Full Debate Serbia WSDC 2024 Grand Final (Scotland vs Bulgaria) – This House regrets the glorification of champions.

Serbia WSDC 2024 Grand Final (Scotland vs Bulgaria)

• Motion: THR the glorification of champions.
• Proposition: Scotland
• Opposition: Bulgaria
• Result: Prop wins with a 7-2 split call.
• Video Attachment: WSDC 2024 Serbia GRAND FINAL (Scotland vs Bulgaria)

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

Proposition 1st Speaker:  Miya Rose Spencely Turner

Opening

If the winners of this round were to be glorified, the rest of the competition would suffer. We cannot stand for the glorification of champions, and we are so proud to propose.

Set-up 

Several points of setup then.

Firstly, what does glorification look like? It looks like three things.

a. Mass media focus on those who arise to the top of their individual fields,

b. An idealization of the individuals who succeed and

c. An inherent demonization of those who lose out, notice we do need not actively tell you that losers are less successful. The very fact that there is a gulf created between those who win and those who fail means that losers feel worse, means that they feel demonized. This looks like prioritizing winners over countries who have crowdfunded and built up their institutions from scratch at this very competition.

Second point of set up then on, what is the counterfactual is? We think this is

a. Life without an act of glorification. Meaning there is more space for us to do things like criticize individuals who have rose to power. But,

b. It just means that the narrative of hard work prevailing rises up. This is already a narrative that exists. We care about how much hard work people have put in. But in opposition, it is pushed out by the glorification of the individuals who rise to the top. Only by removing this glorification can we create the space for the hard work to be truly recognised. We notice that people can still be considered impressive in their respective fields, but what matters here is what you think that success looks like? It isn’t just you have won but rather there is something innate that you as individual that means you always deserved to achieve that success, that is what we are opposing.

Third point of set up then, what is a champion? We think that

a. Champion exists in every field, that is to say we are not just talking about people who rise to the top of the sports industry. We are talking about people who exist in every walk of life. There are champions in debating, there is champions in histo compatibility. Champions exist everywhere, but

b. Champions exist at a certain level of winning. That is to say someone who wins one competition, one match, they aren’t a champion. A champion is someone who is dominant, a champion is someone like the big three in tennis; Federer, Djokovic, Nadal who win tournament after tournament and achieve widespread success, but

c. These people come from certain backgrounds. That is to say in order to achieve success a degree of privilege must have followed rationally. You have to have had the privilege to access great education in your youth or the ability to dedicate a huge amount of time to the pursuit of that particular activity, the lottery of birth is also huge in this capacity. We therefore think, champions are never going to be broadly representative of the people of the county.

Argument 1: Motivation and life experience of non – champions

First argument then, on motivation and life experience of non-champions.

The thesis of this claim is that glorification creates harmful internalized views of success which damage each and every one of us.

Why does glorification make those who do not achieve champion status sad? Three reasons here.

a. They assault unrealistic expectations.

People tell you that it was all their hard work that got them to that place, not the privilege that they were born with, or the ability to gain a mass amount of support. But notice also many champions just have an incentive to lie to you about why they succeeded. Tom Brady has a vested interest in telling you that he got where he was through his program of supplements, because guess who selling them to you? Tom Brady.

b. Encouraging of constant comparison.

You are always told that the champions in your respective field are those who have achieved the most success and those who are the most happy. This means you are constantly comparing yourself to them and you feel bad when you are not winning. But most importantly here, it doesn’t matter whether you yourself experience happiness when you always think that happiness of others is more important, the happiness of those at the top of the competition always exceeds the joy that you are feeling. Therefore, you never achieve actual satisfaction but,

c. On the concealment of harms.

Because a focus on champions, a glorification of their success necessarily means not focusing on the hardships of what has achieved them. What would this means is looking at Simone Biles, watching her routine, watching her raise her trophy but never understanding the years of mental trauma that she suffered as a result of being a participant in that world. This means when you look at champions, you see only the positives, never understanding the hard work that had to go into this. This is intuitive panel, because it is just not possible for you to be told every single way in which champions are harmed, every single way in which they suffered. But it is easy for you to see a shot of them raising their trophy. You will never understand what truly went into these harms.

On the comparative, when we focus on hard work, we don’t care what the outcome is, we don’t care who won but we platform those who have tried the hardest we platform those sports people, those politicians, those social heroes who have come from backgrounds where they have been the most marginalized, who had to put in the most amount of work and effort in order to get to the success that they’ve achieved but here,

d.  It just feels isolating.

That is to say when I every time, I turn on the tv or open a book see a person who has achieved far more than I ever feel capable of, I feel like I am the only one who experiences this. Because I see the champions are the majority given, they are given such a large amount of media coverage, so I always feel as although I am exclusively the one who feels this way. You are able to get an environment in which people believe that champions are a minority. Therefore, it is not presented as so amazing, but it is presented as a reflection of your ability and your requirement for these sorts of things.

Impacts then, three Folds

1. Firstly, people just feel terrible.

Because you’re never able to access success when every chance that you feel to feel happy, to feel content is always tempered by the idea that someone who has achieved more, someone who on paper is more successful than me might be feeling happier. You never stop to enjoy what you have but rather constantly project how your enjoyment could be greater.

2. Two, you just stop trying to achieve.

Because when you constantly believe that other people have achieved more and that they have access to exactly the same resources that you do, you feel like a failure when you are not able to ascend to that level so maybe you just stop trying, maybe you stop pursuing your dreams, because you think that it is unachievable. Whereas under our side, when we focus on the hard work, we tell you that even if you fail in meeting the absolute burden of success what matters more is how much you’ve enjoyed it, how hard you’ve tried and how difficult it was for your journey.

