Monday, December 17, 2012

This house hails the end of the world - opening speeches

First proposing speech
Ladies and gentlemen, I am so glad that you are all here today because things are getting quite serious. As you all know, Friday 21. December is coming soon and according to the Mayan calendar, the world is about to end. But please, don't look so concerned, I can tell you that there is no reason to worry about. At least, in a way. Our beloved Earth is not going to be hit by a meteor nor to be jeopardized by a giant solar storm. And these cranky theories are not the kind of things that we are going to discuss today. For those who remain suspicious, I advise you to have a look on the NASA's website on which all these questions are scientifically treated. Nevertheless, if you give it a lot of thought, OUR world is actually about to end. And to be a bit more accurate, OUR world has already initiated the destruction of the established order. Let's face the truth, the world that we are living in, the world that we are used to, is clearly getting out of control.  Friday 21. December is simply a symbolic date for us to realize the end of an old era and the advent of a new one. [Continues below the fold.]
LV

First opposing speech
Ladies and gentlemen thank you for reading this debate and supporting us. We oppose the idea of hailing the end of the world. First, let me explain what the end of the world means before explaining why we are against this idea. The subject is made of three important words: “hails”, “end” and “world”. “Hail” shows us that the question is not whether Friday will be the end of the world or not, but it is about the usefulness such a thing as an end of the world. Then, “end” suggests a break, and “world”, refers to an end affecting lots of people and something we would think as everlasting, as the world. Moreover, the expression “the end of the world” implies a violent end, not the one of a fairy tale. So the question is: should we welcome a huge break, a violent one, changing our lives, or can we keep living in the actual one? [Continues below the fold.]
LM

First proposing speech
Ladies and gentlemen, I am so glad that you are all here today because things are getting quite serious. As you all know, Friday 21. December is coming soon and according to the Mayan calendar, the world is about to end. But please, don't look so concerned, I can tell you that there is no reason to worry about. At least, in a way. Our beloved Earth is not going to be hit by a meteor nor to be jeopardized by a giant solar storm. And these cranky theories are not the kind of things that we are going to discuss today. For those who remain suspicious, I advise you to have a look on the NASA's website on which all these questions are scientifically treated. Nevertheless, if you give it a lot of thought, OUR world is actually about to end. And to be a bit more accurate, OUR world has already initiated the destruction of the established order. Let's face the truth, the world that we are living in, the world that we are used to, is clearly getting out of control.  Friday 21. December is simply a symbolic date for us to realize the end of an old era and the advent of a new one.  

If you carefully look back in history, you would immediately realize that our world has always been continually on the move and that major breaks with the past and revival are parts of its heritage. Indeed mankind needs dramatic events, destructive or creative ones, to radically change. Discoveries, inventions, wars, revolutions, natural disasters have been responsible for the end of the world as well as the rebirth of a new one over and over again. I am pretty sure that even the most hypocritical opposition could not agree more. But to make sure that I have made myself persuasive enough, let's go on with a couple of relevant examples and salient events.  In 1942, the discovery of the New World put an end to the eurocentric vision of the world of the age ; in 1991, a new international order characterised by the supremacy of the United States emerged after the end of the Cold War ; United Nations and European Union were initiated in the wake of the Second World War ; in the 19th century, the industrial revolution wrought profound changes in lifestyles ; the process of decolonization entailed the severing of the bonds of domination and exploitation as well as the emergence of new powers ; the rapid growth of information and communication technologies of the new millennium rewrote the rules of economy, society, culture, education and lifestyle. I think that it is now safe to assume that our world has already ended many times. I can't wait to hear what the opposition has to say about that. 

