This house hails the end of the world - rebuttal speeches

Second proposing speech
I am very happy to witness today an outstanding event, the rebirth of the young Candide!  I don’t know if the first opposing speaker of this debate has lived a sheltered life in an Eden-like Paradise and has been indoctrinated by a mentor named Pangloss but it is quite uncommon to meet a supporter of « all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds » today, in December 2012. How can one think that our living conditions have never been better than today and we shouldn’t change anything? [Continues below the fold.]
LT

Second opposing speech
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for staying with us despite the deception intended by the proposition. I am very sorry they have tried to make you believe every change our world has witnessed has been a complete revolution. The proposers are guilty of a confusion between evolution and revolution. Otherwise, why not consider the world ended 3 months ago when Tim Cook presented the iPhone 5? Please be assured, we, opposers, are advocates of evolution. [Continues below the fold.]
MD

Second proposing speech
I am very happy to witness today an outstanding event, the rebirth of the young Candide!  I don’t know if the first opposing speaker of this debate has lived a sheltered life in an Eden-like Paradise and has been indoctrinated by a mentor named Pangloss but it is quite uncommon to meet a supporter of « all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds » today, in December 2012. How can one think that our living conditions have never been better than today and we shouldn’t change anything? Do you really think that the people forced to live in their car after the Subprime crisis or the ones who lost everything including their jobs and homes because of the financial crisis would agree with that? Do you think that young children constrained to work instead of going to school in poor countries agree with that? In like manner, Voltaire proved Leibniz a fool, I am going to rebut those arguments, only without Lisbon Earthquake…  But enough of literary references, let’s get straight to the point. You are asking « Who can say our lives are atrocious? », I bet there are thousands of people who would tell you so! You are talking about fragility? But the world is already very fragile.  Some countries like Greece are on the verge of bankruptcy, our financial system is threatened, people are drown in taxes and rebellions appear all around the world, how can it be more fragile? Changes through pain and violence have already started and we have to face it.

As my colleague explained before, we are not saying it is going to be the end of the Earth nor the end of mankind but we are hailing a new era. To go further, I would say it is going to be a brand new financial, political, and social period. Financial changes are the most obvious, as the current non-regulated and out of control system is to change drastically. To introduce this argument, I would like to quote the former IMF leader Dominique Strauss Kahn who said « We need to change the way the system works, we need to change the rules, we need to change regulation ». And it is happening. During the summit of the G20 in June 2012, the leaders of 20 countries including developed and emergent countries decided to reform the system by creating a regulating system. They endorsed recommendations to put the « Financial Stability Board » on an enduring organisational footing, with legal personality and greater financial autonomy. Of course, financials reforms alone aren’t sufficient to talk about a revolution, but as we realized during the crisis of 2008, financial issues are directly linked to economic and social ones. In the New World, the financial system won’t rule societies anymore, but societies will rule it for the greatest good.  

The new financial system is only one aspect of the up-coming changes. Concerning politics and economics, two main breaks need to be highlighted. First of all, the Triad formed by the U.S.A, E.U, Japan is now obsolete. New actors have to be considered, especially Brazil, Russia, India and China. A relevant example is China who bypasses Wall Street buying U.S. government debt and thus goes straight to the U.S. Treasury, in what is the Treasury's first-ever direct relationship with a foreign government. I doubt someone in the opposition will defend an overwhelming Triad today. Moreover, the Arab Spring in 2010 opened the way for many rebellions and even revolutions in Arabic Countries. It shows that people are changing, they want to live in free and democratic countries, they want to be able to live for themselves and now more than ever they have the strength to show it to their oppressors whoever they are. The growing number of actors will imply changes in politics, economics and mentalities, the New World will be more balanced and multipolar than it was before.

People are unsatisfied with the society as we know it. They are getting ready to adapt their behaviour and their mentality to the changes mentioned before and they want to go further. Same-sex marriage, legalisation of drugs are only examples, so dear members of the opposition I have to tell you that you are blind. Change is bound to happen. And above all, guess what? People are looking forward to it. Thank you for your attention and vote for us.

LT

Second opposing speech
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for staying with us despite the deception intended by the proposition. I am very sorry they have tried to make you believe every change our world has witnessed has been a complete revolution. The proposers are guilty of a confusion between evolution and revolution. Otherwise, why not consider the world ended 3 months ago when Tim Cook presented the iPhone 5? Please be assured, we, opposers, are advocates of evolution.

The proposer’s opening speech has failed to defend their position. They managed to convey three points: NASA has discovered the Mayan prediction will not befall, they paid attention in a few of their high school History lessons, and they have kept up to date with the main headlines recently. Where is the end of the world amidst all of this?

The proposers listed us a selection of events currently occurring in the world. They see in them an omen of the fate awaiting the world. Thank you but could you please specify why such a fate is necessary? What irredeemable ills is the world facing and how should we address them? I am not saying there are none, I am simply underlying the proposition has failed to diagnose them.

Let’s focus a few moments on our European society. The proposers do live in such a society and are advocating an end to it. Although it is not perfect, I must recall a fact too many forget too often: we have never been so prosperous, healthy, wealthy or educated. Have we ever been hungry? Have we ever been left without healthcare? Have we ever experienced the fear of the next minute in a time of war? We underestimate drastically the price of peace. Thanks to the EU, fruit of a lengthy and timely evolution of our society, we can grow up and live in peace. Shame to those who fail to measure how lucky we are. Shame to those who wish to risk this boon our predecessors fought so hardly to earn.

How can we guarantee tomorrow’s living conditions will be as good as today’s? I must admit I cannot give clear cut guarantees. Who can? Conversely, what proof does the opposition have mankind will be better off after the end of the world? History shows us we live cyclically. The Russian economist Kondratiev was the first to model such phenomena. We are currently at low ebb but the future is brighter. It is indeed easy to say so (although History supports it). However, under this expression lies the notion of optimism. Optimism is the vector of consumption, and, by and large, of economic growth. India and China are booming because their population is full of optimism. People who advocate the end of the world infest our societies with pessimism.

The 21^st century will put mankind face-to-face with its biggest challenges yet (namely overpopulation, as MP commented, and climate change). How will an end to the world solve these? Experts are working on solutions to address these challenges. Innovation and research will be the key to confronting them. Such a process is evolutionary and requires time. Our priority should be to invest in innovation and technologies.

Finally, I wish the proposers could clarify which “new page” they are opening. Our opposing team is worried they are just lagging one chapter behind everybody. Indeed, they have failed to notice that our generation is profoundly different to all the precedent ones. We have finally become individuals. Invented by Saint Paul over 2000 years ago, the individual is finally born. Men used to live by belonging to a group. We were British, French, Catholic, Jewish, rich, poor, male, female. We used to be part of counties, religions, cultures, singular groups, local constituencies, a sex, a state. However, thanks to travels, the media, the web, atrocious wars, these collective landmarks have all been blown away. Nowadays, the modern human being divorces, is agitated in class, does not pray in his local parish. Politicians cannot build a party anymore, and national football teams call for strikes at World Cups. With the advent of the individual, the war crimes committed for the sake of feeling one belongs to a group vanish. Following this analysis first conducted by the anthropologist Michel Serres, who cannot feel optimist about the future?

MD