3. Thirdly, though some groups may just try too hard.

That is to say because they see that success is glorified in this manner, they see as something that is inherent to their ability to enjoy any form of life. They do things like dope to create better prospects for them in the athletic world, or they listen to Michael Phelps when he tells you that only reason, he was good at swimming was constant training not because of the physical advantage that he was born with. This leads you to try over hard work yourself into the ground all for no benefit at all.

Before I move onto my second argument on abuse of power and accountability, I’ll take that point.

POI: I think, anybody who has been to a single competition knows that champions are a minority.

Answer: Yes, but who are you sitting, watching right now? The people who have risen to the top of the tournament. So even if that is true that you understand that people are in minority, you are constantly focused on what it feels like to stand up on the stage and give that speech, not focused on your own enjoyment of the competition which you yourself have participated in.

Argument 2: The abuse of power and accountability.

The thesis of this claim is that champions inherently exist in a world of abuse. Without being able to call them out because of the glorification of their position, we risk endangering people.

Why then can we get no accountability under a system of glorification? That is simply because people reject the assumption that this could be true. When your fans are so passionately dedicated to you as an individual, that they are willing to bully and harass anyone who speaks out and says that thy are abused by you. People just don’t want to come forward, people don’t feel they’re capable of speaking out because of the abuse that they will face.

Three reasons, why fans reject accusations?

a. They see you as a perfect individual, do not believe that you have a dark side but rather believe that everything about you is inherently ideal.

b. They point to jealousy. So that is to say, your fans tell you that Harvey Weinsteins victims were simply jealous of his success. That’s why, they were trying to take him down. They don’t tell you that these people actually had anything to gain. But,

c. The impact of media and companies. That is to say when someone is a champion there are many actors who have a vested interest in their success and will always jump to your defence when something like this happens. The people like Alexander Zverer, who are known to have abused their girlfriends but whom the tennis world will never stop from playing because it is successful for them to keep him in the tournament. These abused victims are just afraid of backlash that is created by the fans of these glorified celebrities and so will never speak out.

Why champions are likely to abuse them?

a. An inherent desire for self-improvement. We all have inherently a desire to take something from someone else. We learn and we treat ourselves to not listen to these tendencies. When opposition tells celebrities and tells champions they are gods they fall back into the patterns, but

b. Champion become accustomed to taking things. Winning a match means losing it for somebody else and that becomes something you’re okay with and

c. The interaction with other champions just means that this is something you’re okay with. The impact to this is that powerful people get away with abuse, people feel terrible and marginalised communities are never given the benefit that they deserve.

Closing

Because glorification harms those who are present in those glorifications and those who are aside from it, we are so proud to propose.

Opposition 1st Speaker: Kaloyan Kotzev

Opening

This is the motion about team Bulgaria. The team who broke 31st but due to them believing that there is 1% chance to be here today, we continued to fight, and we beat the best of the best and hopefully today the final too. Don’t take this motivation away from us, don’t trust the lies of prop and oppose this motion today.

Set-up

What you’re going to hear in our team line?
Firstly, on framing and what actually there is a nuance of champions? Therefore, we’re not as radical as prop. Then how people perceive this narrative? And how it is actually spread? Because they provide zero reasoning as to, why it is so toxic?

Then on first argument about motivation and why actually we have only motivation to become champions on our side of the house? And then on national pride and why actually we only have national pride on our side of the house? And why it is so important? Then on champions actually spreading their message in second.

So, what is a champion? There are three different levels of being a champion which directly engages with their definition.

There are national champions who are glorified on a local level and only like in the community of the sport. But also, we have international champions which actually are champions of specific regions. Therefore, they’re glorified by not only their nation but also everyone from the region. But thirdly, world champions, the ones who are glorified by the whole world and actually who make the people in the country the proudest. Therefore the
bigger the achievement you have, the bigger the praise. Therefore, there is a spectrum. Therefore, no such stuff as they say.

Then on the narrative, how is this narrative spread?
The champions are basically posting on social media; the people actually publishes afterwards because it has rating due to this narrative being spread.

Rebuttals

But what actually are the incentives of these people? Never proven on their side of the house. How they actually look like?

They’re extremely hardworking. They actually have done everything. They have determination, work ethics but also they have self-control all these good qualities to actually be such a champion. Therefore they want to spread the virtue to the of this sport which actually have taught them all this kinds of stuff. They are kind of important because at the end of the day if they actually don’t say all of these things their legacy is not going to be spread afterwards.

But also, they want to give to the community that have actually helped them backwards and therefore popularize it in this way and actually because they actually want them the best and therefore, they actually don’t want bad rep for it. But also, they don’t want bad rep for themselves. Because they want to spread their messages. We’re going to explain that later, but they don’t want bad rep, they have worked so hard for it. They don’t want to lose it. Therefore, people don’t want to discourage people from supporting them as they know that this way their message won’t reach the people. Therefore, we have extremely good incentives from these people. This looks like Leo Messi telling people that you should at least give football a try but also get these qualities. This is what actually is important and not make it a toxic as they say.

Then how actually people perceive it?

You want to become a champion, but you understand that this is extremely unlikely. Because people actually are rational. They know that actually these people are like minority. We have only two teams out of 68, it’s kind of intuitive dear panel.

But also, they don’t want the people to feel bad. They don’t want to feel bad because obviously they actually are going to set low expectations due to them not wanting to suffer in this way. Therefore, we have incentive both from the people who actually spread it like, the celebrities but also the people themselves.