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I want you to pay attention to the news. I think that it is the best way for us to prove that the end of the old world is imminent. In 2001, the United States realized that they were not invincible in the wake of the World Trade Center bombings ; the subprime crisis of 2008 which developed into the worst global financial and economic crisis for decades triggered a collective questioning ; nowadays the rise of China and the rest of Asia is appropriately compared to the discovery of the New World because their strong growth is currently challenging the U.S. hegemony. But that is not all. In Arab countries, the youth is currently struggling for their rights and throughout the western world, thousands of people are fighting for the legalization of gay marriage.  We are living at a time of radical changes and the only solution for the world to enter a new era of its history is to move on and to carry through to the end every single battle, revolution and innovation that have been initiated. Our world is about to end and a new page is about to open. Thank you. 
LV         

First opposing speech 
Ladies and gentlemen thank you for reading this debate and supporting us. We oppose the idea of hailing the end of the world. First, let me explain what the end of the world means before explaining why we are against this idea. The subject is made of three important words: “hails”, “end” and “world”. “Hail” shows us that the question is not whether Friday will be the end of the world or not, but it is about the usefulness such a thing as an end of the world. Then, “end” suggests a break, and “world”, refers to an end affecting lots of people and something we would think as everlasting, as the world. Moreover, the expression “the end of the world” implies a violent end, not the one of a fairy tale. So the question is: should we welcome a huge break, a violent one, changing our lives, or can we keep living in the actual one? 

My first argument will be a simple one: why hail the end of the world? It would imply huge changes through pain and violence, and these changes may not necessarily be good ones! Men will always stay men and thus will never be perfect! However one thing is sure, end and changes mean fragility. So what if one man decided to use this time of weaknesses to take over the power and dominate the others? It has already been seen with Franco for example and his coup d’état in Spain in 1936. The proposing team may say that it worked with the French revolution, but back then the French revolution was led by enlightened ideas, today no solution seems to prevail 

Then, my other argument is why change? Our living conditions have never been better than today. Churchill said it: “Democracy is the worst government except for the others”. It illustrates clearly what I am talking about, we have never had anything better yet, so let’s keep things that way! Who can say our lives are atrocious? Our society is evolving step by step, why making a clean state of it? We have more and more free time, live longer lives, and the most important: this is spreading all over the world. People are fighting every day over defending the human rights of others. Slavery has been banned, men and women tend to an equality… We are not improving fast, but we are! If nothing was moving I could agree with you, but it is not! There are always inequalities and things we should be ashamed of, but less every day. If the end of the world means accelerating this by breaking every reference we have, it will only be a direct way to the past. 

My last words will be about theories. Hundreds of years ago, Hobbs’ theory was that we cannot live without a superior entity, guiding and controlling us. Another philosopher, Lock, thought that we should leave freely. Today we have more freedom than what we have had for centuries. We can speak freely, more and more things are being allowed and discussed (for example same-sex marriage). But there are also the most powerful governments we have ever seen. They collect more money than ever through taxes, they have weapon able to destroy cities… There are also authority forces more powerful, there are a lot fewer infractions than before. This evolution which satisfies both Lock’s and Hobbs’ theories shows that despite constant critics, the world evolves in the right direction and keep going day after day. To wish the end of the world can only be inanity.
LM

7 comments:

  1. Though I think some issues are clearly identified in each speech (freedom, prosperity, human rights), I'm a little disappointed by a certain lack of vision in each speech.

    For example, First Prop cites lessons from the past to justify extending a welcome to future revolutions. But such upheavals can also lead to cataclysmic regressions (China's cultural revolution, Stalinism, etc.) so how can we be confident in the way events may turn out in the future? Also, I regret an absence of diagnosis of the alleged ills of the current world, the type of major change that would eliminate them, and the type of alternative reality that could be put into place. When I read (not here) that "another world is possible" I always want to know which. That's why I speak of lack of vision.

    For Opening Opp, I find a certain complacency about the way things are evolving. If we've "never had it so good" as today, why do so many people feel the opposite? If reformist politics is so efficient, why are more and more people turning to the extremes? Try telling the story of incremental progress to Greeks, Spaniards and other nationalities caught up in the current crisis, who've seen their living standards drop significantly with very little hope of future recovery. Even accepting for the sake of argument that living conditions have never been better than today's, how can we be sure of tomorrow's, with a rapidly expanding global population all demanding those same living conditions?

