INFOSLIDE: A Living Buddha is someone who chooses to lose or perform

averagely despite having the capability to outperform the vast majority of their
peers, especially those who are underprivileged
[6:07 PM]
MOTION: THP a world where the privileged progressive youth would
deliberately choose be a 'Living Buddha' with their endeavors in the academe,
business and politics.

PM
1. Privilege=opportunities thru birth
lottery ex. Men or straight ppl or
wealthy
2. Progressive - wants to fight for the
poor and underprivileged
3. GOAL: CLOSING THE GAP
UNTIL EQUALITY IS MET
4. Living buddha as an act of
protest
5. Ex. Rejecting connections thru
nepotism, genius rejecting grades
6. Will last only as long as govt
does smth about the problem
7. S: When it’s consistent with
principles/When it allows achieving
outcome
8. If we can’t push minorities up, we
lower ourselves down
9. Level the playing field by not
honoring it
10. POI: ur burden is to prove why ppl
should DELIBERATELY choose
11. Possible source of brain drain for
the state
12. (better preemption of opp case)
DPM
1. LO#2: not mutually exclusive bc
they will still achieve, just not
outstanding
2. State accountability
3. POI: under GOV ur gonna have to
wait for average ppl to change the
world (UNANSWERED)
4. We want to force govt to actively
help the underprivileged
5. U would still contribute, u will just
be average
6. (first prove how necessary
geniuses are to the govt and do
they matter enough to force govt)
LO
1. Ex. Tiffany uy - privileged ppl with
dreams to help society
2. Prefers privileged ppl to enact
real world change by self
actualizing then help society
3. (what is the goal/value in ur
house?)
4. PM#4: it doesn’t work bc u need to
be valuable to matter therefore the
state doesn’t care
5. EVEN IF PM#4, ???
6. hypocrisy bc they waste
opportunities even when
underprivileged would kill for the
opportunities
7. Why is it not worth it?
8. Harmful for progressive youth
bc they won’t get enough capital to
forward cause
9. (where is ur even if analysis?)
10. Why is it a better world under
OPP?
11. Better politicians, better CEOs,
etc.
DLO
1. Problem solution mismatch
2. Ex. Greta thunberg watching her
house burning
3. What makes leaders compelling?
When we watch them try to change
an imperfect world
4. BENEFIT: benefits brought about
by special ppl
5. (what does changing the world
look like?)
6. DPM#4: coopt this benefit by
saying they can only influence thru
OPP
7. POI: is it not effective to be
7. WORST CASE: doesn’t incentivise
the govt
8. -- at least we stay consistent to
the principles=closing the gap
better
9. (why is this a mutually exclusive
benefit?)
MG
1. OO: privileged youth will use
privilege to change the world
2. -- never told us why it’s gonna
happen
3. LO#2: Not likely to trickle down.
Even if, the poor would simply not be
able to access
4. We still have leaders, just NOT
privileged (Coopted DLO#3)
5. DLO#1: isolated incident since only
1 tiff uy exist
6. Businesses and govt are usually
looking at privileged schools to
hire=discrimination as to what
success looks like
7. BENEFIT: u make
underprivileged CAPABLE AND
WILLING (willingness is exclusive)
8. Even if we lose the elections, we
give the seat to underprivileged ppl
9. Doesn’t mean u won’t accept jobs,
just mean u hire ppl from poor
background
10. Why is it ok to lock out the
underprivileged?
GW
1. Trickle down effect vs average
privileged youth
2. MG#3: it’s not like we choose to be
complicit we just put more seats at
the table
3. We just lower the barrier of entry
not like we steal the jobs of
privileged youth
4. To OPP: u have to prove trickle
down method in order for ur house
to win
5. In status quo: only thing u do is
alms giving for privileged ppl
6. -- very bad bc u keep them in
average leaders to be successful?
8. -- it’s different when u deliberately
try to be that way
9. Value of the youth be
stellar=changing things=changing
the govt
10. (worst case analysis?)
MO
1. Privilege aren’t inherently bad
2. Nuance on how AB&P paves the
way for minorities
3. GOV would have to prove why it’s
preferable to deliberately choose to
be average
4. AB&P inherently affect our
lives=excellence of privileged
youth benefits us=minority gets
catered to (responded by MG#6)
5. Ex: vico sotto using his privilege to
help ppl
6. (houses should rly be
comparable bet. GOV and OPP
model)
7. POI: who is likely to be hired,
privileged or minority school?
8. -- the problem is company doesn’t
have policy to counter it, NOT the
privileged
9. (addtl burden of how
privilege=benefit of change)
10. Change is late bc u have to wait
for average ppl to incite
change=lesser capacity and
incentive since they have a lot
more problems (MG#4)
OW
1. Urgency of oppression so we don’t
have enough time to wait for change
to happen
2. CHANGE/BARRIERS
3. Limiting the capability of privileged
youth to change for the better by
giving away their slots
4. POI: shaky premise their model
assumes that world will collapse if
privileged ppl become average
5. Privileged ppl get access to
decision making bodies=enact
change to open to minorities
6. BENEFIT: it’s faster and urgent
their place 7. Wasting the capability of ppl to
7. EVEN IF, we don’t care about make things better
success (TRADEOFF) so long as 8. (u can get the seats thru
we have equality privileged ppl)
8. Innovation will still happen under
CG bc we are just giving out seats in
the table
- how do we empower minorities
- where do u best enact change

INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS:
1. Better preemption of the opp case so that ur less vulnerable once OO comes in
2. Be clear on the burdens u are willing to take for the debate. I think in this debate it’s
unfortunate na na overburden mo bc of the strategy u took of wanting to force govts to
change.
3. I did recognize that u had a discussion on worst case, on how despite everything at least
we stay true to our principles of closing the gap. But I think it needs addtl analysis on how the
value of closing the gap is heavier than the value of success wc opp championed. That’s how
even if analysis stands on its own I think, when ang value na gina defend ninyo kay na
establish na iya inherent benefit.
4. For DPM I think na box in ka sa inyo burden, that’s why majority of ur speech was spent on
patching up kanang holes sa inyo premise. Prob next time with a better strategy, try to insert
as much responses as possible to LO’s speech in ur speech.