ディベート復帰!

ディベート最近全然やってない件について

大学で英語ディベートをやっていますが、最近全然行っていない。。。
問題なのが、あと一ヶ月後に英語ディベートの国際大会@日本が開かれてそれの参加申し込みをしてしまったこと、、チームメイトに迷惑かけたくないなぁ
ということでこの一ヶ月はディベート復帰宣言。競技プロ、Webプロ、機械学習アプリ制作インターンとかやりたいこと無限にあるので、これが最後の大会になるかもしれないという覚悟一ヶ月突っ走ろう。
<余談>プログラミングの勉強になるのでやはりこのブログもhtmlで書きまする</余談>

ディベートブログの書き方

自分のアウトプットの場としてのブログなので時間をかけすぎないように心がける。
写真とか多めでいこう、ウェブサイトのリンクを貼るときは内容をようやくするように心がける
これくらいかなぁ
順番としては

  1. Transcriptを読んで、趣旨をまとめる(Transcriptにない部分はやらない)
  2. ディベートの技術的側面を考える
  3. 考察(画像多め)

で行きます。では早速

EUDC2008GF

THW ban Nazi and Soviet symbols

PM趣旨

pmだから単刀直入な感じがしてわかりやすい、ハードスタンスを取る

Signpost1: When it is legitmate to ban symbols things just because they are oppressive and only because they are oppressive

これ、実際にスピーチで言っている内容は、When they are oppressive?の方が近いのかな

    1. When there is incitement towards hatred (even if it is not direct)→意味というのを大事にする生き物
    2. When it is bound up in relation with power→権力には抗えない

 

    人々がめっちゃ苦しむからbanに値する
Signpost2: Why these symbols are extremely offensive
    1. Because symbols are also a piece of shared communication
    2. Because those political ideologies are not valid at all

 

    これらのシンボルにuniqueなことを述べている(特に二つ目)

技法

  • Hardstanceをちゃんととる
    we accept that there may be a couple of cases where this line is hard to draw, so we say simply, where it's ambiguous, we're going to ban it. We will not take the risk.
  • 譲歩のやり方
    Because we think that in general and we think the opposition will agree with me that there is a presumption in favouring free speech. We think it's a kind of cool quite a lot of the time. But what we also think is that there's no reason to regard freedom of speech as an overriding good in every circumstance, right?
  • 論理が貫通しているのが見えやすいスピーチ(三段論法)
    シンボルがいつoppressiveなのか(これがSQにどちらかというと近い)←「シンボルがoppressiveである」というよりも説得力あり。
    oppressiveなsimbolはなぜbanに値するのか
  • 繰り返す綺麗なスピーチ(別々な言葉で繰り返すことで説得力を増している)
    1. to intimidate people, to scare people, to make people feel like they cannot go out, to make people feel like they are less, to make people feel like their words do not count the same as other people's words.
    2. these people are scum, these people are worth nothing, these people are less than animals and they deserve to be treated as less than animals,
    3. we must at minimum agree to live together; we must consent to associate as one society.

考察

Will Jones氏のprincipleを理解することで絶対的悪を正当化できる気がした。

we do think that in a pluralist society we like that people disagree about what the good is and how society should be organised. That's fine. //譲歩

But we also think that in order for a society to exist at all, we must at minimum agree to live together; we must consent to associate as one society. //社会を成立させるためなら合意を成立させないといけない

And so we say a basic commitment any ideology that wants to exist in a modern world must be a commitment to the equal concern and respect, which every single citizen deserves, right? //たとえどんな考え方であれ、どんなideologyも、基本的人権は尊重しなければ行けない

We say a genuine pluralism (I think you're out of time), a genuine pluralism is one where you have an overlapping consensus of people who disagree, but no overlapping consensus of reasonable doctrines of the good, right? //価値観の異なる人々の重なり合うコンセンサスはいいが、 despite its deep divisions, achieve stability and social unity by the public recognition of a reasonable political conception of justice.

We say the problem is that these are ideologies which have perpetrated the barbaric slaughter of millions upon millions of people for no better reason than they were enemy of proletariat or they were Jewish or they were gay or they were disabled or they were a gypsy or dozens of other things. We say that if you deny the basic rights of citizens, if you say as an ideology there are people who should be exterminated, you are not of a valid ideology, you are evil. We say, you are not part of a legitimate political discourse, and we are going to expunge you. reasonable political conception of justiceから外れているからこいつらは社会に存在してはいけないideologyであるという考え方、なんていうか最小限は守れ的な、全体的にシンボルを権力と結びつけ、人々に脅威を与えるものと解釈している なんか、比較ってものを出していないように思える。PMだからいいのかな?

OW趣旨

全体的にrebuttalがintegretedしてるから捉えにくい、ハードスタンスをとった相手に対し、行きすぎる可能性があるという定石を攻めている。

Signpost1: What is the power of symbols
  1. It enables us to constitute the wrongness in everyone who knows it is wrong
  2. We can tell people whether we should be afraid of by those symbols which prevents them from getting into positions of power easily
  3. a whole broad stratum of the population can come out and fight against these extremist by identifying them as evil, not by looking
    at the manifesto on their website but seeing that they carry the banner of a man who murdered 6 million Jews
  4. Society can be more resistant, can be more capable of dealing with other fearful symbols if they have to confront it
Signpost2: Why they have the right to express symbols and why it is not upon whether those symbols are right or wrong
  1. Looking at religions, political parties, countries, participation is meaningless if it is divorced from the identity of the individual involved.
    If they can’t use symbols to express their identity, we say that’s a problem. So they do have a right.
    Moreover, if props think that the state can legitimately articulate to individuals what does and does not constitute
    their identity. We think that’s also called oppression
  2. We say it’s because that there are some rights that are fundamental no matter what you say. It’s because there are some rights
    that are fundamental even if you’re wrong. And that because we can’t draw that dividing line, we can’t
    know when this power that they are giving to a state would be abused, that we can’t do it.
Signpost3: How societies do tackle extremism and difficut discourse
  1. When people have to go out on the street and people carrying Nazi flags and say “Down with fascism! Down with racism!”
    We say that is a better way for societies to be cured and preventing them ever having to deal with that problem

技法

    • APを考えて具体化するのがうまい
      もし完全になくなってしまったら。。。?
      • 悪というものを忘れていってしまう
      • 悪が権力を握る恐れがある
      • 社会が新たな脅威に対して脆弱になってしまう
    • 線引きが曖昧なものの決定権は与えない方がいい
      And that because we can’t draw that dividing line, we can’t know when this power that they are giving to a state would be abused, that we can’t do it.

考察

この人のprincipleもわかりやすい。「シンボルを権力と結びつける」という相手のパラダイムに乗っ取った反論だけでなく、「シンボルを人と結びつけている」。
symbolがndivisual identityと繋がっていることを言い、それを表現できないとそれこそ基本的人権を守れていないと言える
同じ過ちを繰り返さないためには、そういう権力との闘いが存在している方が良いという世界観を最後に見せてくれる、とてもいい文章(真似するのは以上に難しい)

明日考察を付け加えます。。。→考察を付け加えた!

まとめ

Simbolは権力と結びついて人々を圧迫しやすいが、同様にそれは人々の生きる指針ともなりうる
pluralismは、diverseなideaを認めるものの、must have recognition of reasonable political justice(human rights)
今後nazi,sovietに似た問題を起らないようにするには、やはりそれに対しての闘いを常にする必要があり、耐性をつける必要がある(忘れるので)