But also, we stand before you today knowing that we have 1% chance when we actually faced Canada in Double Octos dear panel, I know we had low chances. Please understand this. They don’t prove anything. On their side, we have no glorification therefore no courage, no pride to the public, etc.

Argument 1: Motivation

We motivate individuals to become champions. Why with them, we, actually don’t people try to become champion in this way? Because we know the possibility is low and we get nothing from it. Why? Because we actually get no reward. Why? On two levels.

Firstly, the cup isn’t worth anything.

Because you actually get a piece of medal that has no recognition by anyone, because no one actually cares whether you’re a champion or not. Therefore, this is kind of becomes a piece of metal. Do you want this to be a piece of metal? No, I want to grab it, and I want to hug it in this way.

But also, no matter how competitive I am, you actually are not going to experience any value no matter if I have a personal thing to it. Because I get nothing as I am, no one recognizes that I’m better in this way. I am a social creature when I actually want my superiority, I want people to recognize it. If that wasn’t the case Germany in World War 1 wouldn’t have actually wanted world dominance because they wouldn’t have cared about people recognizing them, it’s kind of intuitive. Therefore, this is the thing.

But also, people actually know the possibility is low like people know that basically there are a lot of people competing. Therefore, there is a low probability but also you know that there are other people who actually have more resources than you like coaches, money etc. But also, you know that basically there are more people who have had more time to prepare in this sort of way. Therefore, if you fail you know that actually there is a really extremely low probability but also you get nothing. Therefore, you actually wouldn’t even try in this way because at the end of the day this is the important thing.

If they want to prove anything, they have to prove irrationality, because I believe people are rational creatures and obviously, they don’t want to actually feel pain therefore they’re not going to believe any of what actually they said.

Then why actually we will outweigh the possibility on our side of the house?

Because pride is important on our side of the house. Biologically we want praise from others because they recognize our praise this is the important part, but also, I want to feel my country to be proud of me which actually won’t happen because obviously
they don’t care in their side of the house. But also, I want to spread my message afterwards. Therefore, everyone because everyone has a cause in this way therefore, I have actually want to actually have an academy afterwards for the disadvantage who actually didn’t have that many possibilities like me. Therefore, the scale tips on our side of the house and now I actively strive and notice, if you are a national champion, you want to also strive for more afterwards, because there is more to achieve. I am basically semi national champion, there is the national champion, but we want to be world champions obviously.

Then impacts:

People learn important life skills because they strive to be a champion.

Because even if you don’t achieve everything you do, determination actually is worth, work ethics, how to lose, teamwork, persuasion, like I’m doing right now. But why is this so important? Because you use this afterwards in your life, because you actually don’t get depressed when your girlfriend like removes you because you actually know how to get past it. But also, you know actually how to work better, therefore might actually get a promotion on my side of the house. But also, better teamwork, therefore actually a more valuable person in the company.

The second thing is, more people find passion.

Because I want to be a champion. Therefore, if I don’t succeed in something I’ll try in something else. Therefore, I can actually get this in sort of way and actually get what I’m actually passionate about.

But thirdly, Champions feel praised if they actually succeed.
Therefore, I feel amazing due to all the explanations as to why people actually want to be recognized in this sort of way.

Argument 2: National Pride

Moving on to national pride. Why actually this actually exists? Because people don’t learn on our side of the house. We have publicity, we have people fans etc. But why actually we feel pride?

Because look, how nations actually are inspired by us. We are the 31st team breaking and everyone in the room knows this and they actually believe that this is possible next year for example. But you wouldn’t feel pride on their side of the house because I don’t get the superiority thing, because actually no one acknowledges it and I’m a social creature. Therefore no one cares.

The impacts are important because I get pride.

Imagine the thing that will happen in Bulgaria community when they actually acknowledges it, the media will go crazy I believe. But also, we actually care about our state more in this sort of way, actually become football champions for this instance. Because we actually now start a believe that our country has some hope in it in this way. We actually know that this is possible because we actually have hope, we actually have something that we are best at.

But thirdly I simply want to spread my messages, like messages are going to be spread far more easily. Because at the end of the day, I will follow something that actually people tell me to do, actually who the champions. Because at the end of the day, they are good people they have given me this good emotion and therefore I should go with them.

Closing

Let me tell you panel, what we did before sitting into this, while getting into this room. We sang songs about national heroes and champions. This is why we are basically the only team who has the heart and the soul to win this final. Please oppose.

Proposition 2nd Speaker: Sophie Hannigan

Opening

It is absolutely true that, it is incredibly rare to have Scotland, a small nation face Bulgaria, another small nation in the final and that perfectly, panel, illustrates the problem. It is that 9 times out of 10 it is the best funded teams who have the most advantages that land in the final, who land with the championship and every time that happens, they get more media attention, more sponsorships flock in, they are interviewed 10 times more than their smaller counterparts. Exactly this structure that has created the rarity, that Bulgaria is so proud of. We are very proud to propose on Scotland.

A couple of themes in this round. I’m going to look at what it looks like for everyone within the competition clashing Miya’s first argument with their argument about motivation. Then I’m going to look at what champions look like and why we think they abuse their power rather than create pride?

Rebuttals 

1. But firstly, let’s deal with their challenges to our setup.

Firstly, I think they use their setup of different levels of champion as their main response to Miya’s first argument, which is to say that people don’t care because they know there are different levels of champions which they’re able to succeed. Two responses to this.

Firstly, the reason we frame this in the way that we do, is we see a distinction between champions and winners, which is to say you can win a competition, but champion is necessarily a level above that. That’s why it demands the accuracy like winning consistency or winning on a higher level.

