We interview Venti about why competition policy matters and how firms can abuse their dominance at the expense of consumer welfare!

In this matterloading session, we recap the week by looking at all the important events that caught all our attentions! We discuss the South Korean vaccine rollouts, China's relationship with the Taliban, Saddiq's Case, Hidilyn Diaz, the SONA, #TruthsfromTheBible, Simone Biles, and Britney Spears!

In this episode, we talk about how we can set priorities in a debate! Learn about the art of framing as well as different frames you can use.

 

Phase 1 of our FREE tournament Magiting Open is ONGOING! Don't forget to check us out at facebook.com/MagitingCup

This week, we talk about the Indian COVID Crisis and the politics of blame, how climate change caused flash flooding in Europe, why Rodrigo Duterte can't invoke immunity if they get elected as VP, the #Tumindig movement, cardboard beds in the Olympics, and more!!

Idris Elba was in the news recently for proposing that everyone should verify their identities before using social media to prevent people from using anonymity as a means to be racist or bigoted. Is this a good idea, or would it do more harm than good?

 

Phase 1 of Magiting Cup is OPEN NOW! Check out our page at facebook.com/MagitingCup and stay tuned this week for the first episode of Matterloading with Nina and Kyle!

The theme for the grand finals of this year's Debatable Intervarsity is Arts and Culture!  This motion deals with cynicism, an attitude characterized by a general distrust of others and their motives. We see more and more cynicism in various areas of life, from people refusing to believe in governments,  in vaccines, and even in the very idea that people can be altruistic. Cynicism has been around for a long time, but never before has it been this prevalent in our culture as a society.

The motion reads: THR the mainstreaming (e.g. in art, media, politics, etc.) of cynicism. Much thanks is due to Papat Lozano, who contributed this motion and this post-debate analysis!

00:00 Introduction1:08 What is the importance of arts and culture?4:11 How is cynicism related to art, media, and politics?5:53 Who should this debate focus on?7:07 What is a strategic general frame for cynicism?11:09 What is the counterfactual for gov bench?19:32 How will teams evolve and adapt to the counterfactual?20:52 How will society function on Opp?23:02 Arguments for CG29:41 Arguments for CO34:37 Tips for encountering similar motions in the future

The theme for the open semi-final of this year's Debatable IV is international relations. On April 21, 2021, the New York Times published an article that illustrates a key dilemma facing the Biden administration-- can it really work with Beijing on issues like climate change while effectively challenging Beijing on human rights issues?

The transition into greener energy through solar panels is one of the ways the world can combat climate change. Currently, China controls the majority of the solar supply chain. One of the key materials of solar panels comes from Xinjiang, a region in China where Uighur internment camps are located. Recently, China held a business conference warning the world of unilateralism pursued by certain countries that would ultimately discourage cooperation. This statement is directed towards the US who recently talked about self-sufficiency in supply chains. The US is now faced with a dilemma: should they cooperate with China on climate change or exclude China until it resolves its human rights issues in Xinjiang. 

The motion reads: TH, as the US, would cooperate with China. Much thanks to Ashley Dejarme for contributing this motion and for giving us their valuable insights!

'China's Solar Dominance Presents Biden With an Ugly Dilemma' (Swanson and Plumer, New York Times):https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/business/economy/china-biden-solar-panels.html

00:00 Introduction1:17 What is the context behind this motion?2:15 Why mix environment and international relations in a motion?5:13 There must be a tradeoff between environment and human rights6:28 Framing on gov + Realist theory10:43 What arguments to prioritize in the opening half?15:08 Extending on gov18:52 Reframing on opp22:04 Could opp give an alternative partner for the US instead of China?23:41 Arguing on opp27:02 Extending on opp + Hegemonic Challenger theory30:44 Advice for IR motions

The theme for Debatable IV's novice and junior finals is philosophy! The nature vs nurture debate is a classic one in psychology and philosophy. The question of what makes us who we are gives us profound insight on the nature of humanity and the human condition. One recent contribution to this debate is a concept called the "collective unconscious," defined by psychoanalyst Carl Jung. 

