we started the week with 183 teams from six countries now after 13 Rounds of debate involving both prepared and impromptu motions we have one motion left to debate however before our final motion is brought before us we should introduce the teams that will help us explore this final topic proposing the motion is West Los Angeles [Applause] Violet and on the other side of the aisle the opposition hoer Crossroads [Applause] gold these two teams will be examining the following motion this house supports a people's Democratic right to secede let me state that again this house supports a people's Democratic right to secede at this point I would like to step uh step aside and proposing the motion I invite the SP first Speaker from West Los Angeles violet [Applause] hi everyone we'd like to start with some thank yous from our team first we would like to thank the national speech and debate Association and our Arizona host for this tournament this tournament is the culmination of years of practice hard work and education in this activity and as grateful as we are to be here in this final round stage we are even more grateful to have the opportunity to participate in a community as enriching as the one the nsda has nurtured this year we were lucky to have such an incredible support network on our team in particular the team moms we had this year James's mom Jenny and his grandparents Audrey's mom Janice and her aunt Payton Brandon's wife cat and my own Mom Diana this incredible crew of amazing women kept us fed energized and are largely responsible for us being here this afternoon we can never thank them enough as West Los Angeles Violet we are very proud to thank our coach Brandon batham who is just about the most generous patient kind tenacious and selfless coach we could have asked for thank you Brandon for your endless humor and sarcasm that really made this experience everything we could have hoped for with that we also have two incredible teammates James and Audrey who are not on the stage with us today but we're also hoping to thank quite a few people James would like to thank his mother for everything she does and for letting him get here he would also like to thank his grandparents and aunts Carol Chong and April Miller for their constant support he wants to thank meline Maddox Walker and Laura Novak for their support he would also like to thank his coach Brandon and tia without them he would definitely not be here he would like to thank West Lake High School and his debate team for their encouragement he thanks his teammates on West Los Angeles viot as well Audrey would like to thank her mother father sister first and foremost for always believing in her and supporting her she would also like to thank her aunt p and Mrs hang and Pastor David for prayer for her she wants to thank her coaches Mr alad and Brandon as well as Dr Rubio for sending her to Nationals she wants to thank and express her gratitude for Raina Aster and cirin for always helping her out in debate and finally she wants to take her teammates B on West LA and on Fullerton she couldn't have done this without you for my own thank yous firstly I'd like to thank my mom and my dad who have been so deeply supportive of all of my dreams one of which was getting to this stage my younger sister Mickey you inspire me and everyone around you daily and I can't forget the most supportive grandparents aunts and uncles anyone could have asked for I love you so much thank you to my coaches at Nova 42 Coach Murray coach Mike and Coach Ted who have helped me from day one of my debate Journey my advisers and mentors at lanatta High School Mr valises Mr Lively Mr Cardinal Mr Sullivan and Dr Hernandez thank you for your daily inspiration and guidance Alex would like to thank his mom who has been his Rock and source of emotional support in and love for 17 years the most hardworking dedicated committed day in and day out mom in the world and has sacrificed everything in her life for him his mom without whom Alex would be absolutely nothing he'd like to thank some of his best friends back home Orin Luke Jack Ian both jackon Max and Zoe he would also like to thank Team USA this year who has been like a found family for him with whom he has felt more loved and at home than he ever has sju Oli anva Sophia Vin Kira Eric Anish Diane and Roberto Mika would like to thank her parents first and foremost for their constant support and encouragement throughout the past 18 years she could have accomplished any of what she has without their unwavering faith in her she would also like to thank every single member of burbank's high school specian debate team for making the team a true family for the past four years especially Alexis stelia and Edna who made all six hours of this road trip here so fun thank you to Brandon for letting her Bass the weekend every morning and finally she'd like to thank all of the West LA violets me Alex Audrey and James who she's only known for a few months but know she has a lifelong bond with lastly we would like to thank the greater World schools debate community at this tournament and throughout this season we have felt the positive spirit of competitiveness and collaboration that continues to flourish in the world's competitive circuit from the larger than life world schools debate bedrock in America that is Texas to the Fierce and robust competitors we find on the international circuit like our friends here from Singapore China Mexico Canada Taiwan and Ghana our community has acted like a wetstone to us sharpening and empowering us to be better and more effective Debaters it is to that community that we say thank you this round is for you secession is not an act of rebellion but a proclamation of autonomy a declaration that a people's aspirations cannot be contained within the confines of a Rich's status quo as we witness millions of people suffer worldwide from the shackles of Oppression abuse and cultural disconnect We Stand by their right to break their chains free thus we are so incredibly proud to propose the motion this house supports a people's Democratic right to succeed what can you expect in this speech firstly some top level notes on framing to set up this debate for you and secondly two substantive arguments from proposition side of the house with that a few key framing points to start firstly what necessarily is a Dem Democratic right we would tell you that a right is inherent to a person by virtue of them being human Democratic rights exist within a Democratic Society it is within that context that we interpret this motion to further understand this we would urge you to consider other examples of democratic rights including the right to dissent protest and vote for one's leaders second note on framing though what do we need to prove to you to win this debate no th burden is to establish that there is indeed a legitimate right for people to succeed grounded in principles of self-determination democracy and human rights thus on our side of the house we establish the principle and demonstrate the advantages of recognizing the right to suceed panel we do not need to demonstrate that the right to suceed should be executed in all situations consequentially that is to say we do not need to defend the unreasonable use of the right to seced and are not obligated to provide a detailed plan for how secession would be carried out in every specific case third and final not on framing though opposition must meet a prerequisite burden in order to even enter this debate in the first place why is this recognize that democracies functionally allow people to decide what they want to produce democratically legitimate conclusions so in the instance that a people want a secession opposition must provide a robust justification as to why that decision was democratically illegitimate in the first place that was a prerequisite burden they would need they needed to address before furthering any other sort of AR mentation with that let's move into our first two substantive arguments our first substantive is the principle of self-determination the thesis of this argument is as follows people have an intrinsic inable right to self-determination and on a motion that asks us to debate if we would support the right to seced we think that fundamentally requires an analysis of why there exists a principal justification for secession three key layers of analysis within this argument then firstly on consent when people enter contracts to form governments they consent to being ruled and to being subjected to the conditions of things like citizenship and laws crucially though in the same way that consenting a single time to something does not mean that you consent to that thing indefinitely secession represents the capacity for individuals to resend their consent from a specific government the alternative on their side of the house though looks like secession groups being perpetually subjugated under a broad overarching government that they can never remove themselves from so this is just like the right that you should have to quit your job if you feel like you're being mistreated or underpaid for instance South Sudan grew wary of