more politically viable. In France, Marine Le Pen kicked her father out of the National Front because he was very strongly in favour of Holocaust denial. We want this effect to continue.

However, the main reason why these leaders can engage in moderation is because they are currently trusted by their supporters as legitimate ideological leaders. When these leaders say that something is wrong, their supporters trust it. But if the state itself starts to crack down on these forms of unsavoury speech, these leaders lose their moderating ability because it now looks like the state has forced them to make concessions. Any attempt to moderate now looks like it has been engineered by the liberal elite. So, if they want to talk about making political speech better — I think it is harmed on their side. If they want to talk about decreasing misinformation — I think it is harmed on their side.

Closing

From first speaker, we were very clear: We stand by the baseline that silence is oppression. We oppose.

Proposition 3rd speaker: Kenza Wilks

Opening

You know the second speaker is right when he says this is about people that don’t have representation. What side opposition has thus far failed to prove in this debate is why once these populists move out of the fore and stop poisoning the well of discussion that happens in democracies across the world, where right-wing politicians cannot step in, in their stead to support these people in a way that does not contradict all of the five reasons that we told you, these populists behave in ways that undermine democracy.

Rebuttal

Their third speaker wanted to stand up and say, “Well, you haven’t shown your links to violence.”

Ladies and gentlemen, that is fake news as we see it, because all they wanted to put forward is moral shame: “What are your categories? How do we know if they’re a populist?” We give you five distinct reasons as to why we think these individuals are likely to fall into identifiable categories of being populist.

But ultimately, they wanted only to engage with the extreme end of our scale i.e., the banning of these individuals from running on the ballot box. Remember all of the other policies that we support, like no-platforming them at universities, like stopping their social media pages from operating. These are all ways in which we can try and decrease the influence these populists are able to have.

But finally, when their last speaker wants to raise a point about the chilling effect, ultimately that is far worse when debate cannot happen in nuanced and moderate ways like we have today, because instead people are standing up and shouting that Mexicans are rapists.

Three areas of clash in this debate: firstly, is this legitimate; secondly, the provision of solutions and the effects on minorities; and thirdly, the stability of democracy.

Clas 1: Is this legitimate?

So, on the first of which, is this legitimate?

They stand up and give a principle that says free speech is valuable and these individuals need to be able to engage.

No. This does not directly engage with the principle that we give you about balance of rights for individuals to be safe from fear. If you create an atmosphere of fear and an ignorance of the truth, you’re ultimately far more likely to persecute vulnerable minorities.

The responses they give us well — “lack of representation is violence.”

Ladies and gentlemen, no. Violence is violence. And given it, they’ve done nothing to contend the fact that we’ve seen increased rates of attacks on vulnerable minorities in the aftermath of the U.S. election, or the aftermath of Poland and the Law and Justice party being put in power, or the example that we know all too well — that of Brexit, and individuals that no longer feel safe in their homes, on their streets, or in their communities because of rises in attacks and persecutions on you just because you’re wearing a hijab.

Secondly, they say, “Well, these people need to have a choice.”

We question how meaningful that choice actually is, if this politics is skewed away from key issues. Because what we told you is that populist parties overwhelmingly cannot have specific policies because they have to please a broad coalition of voters. It’s very hard for you to have policies that both say, “We will provide welfare for the people at the bottom i.e., Obamacare,” but also want to repeal those very acts that protect people. That means you don’t get tangible policies to protect people, but only assertions.

Finally, here they say, “Well, we’ve got to give the people what they want.”

Ultimately, that is not the obligation of a democracy. We think that we should have parameters within which discussion occurs, that we do not allow anti-Semitism just because it’s what some people want. That is called a tyranny of the majority that overwhelmingly harms the most vulnerable members of our society.

Finally, they say, “Well, these politicians will likely moderate themselves once they’re put into power, see the example of Le Pen.”

Note crucially this is reliant on giving them a platform that allows them to get votes in the first place, when the very worst circumstances make it into power. Given that, all that gives you analysis as to why, once they are in power, they’re likely to put forward policies that harm those very minorities. We’re not willing to allow them to moderate. We would rather nip them in the bud before they are allowed to point out populations into voting them into power.

Clash 2: The provisions of solutions and the effects on minorities.

Let’s look secondly at the provisions of solutions and the effects on minorities.

We give you concrete reasons as to why these populist politicians are reliant on harm to minorities in order to get into power. Firstly, we tell you that they overwhelmingly scapegoat these people to hold a coalition because they look to simple answers for complex questions.

The only response a side opposition gives is, “Well, some African Americans are not upset, they just retweet their opposition.”

Note crucially, that is an assertion that the vast majority of African Americans behave in that way. But secondly, we think there are many vulnerable individuals who would actually be quite insulted by your characterization of these people willingly brushing aside these accusations of their lack of humanity.