    These are some of the questions I hope the following speeches will elucidate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You can't wait to hear what the opposition has to say about that ?
     
    This could not have been more desirable because there is honestly much to say.
     
    First of all, thank you for making our job here so easy.
     
    Before I start to react at your argumentation, I would like to precise the scope of this week's debate. The debate is not about wether the world will actually end or not and especially not wether it will change !
    The question is : Is mankind irredeemable ? Does the only remaining hope necessarly require violent changes and human sacrifices ?

    It appears to me that you confuse major radical historical breaks that can be described as ends of the (old) world with discoveries of tools and lives' improvements that have not changed in depth our wills and ideas.
    Would you also include the discovery of the fire, the contraception, google and facebook in your ends of the world ?
    Long story short, I find most of your examples highly irrelevant (not to mention that the discovery of the New World took place in 1492 not in 1942) and therefore, as far as I am concerned your argumentation is poor : once you have shown that every little improvement or invention corresponds to a particular end of the world, it becomes to easy to conclude that an end of the world is something we should welcome.
    I strongly recommend you to read our first opposing speech to clarify what is really meant by "end of the world".
     
    However, you probably chose a very wide definition of the end of the world on purpose to cover up your lack of arguments but we won't let that happen so easily.
     
    If I had to summarize your speech, it would go like this : "There have been so many ends of the world in the past centuries. One less or one more, what's the matter especially in a world that is constantly changing?"
    Can't you see that you're actually making our point ? If the world adapts itself as you describe it in your last paragraph, why in the world would we hail its end ?
    Crises trigger questioning and new visions of the mechanics that rule our financial, economic and political systems. The United Nations and the European Union were created to prevent our world from new slaughters, the United States understood that they were not the only ones in the world in 2001, arab countries tend to develop a better equality of rights. You are explaining us that the nonsense of our actual world is slowly disappearing and you stubbornly defend the end of the world… I have only one word left for you : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv49bC5xGVY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear IB,

      Let me remind you that we are debating a serious and topical subject. Of course, humour is always welcome but it is more appreciated when it reveals salient points with strong arguments behind it. In a way, I would like to congratulate you because you had the courage to rescue to first opposer who was very unlucky with his examples and his theories. On the other hand, your response was not better than his and the only relevant example that you could quote was a song by Robbie Williams and Gary Barlow ! Your team apparently cannnot rely on topical, cultural or historical arguments and need Youtube or Wikipedia to think by itself. It is true that we made an error of typography on the date 1492, but what is the more shameful : made such a mistake or quoting argument like Franco’s regime to speak about the end of times ? Let us, please, heighten a little bit this debate. A translation for you would be to stop looking for other youtube video singing or anything else.

      What is critical in the first opposing speech is a clear lack of argument and of examples to support them. Apparently, the first opposer did not Wonder about the meaning of the motion : It is true, Mr IB, that, the first opposer tried to define the main words, but I am sorry saying « end » means « a break », is not enough for me. Albert Camus, the french philosopher who fought against a possible power of destruction that could bring the « end of the world » said «misnamed things is to add to the misery of the world ». I would like to particularly dwell on the definition of a word that has been spoiled. « Hail ». Don’t you remember the three witches in Macbeth welcoming the Lord of Evil saying « All hail, Macbeth, hail to thee » (It is true that Shakespeare is much more hard to understand than Robbie Williams). Yes the witches are welcoming the one who is destroying the world because they are ready to deal with it. Here is my point. We are not welcoming the violence, the destruction and the « human sacrifice » as the first opposer said, because the end of the world is not necessary violent. Many subversive historical changes have been peaceful : I do not remember that Gutenberg was abused when he creates the first printing machine which changed the face of the world, and ended the Old world. But, even though all end of world were violent, hailing them does not mean accepting them and being masochist. We reject violence and destruction as you do. For us, to hail the end of the world is to think about manking, society of this time and to consider the future. As apparently, Mr IB loves songs, it would be something like « Hopping for the best, but exepcting the worst » that is Forever Young by Alphaville. To conlude, we promote to really think about what is happening nowadays and what predicts the future. Yes we hail the end of the world in the sens that we do not flee behind the possibility of it but we try to face and tackle this ordeal.