the human rights abuses and exploitation that did occur in Sudan so they suceeded to escape that oppression second note here though is on autonomy when your personhood and existence are infringed upon you always have the principal right to defend yourself that is to say secession enables the agency to stop infringement of your rights note that secession is entirely consistent with the Bedrock theory of democracy that if a people will something to be done it must be so when you democratically vote to suceed that was principally analogous with voting for any other action in other respects the Core Genesis of humanity is an individual's ability to act as a moral agent and engage with the world in a way that is autonomous crucially this self-determination is a tenant of both individual autonomy and Collective autonomy which is to say that singular people are principally justified in exercising their right to autonomy by voting for secession but a secession state would also be inherently valid in asserting its self-determination as an independent one thirdly though on principal retribution the broad reason why people succeed is that they are fundamentally dissatisfied with their current conditions and this breaks down into three cases one some level of Oppression or Injustice was waged against them whether it be a historical grievance or current ethnic suppression two they believe the state has failed them in providing the B basic requirements and conditions for life which is to say that they live in economic destitution are subjugated to mass incarceration without trial or violently threatened by their own nation's military three they are experiencing some form of cultural disconnect that they do not associate it with the collective history or Mutual identity of the nation that they feel as if they do not resonate with their flag or national tradition but in all cases secession meant retribution whether it be for actively oppressive wrongs on of the government or historical disconnects and quashing of identity what were the impacts of this argument firstly this principle operates at a higher level that is to say this argument should be independent and a priority of any consideration of the Practical secondly by upholding the sanctity of consent secession recognizes the supremacy of individual sovereignty over the coercive powers of the state it amplifies the voice of the individual allowing them to exercise their moral agency and shape their own destiny and fettered by the arbitrary constraints of a centralized Authority before I introduce our second substantive argument I can take a point we would note that individual solvency should not be the end goal of a democracy at the point where democracy is about Community we would tell you that the Democratic right to take any sort of vote and take an action from that vote would be something that was principally justified in such like people are deciding to do things and preserve their autonomy in that matter let's move in our second substantive argument which is the fundamental right seed and how that is better for all the thesis of this argument is that in times of Injustice secessions crucially ensure better conditions on both the individual and Collective level that explains the Practical justification for supporting the right to suceed there are three key layers of analysis under this argument one to characterize the injustices that serve as a catalyst for secession political abuses of power institutional discrimination human rights abuses so on and so forth all of these violations of fundamental rights are motivations for groups to succeed secondly secession provides a peaceful mechanism for resolving conflicts preventing violence so when a group within a state feels marginalized or oppressed secession can be a means of preventing civil unrest ethnic tensions and armed conflicts thirdly even if secession fails in our very worst case a Devolution of powers within the state occurs the central government gradually transfers his power to the local government this is because attempted secession creates an over 10 window effect which is to say that individuals worldviews are increasingly adoptive of the values and beliefs they they witness so for instance Scottish independence was originally seen as IR rational but now after strong discussions of secession it is something that about half of the population supports bottom line here is simple op's best ground still comes below our worst ground ultimately when session occurs there was a twofold impact one dissatisfied groups can peacefully split from the parent nation and reduce the chances of ethnic conflict and civil unrest but two even if secession fails the very nature of seceding is presented as a new radical as shown with the Overton window effect that presents the idea of self- autonomy for the separating body as something more modern and reasonable allowing for further gains in the future in the tapestry of Nations let us weave a thread of self-determination allowing communities to unshackle themselves from the chains of Oppression and Injustice it was on this basis we were incredibly proud to propose [Applause] the chair would like to thank the proposition for their perspective on this motion but I am certain that that is not the only perspective that is out here I now invite the first Speaker for the opposition to present their [Applause] view all right uh before I begin team HOA Crossroads would like to extend a few thank yous uh before we start speaking so first thank you to the National speech debate Association as well as the Phoenix Mesa area for letting us be here this week uh this week has been an amazing experience for everyone involved and we are just so thankful uh that we have been able to have it second we would like to all thank our uh parents for Endless years of support in our pursuit of speech and debate thank you also to the Indiana debate Community for not only fruitful competition but support every single Saturday thank you to JD Ferris row of BBU Jesuit High School Parker McMillan of Carmel High School Linda and Michael lenford of Avon High School and especially Genie Malone of Cathedral High scho school for building our Debaters up and supporting the team lastly the team also wants to thank all of The Advocates working tirelessly to fight the recent onslaught of homophobia and transphobia in Indiana thank you for reminding us of the importance of our event not only Within These Walls but in our communities all right uh with that I will go ahead and begin from the pages of History to the Contemporary world we have had a magnitude of voices calling out against the injustices in their worlds and fighting to be heard but it is because we uplift peace and Order over violent extremism that we are so proud to stand in opposition today in this speech just three things first offering some reputation of the propositions case that they provide you in their first speech second offering some pieces of framework to guide today's debate and lastly going through the opposition's first two substantive arguments my partner Caroline will present our third so first right off the bat in their uh Speech the proposition gives you in their framework that they don't need practical impacts if they can say that uh principally having people uh with the right to seced looks better in their world we would tell us that if they can't tell us what happens in their world if they can't lay out the Practical impacts of their world we would be able to win this debate because we show you what practically happens in our world and why that is better and why that is preferred now moving on to their first substance of argument the principle of self-determination they tell you that people join governments they consent to these governments uh these governmental ideas and the uh and the government's uh ideas of citizenship towards them but we would like to say that because people leave Democratic societies often leave to rebel against it their points of secession ensuring peace and ensuring better conditions don't really stand we would say practically in our world a lot of secession has caused violence a lot of secession has caused war and we would tell you that their points about secession leading to more don't really stand because at the point where in our world we have seen secession lead to large amounts of violence we would say that they can't simply Fiat and say because secession is good for democracy it doesn't lead to violence that doesn't stand they paint a really optimistic picture of why people leave as well they say people leave because they don't feel hurt in their democracies they say people leave because they don't like the governments that they are in and we would say this is true some of the time but a lot of the time people leave a nation because of ethnic differences they leave a nation because of historical uh differences they don't leave Nations all the time because they feel that their democracies are threatened or that their rights are threatened we would tell you that they are painting an optimistic picture we are painting a realistic picture of what secession actually looks