Secondly, more crucially, a permission mechanism is created, and they do nothing to engage with this analysis. Because if the orange man at the front of the room can stand up and say, “Well, it’s okay for me to grab whatever by whatever,” or “It’s okay for me to decide that Mexicans are all rapists,” then people who are not predisposed to violence under the status quo are far more likely to engage in those very acts of violence. That’s what we see ordinary Americans now deciding to punch Black Lives Matter protesters in the face. We think that was a fundamental harm that arises from populism itself.

But thirdly and finally, they get into power, and they have the ability to implement policies, and this is the red clash with their material about, “Well, we need to give these people some kind of choice and some kind of representation.” If you embolden these individuals by giving them a populist platform from which to spew their views, you actually corrupt the debate and hold the rights of these individuals. It cannot be legitimate.

Next here they say, “Well, this is the ‘elitist vernacular.'” And the logic here is that less-educated people are unable to have debate about immigration unless someone stands up at the front of the room and shouts, “Get the immigrants out.”

Fundamentally, we think of this as a patronizing characterization of how these individuals are able to engage in debates.

Secondly, we think as far more likely is that you shut out nuanced discussions because if you think about things like the U.S. primaries, individuals like Cruz or Pence wanted to have discussions about the policies and the ailments that globalization has caused for these people. Instead, we end up having conversations about the length of Donald Trump’s fingers. Ultimately, we think that is far worse for the people that you want to protect on your side of the house.

Because we can provide real alternatives. So, when they say, and I quote, “Not giving these individuals representation is an act of violence” — if other politicians, as they likely will, step into the fray and represent these people instead when populists cannot fill that vacuum and pollute the discussion, we’re far more likely to protect these individuals.

Clash 3: The stability of democracy.

Let’s look thirdly and finally at the stability of democracy.

Their major claim is to say, “Well, these courts act in irresponsible ways because, and I quote — ‘prosecution is subjective.'”

Now they obviously run into a problem with this when they also supported defamation suits and those very same courts making subjective decisions. Notably, they drop it in the most recent speech.

Secondly, on your side of the house, what Gert Wilders can do – is intentionally trying to get defamation suits brought against him and use the fact that those suits have been brought to him in order to gain more popular support. If we shut down his Twitter page, he’s unable to get those channels of discourse that ultimately mean they are more likely to get votes and more likely to be put into power.

Finally, here they say, “Politics is about character and it’s okay for people to make decisions on this basis. Instead, you create a chilling effect on discourse which harms those individuals.”

Ultimately, we think it is okay with limiting the amount of discourse that individuals like Breitbart or organizations that actively try to incite violence or limit the rights of minority groups through populist measures, if that means that we are far more able to secure the rights of vulnerable individuals.

Closing

At the end of this debate, if you remember, we had two criteria — the first of which this was justified for the protection of minority groups. And secondly, that it was effective in challenging the disproportionate control that populists are able to wield over the most vulnerable. For all of these reasons so proud to propose.

Opposition 3rd speaker: Au Wei Hoe

Opening

The rise of right-wing populism is not a communicative issue. It is a social, economic, political issue. That’s why when their policy was to remove symptoms like fake news and to sanitize racist language, it honestly misses the point, because we will never realize why these individuals have these opinions and these beliefs to begin with. That’s how we actually nip the problem at the source. That’s why we think, on our side of the house, is incredibly important — we hear why they believe in these things. Even if the way they see it is imperfect, it’s important that we know what these beliefs are. That’s the first strategic mistake coming from their side.

The second strategic mistake is their lack of response to all our analysis — first, about how this policy allows for massive government abuse. Mind you, this policy literally gives the ruling elite the ability to silence one-third of all Americans and all opposition parties, which are quite powerful right now within the political scene. This is the greatest expansion of government control of free speech we have ever seen in the last few decades. I think they need to engage with our substantives.

Three areas of clash: first, who are the victims; second, what opinions are valid and third, why all opinions are under attack on the outside of the house.

Clash 1: Who are the victims?

First, who are the victims?

We say from the beginning of this debate that minorities are victims but so are those who have been left behind in the dust of unfettered capitalism, so are those who have been sidelined by the political elite that see them as irrational bigots that ought not to be listened to. These are people that currently don’t even have a political party to cater to their class discrimination. These are people who don’t have the courts to defend their supposed constitutional rights because they are seen as stubborn people that cannot engage in discourse, as they say on their side of the house — these are victims that live in fear because they are caricatured by the liberal elite as immoral, deplorable bigots. The label is someone who’s stubborn, irrational, uneducated by Team Proposition, by their own leaders within these countries. That’s the atmosphere that they currently live in, and they are victims that we need to protect in this debate.

We thought they were important in this debate. We had absolutely no response as to why they protect them as well.

They tell us populists can still run for office, but they just won’t let them campaign or talk about what they want to do in office. That’s honestly nonsensical.

So how do their rights compare to the rights of minorities? Now, we understand that minorities are important in this debate. But we do think that minorities have access to a lot more protection than this specific group of individuals who have been cast away by unfettered capitalism and globalization. Why is this the case?