The collective unconscious is a body of knowledge containing all of human experience that all human beings tap into when making decisions. The collective unconscious is responsible ffo many deep-seated beliefs and instincts, both positive (ie: charity, selfless acts, open-mindedness, etc.) and negative (ie: racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc.). It is said to influence a person's preferences, dreams, ideals, and goals based on the many factors that a person has no control over, even before they are born. It establishes the idea that a segment of humanity is genetically inherited and not shaped by personal experience. 

The motion asks us whether even the very idea of a collective unconscious is doing more harm than good. It reads: THP a world where the idea of a collective unconscious does not exist. We are so thankful to Miko Bombeo for contributing this motion and for letting us interview them for this post-debate analysis!

00:00 Introduction1:15 What makes debating philosophy fun?2:27 What is the collective unconscious?3:30 What inspired this motion?5:09 What was the context behind this theory?7:09 What is the debate about?8:48 Framing for gov12:01 What's the alternative?13:53 Arguing on gov17:13 Extending on gov19:30 Reframing and arguing on opp21:58 Weighing harms and benefits on opp25:31 Extending on opp28:05 Advice for philo motions

The quarterfinals motion for this year's Debatable IV is about gender! Many trans people find their appearance a point of scrutiny in the public. All many of them want is to be treated like any other cis-person and to blend into everyone instead of being stared at. Some people "pass" for being cisgender, but most do not. The term "passing" might be problematic, implying that trans women are not really women and that trans men are not really men. Nevertheless, there is now a concept of "cis-passing privilege" that many trans individuals are aspiring for in the hopes that when they get that privilege, they will be able to lead normal lives.

 

This motion is about whether the trans community should accept or reject this trend. It reads: THBT the transgender community should outright reject the notion that transpeople must aspire for cis-passing privilege. We'd like to thank Hez Casasola for giving us some of their time and for contributing this motion.

 

00:00 Introduction2:16 What is cis-passing privilege?3:10 What does the pursuit of cis-passing privilege look like?4:36 What are the main issues of the debate?5:37 Framing for Government Bench8:32 Arguments for OG11:37 Arguments for CG15:35 What does it mean for the trans community to reject a notion that may empower some individuals? 19:00 What has the trans community achieved in empowering trans individuals who wish to pass as cis?20:21 Framing for Opposition Bench21:50 Arguments for OO24:04 Arguments for CO27:09 Advice for those who are going through gender-related struggles

TW: Mentions of murder and rape;

The theme for Debatable IV's open octofinals is Sociolegal! It is said that due process is nothing more, and nothing less, than the concept of fair play. In most jurisdictions, the right of a person to due process is protected with procedural rules. One of these rules is that a criminal case may only be filed by a prosecutor who finds probable cause that the accused actually committed the crime charged. Supposedly, the probable cause standard makes it so that prosecutors don't file baseless or frivolous cases. However, whether that actually happens is debatable.

 

That's why this motion reads: THBT prosecutors should use the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt instead of probable cause when deciding whether to file a criminal case against a suspect.

 

There is an infoslide: The standard of probable cause is met when evidence exists to prove that the suspect is more likely than not to have committed the crime. A finding of probable cause does not require the prosecutor to inquire whether there is evidence to secure a conviction or whether there is evidence that could exculpate or acquit the suspect. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is met when evidence exists to produce moral certainty, not absolute certainty, that the accused committed the crime. Alternatively, it also means that no evidence exists so as to produce reasonable doubt that the accused did not commit a crime. We thank our Immortal friend Jesus Falcis (in DOTA 2 rankings!) for contributing this motion to our tournament!

 

00:00 Introduction

1:11 What is the current procedure for instituting criminal cases?

4:43 Why does the prosecutor have the ability to file the case?

7:18 What's the difference between probable cause and beyond reasonable doubt?

11:13 Is it all over when the prosecutor files the charge?

12:46 Framing on opening gov

16:22 Framing on opening opp

20:55 Arguing on opening gov

24:00 Arguing on opening opp

30:50 Extending on government side

36:31 Extending on opp

40:15 Advice for legal motions

42:16 REGISTER TO VOTE!