like now moving on to their second substantive argument that saying secession ensures better conditions for the people in them we would tell you that they are again mischaracterizing why people secede at the point where a lot of people are seceding for ethnic differences in their countries and because they feel that they are ethnically different than the rest of their Nation we would tell you that a lot of secession leads to war it leads to things like famine in these countries and it leads to worse conditions very different than what the proposition would have you believe they say we also say that if we uh pass something that helps a small amount of people we would rather have something that helps the majority of people in a world for example if we passed a law that helped a small amount of people this is not at Great and preferred at the point where it hurts the majority and at the point where it hurts most people we will get into that more in our argument now moving on to framework two pieces here first we would characterize the success and functionality of a democratic right by its ability to uphold democracy at large we would say that in the long term if a right hurts democratic practices the immediate values of that right should be outweighed by the ultimate loss of democracy that would ensue and this right is no longer inherently a democratic right secondarily we would say that the alternative to democratically voting for secession looks like negotiation between people and governments we say this happens in our world because there are times when secession is valued by both times by both sides and in these times secession can be achieved unanimously however we would argue that a democratic right to CCE does not look like this at the point where it would only require one side needed to secede obviously those who are seceding now moving on to our first substantive argument social contract the thesis of this argument is that secession as an idea absent any practical impacts fundamentally violates the social contract and thus is not a democratic right so why is this two layers here first we would tell you that secession fundamentally disrupts the social contract at the point where it treats Democratic rights as though they are a math equation secession often times will cause nation states to react in ways that violate the Democratic rights of other individuals in that nation in order to cope with the seceding state it does not matter if 52% of a nation state wants to secced if this is going to violate 48% of individual rights in any Democratic Society no Democratic right can be predicated on the harms of other people's access to democracy second even if you don't buy this majority argument we would tell you that feeding undemocratic Notions of secession that often happen is bad we would say that people seceding from democratic nations are seceding from democratic ideals and is thus principally regrettable so when the proposition tells you that their world happens only in democracies people only suede in democracies and a democratic rights are only insured in democracies we would tell you when people succeed they are inherently going against these democratic values and principles now our second substantive argument secession is not always just the thesis of this argument is that very minutely secession does not always have a desirable impact long term however at the point where we see most session being based on factors such as historical and ethnic differences people would suceed on these metrics when given the right yet their new nation would be hurt in the long term so where do we think secession tends to happen we think that on a fundamental level secession is more likely to occur in more politically and or economic area unstable areas c eastor c Cyprus C Western Sahara however you would seem to disagree opposition indicts the session as violent panel even if self-defense is violent that would not negate your right to that we would tell you that at the point where proposition continuously says that they value the quality of life we would value people's ability to live in a safe area we would value people's ability to live in an area where there is not active warfare happening and at the point where a large amount of secession leads to this Warfare we tell you the opposition world is preferred if we look at the metrics of quality of life that proposition continues to tell you matter now here that the proposition can't only look at more relatively stable places such as Catalonia and such as Taiwan and give you examples of why secession works as a whole because secession only works in stable places if at all we think that it would be ultimately detrimental for relatively unstable Nations to suceed and we believe this on a few levels so let's get into the layers of analysis here first we would say that it is the moral obligation of this house to safeguard the well-being and prosperity of all citizens what this means is that it will be morally unjust to support the Democratic right to secede at the point where by seceding the minority group committing the secession is being benefited and the majority population will face detriments we actually see this in the case of Catalonia at the point that Catalonia is one of the largest contributors to Spain's GDP if it succeeds this will yield maybe potential benefits for Catalonia but the overall impact would be a net negative as the economy and population of Spain would suffer this will almost definitely look like instability on the part of both the original nation and the nation that is seceding this brings us nicely into our second layer of analysis which is instability we see this instability on two accounts first political and second economic at the point in which we see an unstable Nation succeed this house additionally sees the exasperation of political instabilities this stems from international relations as international support lies with the original Nation over the suceeding one in the case of unstable Nations this means that because both pre-established embassies and past presidents still remain with a progator in the case of somala land a region that gained autonomy from Somalia it garnered no international support as Somalia the original country had both embassies and relations with global bodies such as the United States and the United Nations this has the pratic impact of Li limiting a country's International interactions namely trade a region seceding from a bigger one is going to lose alliances which will hurt their economy second looking at polit po politics we would see that at the point where an unstable Nation seced this house observes economic debilitation this comes from aformentioned political isolation as a new nation lacks access to other bodies it additionally loses access to these bodies when it comes to trade trade and exports being an important source of economic fuel for unstable Nations once again look at somala land the vast majority of its economics come from international trade and so in a world which it secedes and loses access to its political allies that give it trade this squanders the vast majority of its economic capacity and for these reasons I could not be more proud to oppose today thank [Applause] you now that both sides have laid out their perspectives and their viewpoints I would like to invite the proposition second speaker to come forward and continue their side [Applause] secession is not an act of rebellion but rather a proclamation of autonomy a declaration that a people's aspirations cannot be contained within the confines of a rigid status quo a status quo where the state is a tyrant where it can tax imprison and punish its people that was only conscionable if we can vote for who wields those instruments of unlimited violence in the first place but for the moral Muslims in the Philippines for the balistan in Pakistan and countless historically disenfranchised communities victimized to State repression they never once consented to their oppression and even if they did the government was the one who violated those terms to begin with in that instance we think it is perfectly principally legitimate to opt out of social contracts in the very first place on those grounds extremely proud to propose a couple of things I want to do in this speech firstly just some quick reputation of opposition case material secondly rebuilding some of the arguments that Cammy brings to INF first before finally introducing our third and final substantive argument okay let's start with some reputation then the very first thing they tell you in framing Is that ah on our side of the house we're going to get things like negotiations because apparently these structurally oppressive governments are likely to reach out and behave like Mother Teresa against these subjugated communities it was really unclear how they were actually going to do this in the first place what kinds of incentives really existed to begin with and it was also incredibly unclear what this looked like in the first place what is a negotiation between minorities who are fundamentally stripped of their rights versus majoritarian parties who