One. Because minorities can be empowered if they respond intonation, not fear. We told you how the domino effect on social media means that you generally have the capacity to feel strong and safe within your communities. Is this perfect? No. But we think, on the comparative, it’s a lot more likely that you have an entire Democratic Party willing to defend you. You’re much better off on your side of the house.

Second of all: The hurt is asymmetric. Many of these individuals have been equally slandered and threatened on the streets by the liberal elite coming from your side of the house. If this is a response out of fear, then I think that’s something legitimate as well.

So, the important point we’ve mentioned is that current minorities already have a Democratic Party to defend them, have access to many other forms of protection. Are they perfect? Absolutely not. But for these individuals, who have currently been sidelined by the entire political elite, this is the only way they can have their voices heard. That is the comparative we’re willing to defend.

Eventually, they shrunk that case because the first said “speech was really bad”. But they say: “Oh no, no, no, no its only speech that results in hate crime.”

Here’s the problem: we say from the beginning of this debate, they were happy to prosecute the physical crime of hurt in itself. The problem with that case is that you’re never able to prove structural reasons why all forms of right-wing populist speech will always and necessarily result in hate crimes coming from their side of the house. There might be a certain correlation, but no definite causation coming from their side of the house. So yes, we agree — this debate is about a balance of rights. There are boundaries to what is acceptable in democracy. But this is the boundary we need to set. For too long, we’ve remained in the neo liberal consensus, and we ought to expand the boundary of appearance that these people have access to.

POI: Why, when we stop people from running on a populist platform, will they not choose to appeal to these forgotten individuals on a purely right-leaning platform?

Answer: Note, because the only way you can truly and genuinely represent these people’s beliefs is to use the same populist rhetorics that actually represent how disgusted they are about the current rate of globalization and unfettered capitalism.

Clash 2: What opinions are valid?

They say that the current system of right-wing populism has a disparate coalition, but the same speech has economic dislocation, which binds them all together.

Here’s the thing: no one is saying we’re only going to have a single policy. Many of these politicians can practice being right-wing populist politicians and craft better policies in the long term. But the important point here is that if so many people are affected by economic dislocation regardless of what they eventually get the policy, I think it is important for these voices are at least heard in parliament through these politicians to begin with.

Furthermore, we say that racist speech is still valuable in a democracy.

Firstly, because not everyone has access to the same education you had. Most of us in this room, probably at a debate speech, once said something insensitive when we talked about women’s rights or minorities. We were fortunate enough to have a debate coach tell us that it was wrong and to never say that again. Unfortunately, for many living in the Rust Belt did not have access to that kind of education. We think it’s wrong for you to punish people for their vocabulary and tone.

But secondly, it is an important signalling effect. We think that saying “We should have a massive overhaul of immigration systems” compared to “All immigrants, get out now” are two very different opinions. Because the latter shows how much disgust and how much intensity you believe in those opinions and that quality is important for us to present as well. That’s why when they wanted to have a substantive about the sanctity of institutions. I think it’s good that we critique institutions when these institutions are dominated by elites, we ought to criticize them as well.

But here’s the fundamental problem with their case — they assume that these beliefs are superimposed by politicians and that otherwise people wouldn’t have had these ideas. This is incredibly false. Those racist beliefs that they talked about are understandable aspects of human nature. They’re in response to economic hardship. People see this all around them. Let’s not kid ourselves and pretend like the Philippines isn’t dominated by a significant number of Chinese businessmen, right? Let’s not pretend there’s no genuine relationship between migrant inflows and wage decrease for these individuals. These are things that politicians tell you. These are things that people observe in their daily lives and make connections for themselves.

So, at the point in which their only policy is to remove politicians parroting these ideas — they don’t actually solve the root cause of these problem. In contrast, they force people into WhatsApp groups, into Facebook groups, into the same echo chambers that they think are so harmful without the same defamation lawsuits that they think have used to regulate these opinions. That is why, when they were never able to engage with the analysis of ordinary Americans, ordinary people on the ground and what their policy would do to them, their side lost this debate. Because they never presented us a meaningful solution and mechanism for the problems they’ve identified.

Clash 3: Why all opinions are under threat on their side?

Lastly, why all opinions are under threat? The only response you get to this is, “But you still have defamation lawsuits, so that’s really bad.”

Here’s the thing, obviously defamation lawsuits are a lot more restricted within status quo, the kind of criteria are lot more stricter compared to five words or five ideas you give us or the generic idea of right-wing populism. And furthermore, it’s not even a criminal case which your policy does.

The important thing you take away from this is that necessarily, all of this is subjective and context specific. Jeremy Corbyn might very well say that immigrant inflow might reduce labour status for every single person. She in fact, did say that but is she a right-wing populist? No. This reveals to you how many of the statements they are made are context-specific, requires you to know what’s going to happen. There was no response, therefore, to all our analysis about prosecutorial discretion, how the Attorney General can make decisions of which political dissidents to take out. This is a very dangerous power for us to give governments to begin with.

Closing

For all of these reasons — it’s our side that understands these people are victims who need to be protected. Silence is oppression.