But second, even if we accept that to be true, we think that the glorification of champion grows with the size, as they themselves accept, which means that when you become a local champion, your focus immediately switches to being a national champion. Because that’s probably the next level on which you compete, which means that no matter where you are in the spectrum you’re always striving upwards unless you’re that international champion. Because the glorification grows exponentially in those scenarios, which means that there still exist the types of comparison that they talk about even if we take them charitably and say there are different frames of champions.

2. The second response then that they use in their setup is “guys don’t worry people are really rational, they understand there is a minority and what this means is that people don’t get worried about becoming it”. A couple of responses to this.

Firstly, it is in fact the rarity that makes it so coveted and what people strive for.

It is the fact that only one team is left standing which makes it something which is exciting to you. Because it lacks attainability. So, you see that rarity and rather than thinking “I might not be able to achieve it”, “wouldn’t it be so fantastic if I did? Because wouldn’t I feel so amazing, get so much love from other people?” Because there is always the chance that you could be that person who breaks through and that’s what makes you strive in those scenarios.

But secondly, there is just a lack of understanding, you’re in the minority.

Because look at the media. They’re publicizing champions everywhere as they rise up all surrounded by you. You see interviews with the people who just won a grand slam or just won a tournament and what that means is, you believe that this is a higher prevalence thing than happens. They say tell you their stories of how it happened. You think they sound kind of like me, that could be me. Because you don’t discuss with the losers because they’re like crying in their hotel room or whatever and the champions are out gloating which self- selects you to believe that being a champion is more attainable than it actually is.

3. The other point to set up then is to try and frame out our second argument by talking about the incentives of champions. They tell you that they spread the virtue of their hard work.

Firstly, they never explain why the uniquely champions work hard and why these matters? Which is to say we tell you that everyone else has worked just as hard as both of us in this competition here. And in fact there are other teams who probably worked harder because they weren’t lucky enough to have a Scottish Debate Institution, set up by our wonderful coaches and what that means is here, it’s actually the champions do what Miya tells you which is say that it was hard work rather than excluding the factors that help them to get there because they want to maximize their own glorification, maximize the extent to which people are impressed by them.

But secondly, champions only glorify their own type of hard work, which is to say in order to say that they have a unique secret to sell to you or to make them impressive and unique in media. They often tell you they had a unique training regiment to what everyone else had. They only sell you one scenario of hard work and often that hard work is about like graph and if you throw up in your training it’s totally fine, you’re not working hard enough and those narrative of graph we think are actively damaging because they fall into the things that Miya talks about like encouraging people to overwork to the point they actively harm themselves.

What I think this means is these points of framing don’t directly engage enough with Miya’s analysis and don’t stand. I think what that means is given we’ve taken away this response about understanding why people are in the minority, Miya’s first argument still stands which is you continue to have those unrealistic expectations and constant comparisons. And the reason this matters so much in the round panel is just on scale which is 99.9% of people in whatever field they are, are not Champions or never feel that they’re Champions enough which is to say the vast majority of people are harmed by this argument in a multitude of ways. That they constantly feel psychologically awful, that they lack self-esteem. So, they don’t enjoy the process. So even if they learn all these team building skills that they talk about, if they hate themselves while they do it, then we don’t see it as inherently valuable to them.

Secondly, people just stop trying and quit and they don’t engage this materially or clash this motivation momentarily or that you try too hard so much that you damage yourself. The things like doping become people are willing to sacrifice themselves for winning which we think is actively harmful. Because 9 times out of 10, it won’t work, and you’ll be left bloodied and broken.

Point of contention 1: Motivation

Let’s then deal with their motivation point. Because I think this is the most direct clash that they try and offer to this argument. They tell you a couple of things about motivation. They tell you that if I don’t see anything I’m unlikely to work hard, because I want that level of like national pride, I want that level of acclaim in order to do it.

Firstly, just because we don’t glorify champions doesn’t mean that there isn’t a reward for winning, i.e. you might see a reward in being in the best debater in the competition because you like debating so much, or you could still get a cash prize for winning. Because it’s not about rewarding winners a bit, but rather the extensive glorification. So maybe you still want to win the money to earn back what you spent on your training. There are still those financial incentives.

But secondly, most people are just still going to participate. Because I hate the characterization that people only participate because they want to win, which is to say we think participation is made toxic by the desire to win but the desire to participate existed before that. So, people participate in sport, and they start playing football because they love playing it with their friends and we think that love is something that’s a positive motivator. When you glorify champions that’s when it toxicifies and we get the people dropping out. This looks like Carlos Alcaraz, in tennis who always tells you that, the reason he plays is because he loves the sport and in fact we would flip and say these people tend to be more successful.

If you join the competition solely because you want to win, that’s a toxic mentality of idolizing one person. Always trying to be like them all the time, of hating yourself for not being as good as them when you fail and those people toxify the competition. Because they’re more likely do things like cheat or try and psych out their opponents. Because they want to win so badly. But what that means is, the delta here if you believe there is any panel, is removing toxic competitors under our side, of improving the integrity of the sport. Because we keep only the people who are positively motivated. Because there’s no inherent value to having more people if you think those people are really damaging to everyone else there.

Point of contention 2: What champions look like and why they abuse their power rather than create pride?

But finally then, I want to deal with that implicit claim here, which is it’s really nice for champions under their side of the house. A couple of responses to why this is true because I think this deals with part of this case and part of the national pride.

one, it probably just never feels as good as you hoped it would feel, which is to say on the outside it looks golden and shiny and you only see these people smiling in photographs and probably that elation when you lift the trophy just doesn’t live up to your hyper imaginative expectations cause you’ve been waiting for that for 10 years. So, if you don’t feel a meant elation, suddenly then it just wasn’t seen as worth it for you.