can strip them of those rights in the first place do they come to a table together do they Shake hands and form agreements it was really unclear what this even looked like second thing I want to mention though is on their first substantive argument of quote disrupting social contracts again we say things like consent can be revoked you opted into that contract in the first place by the way in a lot of instances minority communities don't necessarily do that but even if they did opt into it now because the government broke the terms of that agreement because they are not actually fulfilling their Duty and obligation to distribute resources in a way that is good to actually protect you and like guarantee you the rights that you wanted as a citizen you are now legally the same way you would be with actual contracts allowed to back out of those and disrupt those very contracts we thought that was principally justified second substan they brought to you was on how secession was not always just because of things like instability they say ah we should Safeguard the prosperity of all citizens so if a minority group benefits like Catalonia the majority is harmed that was wrong first of all we told you about the principle of historical retribution we told you that on a practical level if we cannot fulfill and Safeguard everyone on either side of the house which group should we PR prioritize it should be the most vulnerable it should be the individuals who don't actually have the mechanisms or the agency or autonomy to safeguard themselves those are the individuals we should be prioritizing that is the B very simple way that answers their argument the second thing I want to meend to you I want to not notion to you is that they tell you that succession movements are unlikely to succeed and that essentially they're going to be very very unstable note that first a right to secede is probably principally justifiable and thus independent of any of the Practical harms that they're going to fear Monger secondly note that we support weakening the power of things like Imperial state who are most likely to be impacted by secessionist movements thirdly even if op claims that most benevolent states are negatively impacted in these cases we think a democratic right to suceed is accompanied by things like meaningful and long-running negotiations on our side of the house between the affected parties to limit any negative effects this means that transitions are not Rapid or sudden or suddenly unstable and anticipated consequences can probably be addressed cooperation is actually likely to increase on our side within regions between secessionist states and their former unions when secessionist States have increased autonomy when they control over their own natural resources and when they have competitive advantages that spur things like economic exchange and cooperation between the two parties without grievances of disenfranchisement crucially that secession state is now also enabled politically to form their own alliances to form alliances with countries that they previously did not have access to because of their parent Nation structurally stopping that we would support things like that we would support things like International funding like recognition we think that's inherent to the phrase this house supports in the motion which is to say that we not only principally support that right and we would actually back it on a moral level but we would also support it as a house in general we would also support it as an International Community with things like recognition in the UN but also practically with things like funding and support I'll take you we would say that at the point where they have characterized these governments as like evil and awful they have to show you why those same governments on their side of the house are suddenly going to engage in this benevolent conversation first of all it did not matter whether those governments wanted to engage and benevolent conversation with us at all What mattered was the principal right for these people to leave places that they are fundamentally being oppressed in What mattered was that they were able to like conglomerate and actually form their own governances and it didn't matter if the majority government hated that or that they didn't want to talk to us or if they wanted to isolate us that was not something we were concerned with the second thing I want to mention though is that all of their reputation from opposition first is contingent on a single argument this gesticulating about war and violence yet it's highly unclear how war and violence actually happens they don't really mechanize this we would tell you on the Practical matters issue that we are not debating whether for instance like practical matters or principal matters are the only consideration in the round we say both probably have a stake but we've given you enough weighing in the first eight minutes and in my second speech we're going to continue to do so as to why the principle needs to come a priority for instance what is some of that weighing we would tell you analogously we don't decide or determine whether an election is legitimate after we see the results of that election and after we think about whether we individually agree with the results of that election in the first place we would say there was a principal initial a priority prerogative to guarantee those rights to vote in the very first place even if it does result in policies that we might not actually like to begin with second thing they tell us in terms of reputation was that ah sometimes people are going to leave because of ethnic differences your side characterizes this as very very wrong we agree that sometimes people leave because of ethnic differences or a fundamental disconnect with their National Collective identity we thought that was another instance of things like suppression by the government because the government is forcing them to inhere and become hom homogeneous with that national identity in the very first place they had the principal right to probably suceed from that final thing they say again direct quote from opposition I thought was interesting was let's not pass policies that help small groups of people if it hurts the majority oh okay so let's not do reforms of things like the criminal justice system which are going to hurt yes a small group of people living in districts and neighborhoods that have mass incarceration let's not end things like aapi violence in the United States because it's only going to help a small group of people I don't think this line of reasoning was very valid from them final thing I want to do then is very very simple third substantive argument on why secession strategically weakens Imperial States the thesis of this argument is that secession was an instrument to actively deconstruct and weaken Bad actors we told you Imperial states are characterized by first expansionist Ambitions where a central ruling power extends its authority over various territories often distant from the diverse people they control second these states exercise political economic and Military dominance over their subject territories employing hard and soft strategies like colonization annexation and the imposition of their systems on other states third Imperial States typically seek to establish control over resources over trade routes and strategic locations aiming to enhance their own power and influence at the expense of others often stealing territory for resources or strategy that implicitly answers their economic stability argument because the comparative they need to defend on their side of the house is actually far worse how does secession weaken Imperial States then two mechanisms one when a territory secedes it takes with it valuable resources assets and industries the loss of these resources can have a detrimental impact on the economy of the larger Union leading to things like decreased productivity and financial instability we turn that argument on our side second the secession of a territory may result in the loss of strategic Geographic barriers that previously contributed to things like the overall security and geopolitical strategy of the Union the division of military resources intelligence sharing and coordination of Defense efforts can also become far more complex diminishing the Collective Strength to respond effectively to security challenges because our side of the house is the only one that holds the key to these prisons very proud to propose [Applause] as we continue our conversation and our examination of this topic I would like to ask the opposition speaker number two to come [Applause] forward let's break the chain free this is a sentiment used by side proposition over and over again during their case and especially during their first speech it is because we on opposition understand that secession from a country does not only not break the chains free but make them stronger and because we value providing people with mechanisms for actually successful democratic nations that we are so proud to oppose in this speech I'm just going to be going over a few things first