Wsdc 2017 bali grand finale

Motion – THS restriction on free speech to combat the rise of right-wing populism.

Team England vs Team Singapore

Proposition

The proposition team manage to characterize 5 criteria of Right-Wing Populism that is

nativism, hostility towards elite institute like meadia and courts. Futhermore, right-wing
populism disregard political correctness and truth foloowed by a shallow policy agenda to appeal
many people. The first speaker also draw out a model on how to deal with the right-wing
populism groups or individual.

They also manage to stand with three important argument, and the first argument is free-
speech should be resticted to combat the threat to minorities. The first speaker set up a parameter
to emphasizing the issue that is the democracy necessitate balance of right( right of individual is
contradict to each other) and wanted to leash out the truth in democcracy. This particular
argument also realising the effect of rilling the people up and channeling their anger towards the
minorities group later.

The second argument is the speech might harm the development of solution to the
problem which lead to the rise of the right-wing populism. In this context the proposition team is
trying to deliver the idea that when the free-speech is approved the policy impose by the
democratic parties might be affected. The core idea is that the parties itself is already bias to
certain community. Thus, when they are trying to give oppprtunity to this particular group they
will only give a harm towards the other instead of resolving the matter.

The third arguments, justify on how the fundamental affront to democracy. Here, when
they are allowed to voice out their thought it will only paralyzing the system instead of solving
the root cause of the problems. Thus, the free-speech is not significant to be impose to others.

Opposition

In the other side of the debate, the opposition manage to list out on few argument that counter
the proposition side. At the beginning, the first speaker make a clearly stand on they wouldn’t impose
any restriction on the movement. Second, they higly valued the right of free speech and lastly, their side
believe that proposition should restrict the activity of political ideology.

This side also bring three arguments that is, firstly, the speech itself is legitimate and should not
be restricted and this is their fundamental premises. Next, the restriction of the speech may risk to
further abuse from the government. Thirdly, they believe that free speech restriction may harm the
political discorse.

Based on the fisrt argument opposition confidently believe that free speech can allow gain on
meanings of the words by expression and direct interaction with other people. There is a significant
sentences deliver by one of the speaker that ‘democracy without choice is not a democracy’. In this
subject matter, they succesfully convince the audience on how significant to not restricting the choices
of ways on how the society want to voice out their opinioin. They did mention on how most of the
parties fail to satisfy and deliver the interest of the society.

Countering the POI from propositon side, the speaker define that it is legitimate to the society
to vote for the candidates, eventhough that the news deliberately supply only fake news that feed the
people. In the end it is the people who decide what they actually want.

The main idea from the opposition is the unsavory sepech has increase the expressive value. As
the system is actually built by the profesional political group, they randomly taken to their higgest
mandate to catter the low class level of the society. Thus, having this vass speech may make them to
listen on what that’s happenning on the side of this people.

Winner

This motion significantly benefits the singapore team, their argument is logical and reasonable.
They highlight on the right of the people to voice their expression and how policy can be made to
counter all other issues related. The most significant factor that leads to their win is that they manage to
dleiver different idea throughout the stages, opposite to thye proposition team that keep on repeating
the same factor by all three speaker. They did not manage to bring out the most important idea that can
be seen is significantly profound to restrict the free speech. Hence, the winning team deserve to entitle
the glory as they prove that by not to restrict the voices can actually combat the rise of the right-wing
populism.