POI: If you take this cup right there, wouldn’t you feel amazing? Don’t lie please.

Answer: I think I’d feel like pretty good but I don’t think I’d feel good if I’d like spent all night last night prepping and sweating for this or I spent all night trying to like poison Bulgaria’s tea because I didn’t want them to win. I think it’d feel pretty bad right. It would feel good but what feels better is the friends I made along the way and that’s genuinely true.

But secondly, even if you’re a champion who feels happy there is just a terror of falling from grace, which is to say again imposter syndrome. Because all the media characterizations I see of me are immensely positive. So the moments where I feel angry or bad about myself I realize I’m letting my fans down and that leads me to hide the parts of myself that Miya talks about that are incredibly damaging and what that means is it opens up to Miya’s second argument which is to say, when only these positive characterizations are right to the top, that’s when the abuses of power get entrenched.

Because apart from saying athletes have good incentives to work hard, they don’t engage with that material. They have an incentive to look good and that’s very different to not acting badly. We’ve given you the mechanization as to why they are able to get away from acting badly where when they’re in those positions where they know they can act worse. When you’re an actor who can abuse a runner on set and no one will call you out for it, you’ll likely do it. Because the media will always land in your favour. So, all of that analysis means that even if you think champions might feel good for 10 minutes. They’re likely worsen the sport; they use their power to top down entrench a hierarchical system that will just push more people out.

Closing

Panel, it is genuinely about the friends we made along the way and even if we win this, we’re much happier that we’re here with you guys then we lift the trophy. Thank you.

Opposition 2nd speaker: Valentin Katzarov

Opening

Panel, if I believe there is a 1% chance to get 1 million dollars, I will try hard to get it but I will not be disappointed when I don’t get it because I realize it’s a 1% chance. This is the nuance side opposition tells you and side proposition never engages with, right.

Four questions in this speech. Firstly on, will people feel sad? Secondly how this narrative looks like and all the scams that come in the frame. Thirdly, the toxic competition and fourthly, are champions good or bad?

Point of Contention 1: Will people be sad?

Let’s first start with, will people be sad? Firstly, they explain “oh poor people have no ability to participate”.

Panel, we don’t care about that. It’s about them trying, which will lead to getting all the positive qualities, that will help them later on in life. We don’t care if people succeed and we understand reality that most people will not succeed unlike the side of proposition.

But secondly, panel look at your notes they never prove why money is important for you to succeed? Never ever do this, it’s their burden to do it in their speech, also if you try enough, you can get sponsors. This is one more reason than they have given, right.

Then let’s continue with their claim on people who will be sad. Here they say, they will be sad because they’re not the champion and get disappointed and all this sort of way. Panel, you know one person will win. This is how competition work.

They tell you, “Ah you you’re in the minority because you see people all over media”.

Panel, do I believe more what I see here in this room or what I see over media? Normal people know media tends to be manipulated sometimes. Because they have been through fake news, because they have even exposed fake news. I believe much more my eyes that see directly rather than the news, dear panel.

But secondly, notice also due to the glorification you know everyone is trying their hardest and this is a unique reason people will not be disappointed on our side. Because they know that everyone wants this glorification which means that everyone works the hardest which means that even if I work the hardest this doesn’t mean I will necessarily win, and this is what people realize. But once again back to the 1 million example I will still try my hardest even though I know there is a 1% chance to succeed. Great.

Then thirdly, what is the comparative here? Even if you still sad and after afterwards you have tried your hardest and quit. This is taking their best case, quitting and feeling sad. Our impact is better and more important because we stop them from experiencing future failure as much. When you learn determination, when you learn discipline, this means for instance you will try more for your job interview. You will not care that you’re tired, but you will want to get this job and will get this job, and this will not be your failure.

But secondly notice, when you fail you would not take it as hard, as my first speaker explains. Because you are now more used to it, because you have seen that you have failed this time in this sort of particular way. So, notice our impact is much more important. Because they talk about being sad for one failure on one competition, we say we prevent many other failures that will make you sad in the future, that people would have made on their side of the house. So, to the extent that which we prove this, we make people less sad. Because more failures will make you sad for a longer period of time while this one failure will make you sad for a specific period of time that is now. So, if we want to take their metric which we’re not saying we are doing we win. And they give the scam comparative; we impact more people. We impact the same group of people this is not a real comparative. I’ve just explained why we impact them on a bigger scale. So, our comparative is the one that should be taken. Right.

Point of contention 2: How this narrative looks like?

Then let’s continue to the narrative they say a few things here. Firstly, they say the alternative narrative is to work hard.

Notice these narratives are not mutually exclusive. You even say it, champions tell you how hard work is important because they have incentive is to impress you in this sort of particular way or for themselves to not admit this. You admit it. So, they say this is the narrative and then later in their speech they admit these narratives are not mutually exclusive. This is not something you should take in the debate they’re not mutually exclusive.

But secondly, they say champions tell to stop trying and all this.

People are unlikely to stop trying panel, because champions don’t tell you to stop trying because they want you to succeed, they relate to you. They have debated the same rounds that you have debated. They have also lost rounds at debating. They have empathy for you, so they don’t want you to quit because they have faced the same challenges and won’t lie to you in the face in this sort of particular way.

POI: People will never try hard when they have been so demotivated by a culture which tells them that, their happiness is nothing compared to that of the champions. Your side is not one of encouragement, it’s one that tells people they are never good.

Answer: Here is the thing, it’s the motivation that you could become champion. I have explained this a million times.