I'll be going over few brief notes on frame before diving into all of their substantive arguments and then going back to defend our own before finally going back and stating our third and final substantive argument so let's jump straight into frame the first thing I want to talk about is this idea of practicality and princip principal arguments that we have on both sides of the house during their framework in the proposition first speech they say that you should always prefer the principal over the practical but we would fundamentally disagree with this we would say you judge an actions morality based on how it impact communities and how it impacts the people around you in this instance we have to look at practical examples that we provide to you on side opposition in order to determine whether or not secession is good or bad therefore whether or not you judges should sign your ballot for opposition or proposition we think that you should look at practicality with just an even lens as principle that you do in this round today the second thing I want to talk about was how about our counter plan during our counter plan we talk about how it's not a ridiculous idea about cooperation and negotiation we understand that it's not always susceptible and doesn't always work in a lot of cases but it is a better alternative than War would be which make no mistake judges the proposition would be supporting in this world today we understand that any kind of secession if it is not characterized as extremely peaceful would lead to some sort of conflict would lead to some sort of War if not initially then later when tensions between those two places rise to a level that we cannot contain anymore next thing I want to talk about was there substanti argument because I think it brms in pretty well so let's talk about the principal arguments at hand today there's substantive one of self-determination this clashes directly with our first substantive argument regarding the social contract we understand this fundamental idea of consent within self-determination but we also understand that idea of consent goes both ways when we're talking about people in a civilization and especially people in a democracy we understand that consent is granted from a person to their country when they gain citizenship to that country but we also understand that person gives consent to every other person in that Nation to act in a democratic fashion we understand that consent can be resed by an individual but it cannot be rescinded on behalf of someone else and that is what we are seeing onside proposition in today's round we are seeing that every single time that they say that consent can be resented by an individual on behalf of someone else they are subjecting an individual who does not want the secession may not want a civil war or any kind of conflict at all to every single harm and every single detriment they list within the first substan of argument of Oppression economic destitution and self or cultural disconnect we see that these issues that are that are born because of cultural succession or country succession are non-unique because they still apply to people in that country who did not want that secession in the first place by this they are inherently violating the social contract which we lay out to you in our principal argument is so important in today's debate we understand pral principle and practical arguments are both important and we think we win on a principal level as well as practical with that being said let's move on to more of the Practical arguments which includes their substantive two about better conditions being assured within this they talk about the idea of self- autonomy essentially saying that this self- autonomy promotes better games and we would say the exact same argument that we just stated that self-autonomy is not self- autonomy anymore when it infringes on other people's rights this inherently violates a social contract that we have told you is so important in to base debate these the side opposition is not accounting for the people who do not want to succeed while side opposition does that being said I want to move into the third substantive argument talking about weaking weakening Imperial States we understand that on our side of the house we are not supporting Imperial States in any kind of way and we do not prefer a world that oppress that oppresses and acts violently towards other countries simply because they own them we do not think this kind of state should be supported on either side of the house especially not on opposition we understand that the that the proposition in today's debate loses on a couple different fronts one they don't account for the fact that other people are living in these nations that they are so ready to divide and succumb to conflict and War Two they do not understand that many of the different Imperial Nations they talk about are doing the oppression are doing the oppression and are doing the violence that they say they do not support and any means whatsoever we see that we have to acknowledge every single person's Democratic right if we are to act morally in a society which we propose in today's world and which is why you judges should vote on side opposition in every single side when it comes to The Clash presented by the proposition with that being said I want to move a bit into our third substantive argument today so let's talk about quality of life and safety because I think this runs a little bit more into their first substantive arguments too directly clashing with it the thesis of this argument is that secession can exasperate the problems by perpetrating violence in both cases of secession and even unsuccessful secession there are two layers on this the first one is that when a country secedes it is expected that confusion and Chaos May ensue as with the formation of any entirely new structure of government economics and Society the problem Ur occurs when the SE seceded country is unsustainable for life therefore poses no benefit for its own people let's look at past president of secession to see exactly what this looks like following secession of South Sudan from Sudan in 2011 which resulted in violent protests economic turmoil leading to food storages and ravaging poverty making South Sudan no longer a country but a place to free from this is not a oneoff case but rather a larger example of the heavily militarized and stringent nature behind newly acquired Independence that we see behind secession as a concept most cases of secession are revolved around ethnic and religious ideas as my first Speaker Liam pointed out to you therefore issues of economics and politics that create physical quality of life for people are split before I go into the second layer of analysis on that I'd love to take a point panel if there's ethnic violence in a state it is true that splitting those groups does create stability so two notes on this first we will note that not all ethnic conflicts have to do with the government but rather the people we do not always see the government necessarily oppressing the people but rather the majority over the minority we do not see the government being held responsible at this point number two when it comes to different reasons of ethnic violations against a country or against a group of people we understand the secession is not the answer because it simply will lead to more violence and more chaos in that country we see no world in which this can be supported by side proposition or by anyone on this stage today that being said let me move into our second layer of analysis because even if you don't buy that secession leads to violence and poor quality of life we can see that even the threat of secession can lead to collapse at the point where people rise up against a state and just threaten to succeed secede the dangersous these individuals subject themselves to are fatal additionally is important to note that due to the wording of the motion today this is an issue of the people versus the state we understand this to be an unequal fight violence that a state can enact is so much more potent as they have money and resources to wipe out entire populations if they are persuaded to do so we do not think that a democratic right would lead to a fundamental lack of autonomy when it comes to power at the point where autonomy is essential to democracy for these reason judges we see no ballot except in the opposition thank you [Applause] after four speeches one might assume that this topic has been thoroughly examined however the chair suspects that both sides still have comments that they would like to make and therefore we'll call the third proposition speaker forward [Applause] [Applause] to the deny the right to suceed is to deny the very essence of democracy by imprisoning communities within borders that stifle their aspirations and shackle their dreams because the opposition is upholding a stance that is principally unjust and because the proposition seeks to uphold these fundamental values we are so proud to continue to propose just two courses of action in this speech namely reviewing the framing and then reviewing the two