      Delete
    2. (Continued from above)

      However, I did not say that you did not think also, about it, but the thing is that you just présent a very naïve perception of our world and by the first opposing speech, let an impression of candor, like, because you are scared about the end, you refuse to see what is not working. You are like Candide, in the french philosophic Voltaire’s novel, who is not questionning the world because he only remembers what Pangloss told him « all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds ». Mr IB, maybe this last example is a little too hard for you. What I wanted to say, is that the first opposer seems to be like OSS 117 in this passage : (0 :18) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3jMEhHS2K0. If everybody reacts like this, the world will be ruled by chaos. People needs to consider the end of the world to avoid it or to change it. The example of Hobbs and Locke clearly certifies my last point (sorry for it) : it is because such men thought about society, mankind and power that it ends the Old Regime and triggred the changes of Enlightnement. If these brillant men had just said what you said in your opposing speech : « Our living condition have never been better than today », I am scared that the world « progress » would be no longer in the dictionnary. At the time of its decline, the Roman Empire had never been as rich as i twas, but twenty years later, it faced what we can really called « the end of the world » for it.

      All this, to ask the next debaters to really consider what is at stake nowadays and to hail the moral, social, or political issues. For example, to quote the first opposing speech, is having « more and more free time » and « living longer » what you really want for your children and the world ? Don’t you think that playing God will increase the happiness of mankind ? Have you considered the risks of what you are rejoicing ?

      Delete
  3. We, humans, act on purpose, be it to tackle a problem or to make a dream come true. We are always trying to find a goal to our life and generally we fight to live in a better World. Martin Luther King‘s underlying motivation gave him the strength and the courage to fight during his entire life. His determination eventually triggered major changes in the world. When there is no motivation, there is no change, and thus, there is no progress.
    As it is obvious that progress go hand in hand with motivation, my question is very simple. Would a New World, to build from scratch, bring as much motivation as changing an Old World whose failings are well known and are challenges to rise to for human beings?

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Opening Opp:
    How would you explain to the eighteen million bounded workers (which is a form of slavery), to the two hundred and fifty million working children aged between five and fourteen (according to the International Labour Organization) or to the million sexual slaves (according to UNESCO) that they should be very happy with this world because their situation is... slowly improving?

    You quoted Churchill at the beginning of your speech, but Churchill also said: "To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hello and thank you for your opening speeches and the thoughts both of you brought up.
    I'm not going to discuss the content of the speeches but rather the form and the way in which they were presented.
    I actually have some "criticism" to do, so please bear up with me. The intent is to improve the quality of the online debate, and it's just an opinion that could be wrong.
    I think the point of the opening speeches, other then presenting the issues, and clarify the motion, is to catch the reader's or the listener's attention to keep reading and get involved and feel eager to comment and participate in the debate, which was, as I see it, totally missing.
    First of all the speeches were just to long. It's demotivating to see all those endless lines of text, bearing in mind that that are just the opening speeches! The debating class students themselves may not be able able to read it all along, let alone visitors who ended up here by chance. That could explain the lack of feedback.
    I also noticed that the debaters were focusing more on their choice of words, than on the ideas themselves. I keep reading and I'm like, were is he getting?". Just make your point clearly and as concisely as possible. That's in my point of view the best way to impress the readers, not your fancy words.
    That was my main impression. I might have been a little bit harsh but it's for our own good. As they say, you can't change what you don't acknowledge.

    ReplyDelete