Point of contention 3: Toxic Competition 

Now let’s continue with, the toxic competition part, right. They tell us this competition will become toxic. I have a few responses to this.

Firstly, I want to say I believe that people should use every legal tactic when they’re doing something. They never explain, why this is something bad? I believe that this is what makes sports interesting, when you can implement everything, you could implement for you to win in this particular way. Otherwise, nobody will be watching sport. Because there will be some people doing things as a hobby, just running around and doing random things, who wants to watch this? Nobody. Then in this sort of particular way this is what makes sports interesting. This what makes people enjoy sports. We believe that this is the reality of the things, right.

Point of contention 4: Are champions good or bad?

Now let’s continue to champions are they good or bad? Firstly, they say there is nobody to hold them accountable.

I want to say that this should not be taken into account, if they don’t explain that they have bad incentives because I don’t care if somebody can hold you accountable if you don’t have bad incentives.

But secondly, people, there are more than one champion. You could get called out by the previous international champion, right and this person has the incentive to do this. Because he loves the game and doesn’t want you to see how he’ll scam other people who play the same game as you because he empathizes with these people because he has been in their same position. So the previous champion can call you out and he has the same qualification, so at that point people will make the best possible decision and decide whether you truly beat your wife, whether you’re truly a scammer, whether you truly do the sort of particular thing, because the glorification counterbalances the other person is also glorified in this sort of particular way right.

Argument 3:  Motivate to do good things.

But then what let’s continue to our last argument on how these people motivate you to do good things. Firstly, I want to say I won’t prove that people listen to him because we’ve kind of already proved this I will simply prove the good incentives of this person.

Notice, how firstly he doesn’t want to damage his reputation by saying problematic things. Here they say, “oh but there is nobody to hold him accountable”. Panel, he doesn’t realize that like, you know that you somebody could call you out. It’s about perception. You don’t want to risk this thing just to say something problematic in this sort of particular way or to sell a fake course when you can sell a real course that actually helps people. You don’t want to take the risk of somebody denying your reputation just because you want to sell a scam course. Because your reputation is what you rely on. This is your fans, this is the people who buy tickets for your games, this is your income. You don’t want to risk this.

But secondly most probably he believes in good things, he believes in helping the poor for instance or he wants to be portrayed in somebody who believes he is good for helping the poor because it’s good for his reputation.

What are the impacts of this? Notice panel, this means more people are likely to get motivated by this person. Because they want to be exactly like him. This means more people are likely to go ahead and donate to charity because this person has reminded him of this and they want to be specifically like this person.

Closing

Panel, if you want people to influence other people in a good way and if you believe that this is the world in which champions are valued and should be valued, vote for us.

Proposition 3rd speaker:  Callum Hendry

Opening

The motivation of individuals is not what matters in this debate, what matters is those who are glorified as champions abuse that possession. They use their influence to damage others. They use their power to hold a grip on the field in which they live. This looks like the ANC using the name of Nelson Mandela to justify the corruption and the continuous blackouts. This looks like in Myanmar [inaudible] using the name of her father to justify the damage and corruption and genocide that she carried out. From the framing we gave you in first, this was not just about sports champions but about all champions political or not. The harms of this are far greater than anything opposition can propose, that is why we win.

Let’s look at three clashes. First of all, on the characterization of this narrative. Second of all on the abuse of power and third of all on motivation.

Clash 1: Characterization of this narrative

First of all, on the characterization of this narrative.

Opposition tell you this narrative is inherently going to be spread well for two reasons. One, that this is done by athletes and second of all that those athletes have good incentives. Let’s dispute each of them.

1. One, that is done by athletes.

Because they never proved that athletes are the one to spread this narrative, they simply assert it. Two things.
One, I just think consumerist capitalists businesses have more capital than athletes to spread this narrative. This looks like co-opting an athlete’s name and saying if you buy our product you’re automatically going to become as good as them. They have more capital expertise and spread in the world to use this narrative and use the athletes name for harm.

But second of all even if it is athlete that’s spreading it, I just think they are constrained. Because if you go on a TV show, you’re constrained by the type of questions that the media ask you. If you’re posting on social media, you have social media managers that manage your reputation. That constrain what you can post. So, if our incentives about these groups are true, even if it’s athletes that are spreading it, they are still constrained and therefore to spread negatively.

2. Secondly, even if it is athletes that spread it, we dispute the fact that they have good incentives. They give you two reasons why athletes are inherently going to spread this narrative well.
a. They tell you it is for their legacy and
b. They tell you, they want to give back to the community.

On a. For their legacy.
What would you rather panel? Would you rather people seeing you as Godlike, as absolutely amazing because it is only the Gods that stay in history. It is only the Gods that are remembered, or would you want people to see you as flawed, as insufficient, as not as amazing as you’re glorified? You would much rather the one on the Gods. Therefore, you’re not going to talk about your challenges, you’re not going to be talking about your flaws because you do not want people to see you in that way.

b. On giving back to your community.
I think the best way to give back to your community internally you think is to emphasize your success. It is not to go on media and say here are all the barriers that you face, you’re never going to get that success. It was very rare that I did it. It was to emphasize the success in the first place. It was to tell them it was possible that inherently means not focusing on the flaws but focusing on your success. Therefore, all our narrative characterization is true.

They give you a push back in O2, that the counter factual is not hard work because it’s not mutually exclusive.

But yes, it is. Because the people spreading this narrative; athletes, media businesses all have a trade-off to make. They all have a limited amount of time and resources. Do you focus on the hard work and the process, or do you focus on the successes and the outcome? Therefore, since a trade-off, we see the counterfactual is on hard work that is not mutually exclusive. What this means is all their main pushes to our case of motivation fall out of the debate but when we get onto that clash, we’ll be over charitable and say even if their characterization is true, how we still win.