key Clash questions that this debate has boiled down to so first let's review some points on framing firstly I'd like to characterize what a democratic right necessarily is we told you all the way back in our first speech that a right is inherent to a person and grounded in self-determination democracy and fundamental rights with this we would tell you that the principle would come a priori to the Practical as we analyze whether this is a right and that our side only needed to prove that this is a legitimate right not that it would be consequentially successful in every single case secondly what alternatives do people have if not secession Alex made it very clear to you in his speech why negotiations are unlikely to happen without succession so when the opposition comes up here and tries to tell us that in their world they're accessing all of the possible potential benefits of sucession through negotiations and table talks this is simply not the case because first it is the case that even when every other AV when when secession is attempted that means that every other Avenue of peacefulness of acquiring peace and stability has already been attempted as we told you in our first speech secession is often a last resort type of event uh attempt but secondly even if in their world that is the case secession provides a state to act with actual power to negotiate into the future while in their case there is no negotiating body that is present with secession we have a unified front in this case with that being said let's move into the two key Clash questions that this debate has boiled down to and explain why exactly your vote is with the proposition so first we have to look at which side actually helps seceding individuals because as we tell you in our very first speech people only suced when their fundamental rights have been violated their inalienable rights as as guaranted to them by the government at that point the proposition is the only side actively helping these individuals the only only measure of solvency that they provide for helping these individuals when their rights have been violated is potential negotiations but at the point in which they don't a provide any examples of this having successfully happened in the past without negot without seccession and B they don't actually characterize and mechanize how exactly you can come to tabl talks how you can negotiate with an oppressive imperialistic power that is holding you down and marginalizing you we don't believe that this is true in their case but I sense descend we would tell you that you look at all of the examples we've provided to you of when people attempt to seced not because their democracy is being threatened but simply because of ethnic and religious differences within that region sure so at the point at which the only response that the opposition has to like our entire point about secession as a whole is providing examples of unsuccessful secessions in the past we would tell you this is fundamentally flawed and that they're not mechanizing as to why every single secession necessarily has to fail and if you do want to play this game of like example tennis we can give you many examples of our own Norway seceded from Sweden in 1905 Montenegro seceded from Serbia in 2006 T more Lee seceded from Indonesia in 2002 these are all examples of successful secessions in the [Applause] past at that point contrary to anything that they tell you not all secessions necessarily have to result in outright violence and War another example of a perfectly peaceful and stable secession that has lasted in the long term and had good effects is look to our example of the peaceful secession of Czechoslovakia in 1993 in the short term there was there was minimal cost conflict but in the long term there was inro stability because of the fact that they were able to succeed in the first place but then we also tell you that even if at their absolute highest ground secession itself fails the Devolution of powers that follows is still better than the than before the situation that happened before because local governments have more autonomy and more power than they ever had before this has never been touched on by the opposition don't let them bring it up in the op blog here we tell you very very clearly that at their highest ground if secession itself fails and these people don't gain true true Independence they still have more autonomy in that the governments are often likely to give them more rights more individual freedoms more local governments and more ability to actually operate as they wish this is this is simply not going to happen in their world finally they try to characterize secessions as being constantly unsuccessful but at the point at which they fail to explain why this happens we see that it's really not um a constant in their world with that being said let's move into the second and most important Clash question in this debate which is the principal debate here is where the proposition absolutely secures your ballot we told you all the way back in PM an hour ago that our principle of self-determination operates independent of any consideration of the Practical that is to say that upholding this principle which is a basic tenant of democracy comes a priority to any practical impacts on either side this means even on appositions absolute highest ground you are still where you're buying all the Practical harms they try to tell us you are still voting for The Proposition on the the basis of our principal argument of self-determination a democracy is only as good as the people within it and we fundamentally protect the right in inable rights of people to to determine their own sense of being so then let's look back to the key three key facets within this point first we told you that democra democracies operate on the basis of consent namely the consent of the people actually being governed so their only response here was that they CLA secession fundamentally robs and violates the social contract because the minority benefits at the cost of the majority but the key VI the key failure they have here is an understanding that the social contract itself dictates that people have the right to replace an authoritarian government that violates their own inable rights and the fundamental promises that they made to them in the first place so on their own ground of the social contract we are also winning at the point at which they have conceded our characterization of secessions only happening when these rights have been violated in the first place but then second we told you that people have the autonomy to defend themselves and to prevent the infringement of these rights this has never been touched upon and has never been actually proven as to why by negotiations they're able to actually achieve this autonomy and prevent the future infringement of Rights finally we told you that the principle of Retribution is inherent to secession because people only secede when these rights have been fundamentally violated and they don't explain how negotiations can actually make up the ground in bringing back these rights but then also on the principal level as Alex told you in his speech colonized groups and people are principally owed the right to be able to secede from the nations of their imperialistic powers and break the shackles of a legacy of undeniable oppression sucession weakens Imperial States and prevents further oppression and abuses of the seceding party this crucially in this crucially incites Regional cooperations with neighboring states but it also means that the imperial power itself the one that was oppressing these marginalized groups that want to suceed in the first place is no longer so powerful that it can continue its oppressive oppressive P practices but then we would also tell you very clearly on the same point of the principle that at the point at which they're failing to actually achieve these and attain these unimal rights and provide people with the ability to maintain them in the long term that is at the point of at which they're losing this debate any negative impact they tell you come with secession such as economic damages more conflict all of that a we tell you it does not happen in all cases look to the examples and the mechanizations which we provided you but second even at their highest ground if these happen at the point in which they have a principal right to attempt secession and attempt to attain their rights that is at the point the Flames of democracy flicker brightest when we Empower individuals to vote not just on their leaders but on the very borders that Define their political existence it is on this basis that we are so incredibly proud to [Applause] propose now that the chair's suspicion that we still had pieces to add to this conversation have been confirmed I would like to invite a member of the loyal opposition forward to continue the discussion opposition speaker number [Applause] three violent extremism this is a phrase you've heard a lot thrown out you from the debate from both sides of the house today it's because we'd like to thank site proposition for doing all the work to show you why oppressive governments will never functionally not oppress their people that we are so proud to stand on the opposition side of today's house so in this speech just two things first let's go through a brief clarification on framework before moving into the three key Clash questions that describe to you why you're signing your ballot in confidence for opposition every single time so what's the clarification we need to make on framework we think there's been a fundamental mischaracterization throughout the debate about what a democratic right looks like I want you to look at the first note of framing that we have given you in today's debate that has gone largely uncontested by side proposition we tell you that at the point where a democratic right would impede on the ability of individuals to access democracy in the future that is no longer a democratic rights as it loses its prerequisite status we think at the point where they haven't clashed with this they have to engage with us a lot more on the actual impact level to show you how all of the democratic backsliding that comes out of their side of the house is mitigated to the point that still maintains this as a prerequisite for democracy but even then the second thing I think we tell you on framework is that proposition three gets up here and tells you that secession is only ever a last resort this is one too late in the debate and we would also tell you that it is fundamentally underdeveloped we have given you many examples as why people will leave their countries without accessing other means first if you are being fundamentally oppressed by a government who will never listen to you why are you trying to negotiate in the first place on their side of the house per the warranting that they provided you we think if they're warranting about negotiation stands they'll point about it being a last resort Falls in today's debate but then what is the first key Clash question that describes why we're winning today's debate let's understand why opposition is winning the principal I think this comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be within a nation state we would tell you that the social contract in a nation state is inherently harmful at the point where that social contract is applied to all individuals I think that we would have to do a lot more in-depth analysis for you to vote for side proposition on the matter of the social contract so why is that we would win the social contract at the point where individuals in a social contract do not get to violate the Liberties of other at the sake of their own consent if if individuals in the social contract can violate the Liberties of other for themselves there is no structure by which we actually preserve democracy democracy is not preserved at the point where Society is so individualistic that there is no belief in the Greater Community or greater incentive we tell you this out of the one and they don't respond to it but even if we don't buy that we tell you we're winning on the principal level of argumentation at the point where we very clearly show you that this doesn't function as a prerequisite we very clearly are stating to you that an individual's consent cannot come at the sake of the majority we are telling you that at the point where individuals seceding from a state are harming those who still live in that state even if their state is fine that is a fundamental misrepresentation of what democracy looks like and should not be preferred but then let's talk about some practical benefits on the second key Clash question of today's debate so why are we winning like the Practical argument here I think there's three reasons so first I think propositions case tension really comes out at the point of practical benefits remember what proposition speaker one and two tell you they tell you that these governments are so corrupt so evil so deplorable that they will never work with the minorities that they will never give them their rights but then they tell you in the last part of the two and the three that those same governments are going to give those Nations things when they suceed those same governments aren't going to rebel against those minorities as they have done while they are in the their home country we think that's a fundamental misrepresentation of what it actually means when secession happens we think that if this is true none of their practical impacts in the rounds stand today you will note here that at the point where their only principal prerequisite Point has been disproven they cannot win this debate but before I get into the second key reason that we're winning the practicals on Democracy I'll take it panel note that when governments devolve their powers it's out of necessity in response to secession not benevolence let's talk about this I think this is going to come up a little bit more in our third Clash question but just to touch on this we would tell you that at the point where these individuals are so much more powerful than the seceding States because they are being continuously characterized as minority groups by side proposition those people do not have to be benevolent or devolve their powers to those individuals there is no clear incentive on the proposition side of the house for this to happen but the second key reason that we're winning the Practical benefit of democracy are because even if you buy that those Nations living in a state that has succeeded have all of their Democratic rights fulfilled have a system that works for them we would tell you the conditions for individuals living in that nation state get far worse remember what we tell you in our second substantive argument governments don't take kindly to being rebelled against specifically the authoritarian ones that proposition is so desperate to talk about in today's debate at the point where that is true we would tell you that fundamentally even if the minorities that get out are fine we are concerned about the minorities that are still living in that country and the treatment that they face we think this is a key part on the flow that proposition has just under engaged but then the third reason we're winning practical benefits comes kind of at this Apex where we're believing the fact that these individuals are always minorities we tell you in the one in the two and it goes completely unresponded to that there are many instances where these individuals are not always oppressed minorities at the point where we have proven to you that Minority status that oppression is not inherent to secession we would tell you that all of their impacting about how it is democratically necessary goes out the window we would win the principle of democracy on this point but we win it on a practical level because individuals in these nation states are no longer actually upholding democracy there is no guarantee that they are going to solve for that backsliding so then what's the third key Clash question let's talk about when secession doesn't work because I think gotten really hung up on this in the last minute of the day's debate I think that when secession doesn't work this looks like an authoritarian government as proposition characterizes to you rebelling against the people who challenge them it is so intuitive that authoritarian governments are not going to take kindly to being objected on we would tell you that at the point where that is true you would reference our third sub substantive argument about the conditions in these states when Nations don't get to leave when we are talking about about a greater conversation in terms of democracy we have an obligation not just to look at the group that is the most idealistic for us if one country is facing such major backsliding at the result of another group of people trying to gain their Democratic rights we would tell you there is probably a better way to ensure democracy that is only accessible on the opposition side of the house so why do we win this point we would tell you that even if Devolution of powers happens an authoritarian state will just devolve its authoritarianism into small factions we don't think this is preferable in any realm very clearly but we would also note that all of the links we have given you in our third substantive have gone completely dropped that tell you about how these people are rebelled against internally if they don't actually get to leave hurting their democracy in the long run if we assume they get their democracy we're still worried about the Democracy of the individuals staying in the state could not be more proud to oppose [Applause] as we finalize this discussion among friends I invite the reply speaker from side opposition I've never really been scared of planes I know a lot of people are air travel was really scary in some senses but never been me but recently when I flew on a plane from Indiana to Arizona to be here on the stage in front of you today I noticed a few really weird things first thing was that on our plane into the desert of Arizona the mountains the dry land there was a Lifeboat to help us if a plane crashed I wasn't really sure about that I was thinking how exactly would that help us