Clash 2: The abuse of power.

On the second clash then, on the abuse of power. Their second argument on national pride, which is pretty under analysed but even if we accept it as true, simply feeds into this cause. We tell you, when there is greater national pride and support for an athlete that goes beyond rationality and is something intense that grows from nationalism. That is when you get a lack of accountability. That is when fans fail to call you out because they believe you’re standing for your country because they do not want to lose that nationalism.

Their argument fed into ours. What did we tell you? We told you that champions are unable to be held to account for two reasons.
a. They are painted as perfect and
b. Any attempts to counter is seen as jealousy. Because everything is competitive in environment.

They tell you that, “oh you’re going to be called out by the previous champion”. Two problems.
One. If our analysis is true for one champion, it is true for majority of champions. Therefore, they never explain why the previous champion is likely to not have participated in the same scandal? Why the previous successor is not also likely have to done that doping? Therefore, they don’t want to call you out cause that implicates themselves.

But second of all it doesn’t respond to the analysis. Cause, we tell you why even if there is a call out, that call out doesn’t reach the fans. That call out doesn’t damage that person’s popularity and their platform that still exist even if there is a call out.

The second thing we tell you is, it’s incredibly likely that athletes are going to participate in these scandals and to participate in this abuse of horror. They give you two responses. First of all, they simply assert that there is no bad incentive. Two problems.

One. Not responsive. This is assertive.

But second of all, it simply proves there a greater likelihood under our side of the house. We tell you that every single human has innate desires, every single human has some negative feelings in part inside of them. We tell you when you give athletes the opportunity to exercise this with their power, with their influence, with the capital that they now have they’re more likely to do it. We still win on likelihood.

Secondly, they tell you that athletes don’t want to damage their reputation.

Again, it wasn’t responsive. Cause we tell you the fans are going to support them either way. There’s a mob mentality. You in inherently believe that your athlete, that your politician is perfect, is Godlike, that they can never be wrong. So even if someone is telling you to the contrary, you’re never going to believe them.

The impact of this was clear. There’s going to be more scandals such as sexual abuse but also in politics this is incredibly damaging. It means that the corrupt past clings on to power. It means that democracy is never allowed to flourish. The impact of this is far worse than motivation. In their second, they tell you at worse they say oh people get more skills.
I think the impact of this clash is far more important than that.

Clash 3: Motivation

Let’s go to motivation and win on their only pass to victory. So even if we at, worst wash this out, we still win this debate. They tell you that they’re likely to get more motivation under their side of the house. Few problems with this.

First of all, Sophie tells you the reason you’re motivated to participate in sports is not because of winning but is because you care about it, because you have a passion for that sport and it was never about winning.

Secondly, she tells you, it is unlikely to feel good under their side of the house when you win because

a. it is incredibly hollow. At the point to which it is glorified, the actual success is never going to live up to that glorified unrealistic image, but

b. I want to add on to this there’s likely to be a mass vast amount of pressure, success is never going to be able to overtake. If you have to work every single night until very late at night, if you feel like anytime, you make a mistake you’re letting many people down, success is never enough.

But third of all, they tell you, pride and we are inherently social creatures.

But we tell you, you can still get recognition from those around you, your family and friends are still going to be proud of you no matter what. That was not the glorification of champions we tell you that recognition and success and applause from your family and friends was actually more important cause those are the ones around you. Those are the ones who care about, those are the ones who interact with more. At that point, I don’t care if the rest of the world sees me, I only care about those around them.

Let’s move on to our case. We tell you why they’re likely to decrease motivation under their of the house. Sophie’s already dealt with their only response when they tell you oh there are different levels of athlete. The impact of this was pretty clear.

One. You simply feel terrible on the inside.

But second of all, you’re either going to simply stop participating in that sport or activity or you’re going to try too much. They tell you, you’re unlikely to stop, that is fine.

I’m fine with the second impact on burnout and trying too much. Cause we tell you that is what is most important in this clash. If you’re burnt out, you’re never able to get the skills they say. Because you have to take time of that sport or activity to focus on your mental health or because you become physically unwell, because you have pushed yourself into the ground. Burnout was the most important thing in the motivation clash. Their arguments can be true, but we push it to the point to which it is harmful. They never explain why people stop working when it becomes too much at the point to which their whole analysis was predicated on people working hard.

Closing

At that point we are best for the champions We were also best for society who are held under the oppressive grip. So proud to propose.

Opposition 3rd speaker: Tanya Anastasova

Opening

Recognition, this is the thing that all team opposition is striving for. This is the thing that we characterize as the core incentive and the core motivating factor, as the catalyst that makes you want to strive to be great, that makes you want to strive to actually perceive the thing that you’re doing, not just do it as a hobby.

Few things in this speech. First on direct engagement with the mischaracterization on props behalf and secondly on the clash of how people get accountability and why we should win this debate.

Clash 1: Mischaracterization

Panel, this is a motion about a narrative. Something that they failed to explain in all of their speeches except for maybe some late framing in third, is that in order to prove an argument why people will perceive it in a toxic way, you need to prove two things. First, you need to prove why the actor that is spreading this narrative has an incentive to display it in a toxic manner? And secondly why the people that are going to perceive this narrative meaning the general public is going to see it in a negative way?

Why is this so important? This means, that after explain why our original framing is enough to defeat theirs but also rebut their reasons means that they cannot access their mechanization in their first argument, which is all about “You only see the good things, they lie to you that it is only hard work, you glorify this person, you don’t see anything because you have unrealistic expectations.”