because I think a Lifeboat would actually just make things worse if you were to be in a plane crash situation but the reality is that that Lifeboat was there but we just didn't have to use it and any chance that we did have to use it it would be helpful but not on my personal flight because I knew it would make things worse it is because we value providing people with mechanisms for successful democratic nations in not life rafts in a desert that we are so proud to oppose today in this speech I'm just going to be doing one thing I'll be characterizing both the world of the proposition and the opposition and telling our panel of Judges today exactly why you you promote the opposition in every single case so let's look at this a little bit closely let's look at the proposition world the first thing I want to talk about are the economic social and fatal harms they propose on their side of the house there is no dissent within this debate today about the impact of these harms how it would have on civilians and how especially it would have on people who did not want this conflict to begin with make no mistake judge what they are proposing today is war any kind of secession from a country is not going to be peaceful as those two groups obviously do not agree with each other there is going to be conflict there is going to be violence and there is going to be death this is unavoidable on the proposition side of the house we regularly acknowledge that war is one of the worst things humans have ever had to face so why would we live in a world in any world where a world governing body not only condones it but supports it next moving on to the idea of the social contract in the proposition world we have this lack of a social contract as my partner Claire pointed out during her third speech and I pointed out during my second speech you have no IDE you cannot take away consent from someone else the same way you can withdraw consent for yourself this is not how a social contract Works in a democracy the proposition is proposing in today's debate that people should be able to do this that they should be able to inflict their will upon people who do not feel the same way we fundamentally disagree with this judges the third thing I want to talk about looks like in the world of the proposition was the idea of a threat of an event this was addressed within my second speech and my partner Claire brought it up to little to no rebuttal reputation we have to look at the fact that this motion today entails governments versus the people we understand this is an uneven fight governments have more resources resources money and Military to prevent to go against the people so we know that this fight against government and people will not end well for the people as M clir pointed out the proposition spends so much time telling you exactly why all governments are corrupt so at the point where all governments are corrupt even the threat of Suess would end up with more deaths more violence and more fatality against people who do not only not deserve it but did not ask for it we cannot have this on this side of the house now moving over let's look at the opposition side of the house on the opposition we promote the principles of democracy in every single sense of the word we have to have an equal vote an equal say in everyone of what is happening during their country and which they have citizenship to we promote this on the opposition side of the house while the proposition puts this in the ground next look at the idea of secession still being a right this has been addressed back and forth throughout today but I want to make this very clear judges secession is still a right just as much as a Lifeboat on an airplane is a right we have this for us we have this as a principle of our democracy but that does not mean in any case that a house a world governing body should be promoting its use in fact we should be condoning it we are not taking away rights on the opposition side of the house but instead we are given putting forth AE a prevention measure for conflict from happening and promote peace in all countries all over the world thank [Applause] you the chair thanks the loyal opposition for steadfastly defending their Viewpoint and would like to invite the reply speaker for proposition to come forward and conclude our discussion today [Applause] we began this debate with a very simple premise that the freedom of political Association inhered in the human condition that it was essential we could choose which political communities we belong to because it had an incredible amount of influence over our lives controlled by a state Monopoly on violence you were forced to pay taxes forced to follow laws because that state exerted violence on you and if you were a minority that violence was likely to be used in arbitrary ways especially under the authoritarian regimes that they so wanted to place this debate under but even if it wasn't State Monopoly on violence was only justifi if you consented to that state in the first place and if you at any point in time had the option to opt out if you no longer consented you should be able to leave on that basis very proud to propose couple of things I want to note here in this reply the easiest place you can propose was on the principal argument look we were consistent since the very first minute of Cam speech to the very last minute of mine we never said practical arguments have no ground in the round there are four things here number one on self-determination things like agency autonomy and your right to existence crucially this had nothing to do with consent or arguing or agreeing to social contracts to begin with I think the fact that the only way they can frame and answer this principle in oplock very very late to solidify that by the way was restrained by government contracts and Mand that is the only lens through which they understood this principle I think that's indicative of the fact that they missed the boat of it to begin with that things like self-determination were inalienable and had nothing to do with whether or not you were a citizen of a government and had nothing to do with what kind of system you lived in the first place the second thing we told you was on retribution we told you that when governments and Imperial regimes have gained their power and legitimacy with plunder colonialism and violence that was the third substantive the most vulnerable and really only stakeholder that mattered was what the violated group wanted to do that was weighing done in DPM thirdly let's have the consent debate there are two push backs here number one they say ah but you also consent to others in a country whatever that means first of all those others are probably partly responsible for your oppression partly responsible for your ethnic disconnect for your ethnic disillusionment or trying to force ethnic homogeneity which is the exact example they try to keep claiming is also a reason for seceding depriving those individuals of legitimacy to begin with when they break the contract first you can too but also our analysis operated above theirs because we told you consent can fundamentally be revoked regardless of whether or not you have consented to other people to begin with just because you consent once does not mean next week it automatically applies especially it's true in the interim if the terms of your consent have changed if in that week the terms of the thing that you agreed to in the first place have altered then that consent is no longer valid the second push back they had is ah let's look at the Practical let's look at the empirical examples first of all they're the only ones saying practical debate is all that matters in this debate and frankly they're right the motion says this house as a democratic people would succeed oh wait sorry it says this house supports a people's Democratic right to secede to begin with we can play example tennis too but this debate operated on the principle and beliefs motion of the level that's why we were proud to win on that argument their third and final push back was violence and War look this really only got explained in the oplock their 01 was just like war and violence happens on your side there was no explanation for it whatsoever then they try to claim that negotiations somehow happen on their side however we told you that governments know they will be repressed and can only work through them in the first place secondly we told you that 100% of the leverage the power Etc is going to be going to the government so if you're rebellious you then turn to things like war and conflict under their side of the house we told you that because secession movements don't just rise out of thin air this argument didn't really work secondly the reason why we do is because we have supported their secession things like International funding Global recognition NGO Aid worldwide pressure that looks like connections and sanctions and trade alliances that was also what supports meant in the motion and we characterize that since the very very first speech we believed that the rejection of secession is oppression and that is why we propose [Applause]