First of all, on how people will perceive it, even if it’s spread in in an extremely terrible way?

Why won’t you blame yourself for not being Ronaldo? Notice, you know that there’s a million different factors that contribute to his success. Even if he doesn’t go out of his way to say, “hey I pay 1 million dollars for example, for insurance, for my health and I have private massages every two hours.” You know that this is probably the case. Because you know that in life, in every single other aspect of life, people have privilege, and this is not isolated from the motion. This motion is not happening in a bubble, where this is the only narrative that exists. For example, even if this narrative doesn’t exist, you know that the rich kid in your class has better grades because it can pay for private lessons. You know that the guy when your work is more likely to get that promotion because he has better connections, because he has a Harvard degree and you don’t. You see this sort of competition and this sort of unfairness in all aspects of your life.

So, what does this mean? This means that when you see Ronaldo, you don’t expect to be like him because you have this reality check in your head. Because you’re an actual human being and not an idiot, so you don’t expect this from yourself.

Clash 2: Accountability

But also, two. If he doesn’t expose himself, there are other actors that are likely to expose his privilege and for example, if he’s using steroids.

This is the case because yes, he wants to make himself look good but there are other actors that want to make him seem bad like the opposing team. They’re likely to try to undermine him and say no he’s only successful because he has this money, because he has this other things that people can’t have and what we believe on our side of the house is actually that the publicity that you get uniquely with glorification allows you to have a scene to expose these sort of people and this is this is actually the precise reason as to why these people won’t be scandalous, these people won’t abuse their girlfriends; these people won’t try to cheat in a competition. Because now the reputation matters much more, now they are a public figure on our side of the house. Now they have to be careful what they do. It’s not about oh me being good at the sport and this being enough for me to win and to get the rewards. This is not enough, we have more accountability on our side of the house. This ultimately destroys their second argument, but I engage more with it later.

But also, why would this not be displayed in a bad manner? The only characterization that we hear from them comes in third; I believe that this is pretty late for framing. So, I’ll just give rebuttal to that.

Why does this athlete have an incentive to say, for example that he came from a privilege actor or emphasize on the difficulties and the hardships that he had in order to get there? He wants to make his achievement mean more.

Sure, the other side can say you hide bad things, because you want to look good, but this doesn’t mean anything. I believe that what looks good is a hero story. It’s a story of a person that came from nothing and is actually a hero now and why is this the case? Because the more difficult it was to get there, the more impressive it is. The more rare the occasion is that Bulgaria is speaking on a WSDC final, the more value people find it because it’s probably not going to happen anytime soon. So, this means that this person is trying to emphasize because this is what looks good not just them “oh I don’t want to look bad.”

But secondly, we believe that this at least have an incentive to look relatable.

Sure, if they only want to sell t-shirt, we believe that the way to do this is to look relatable and by doing so, showing the hardships that you have, making yourself look human so people like you and engage with you more. This is the reason why even the Jenners are doing publicity stunts – shopping to seem more human like, in order for their businesses to continue to strive and their careers to continue. But see, we explain personal incentives of these athletes and to spread the message, their purpose in life. For example, this messaging like determination is their faith that literally saved their lives and kept them going in times when it was difficult.

But even if you don’t buy any of these things, these people don’t want to be hated.

No matter how terrible of a person you are, you want to portray yourself as an understanding and good person. Because when people feel bad while watching your interview, they’re probably not going to buy your T-shirt, they’re probably not going to support you. But also, even if that’s not the case the media is not going to allow you to present yourself in the terrible way because they also care about the content of the footage that is being presented.

POI: Ronaldo has a literal money, monetary incentive to tell you that his success comes from his Nick boots which he’s being paid to advertise. Champions have no incentive to tell you that the reasons for their success are multifaceted. They have an incentive to lie.

Answer: Dear Panel, I believe you’re not an idiot. If Ronaldo tells you that, he’s only good at soccer due to his sneakers I don’t think you’re going to trust him. They never explain such things, again this narrative doesn’t exist in a bubble. There are a million other narratives. People are not idiots.

Rebuttal

But I want to call out a contradiction in in their team line sort of case. They say, people don’t tell you to work hard, they just tell you to be a champion on opposition side of the house but also, these athletes lie to you that it is hard work.

We believe that even under this premise which we do not concede to, people again believe that hard work is the way in the end. They continue to push which is again enough of a motivator on our side of the house.

Clash 3: How non-champion feels?

So, when the most important clash in this debate is, how do people that are not champions feel? We believe that we are able to win in this clash simply because the mechanization that they offer is that “oh people blame themselves” and then give a bunch of illustrations.

We say, no these people want to internally perceive this way. We also offer you external factors that contribute to the way that people perceive this. We tell you why you’re going to be able to connect with your community more in our second argument about nationalism. We also provide you with practical help that you’re going to have as an athlete under our side of the house, for example charities that give you the ability to do sport, that give you the precondition to be great.

But even if you don’t buy into any of that, we tell you, you have the ability to learn how to lose which will either transition into you trying another thing and you being semi good at it or maybe just learning how to deal with life because life is difficult. Because at the end of the day, we are the ones that make people feel good and they can say you still have rewards but if this was enough, the motion is symmetric. People will be jealous of the monetary price; people will be jealous of the cup itself. So again, this is a mitigation of the motion, not of team opposition.

Closing

So dear panel, if you believe that opposition is the side in this debate that defends champions, that defends how people feel, that is able to carefully and analytically analyse how people perceive this narrative, how people are willing to interact with it, you should vote for a very easy opposition today.