Muir College Takes On Westering High I Full Debate

Added: 2026-05-08

[00:01:00]Let's come to school and study for 5 days. And there's one school that's called excruciating long hours but one to do is start school on a Thursday or start school on a Tuesday and proposition as is adding a five school on top on top of school. And this and this and this what this proposes is adds more preparation and more teachers.

[00:01:51]basically students. So this debate is not really whether we should add to students and teach preparation but having one day is more beneficial to students in the long term the academics compared to a 5 school now you us school are not beneficial to second mission long term and that a five day school is still Now I move on to my first foster man in a 5 days they spend 30 to 40 hours hours a week learning and doing this work. This is in a normal 5 years and most times most times especially in South Africa teachers complain that even though this is the case they still don't have enough time to properly to get to work properly amount of time and in a short amount of time students to go home study which inspires students teachers into trying to terms which equals best quality time, quality time teaching and just having the school school and we said it would be worse than as um the student doesn't really solve the problem. You say that it's not compulsory and the students don't have to come come here really and if they passion they don't come but in actual fact those students based on probability as probably those students won't even go to to the school just because it's a it's compulsory beneficial to the teachers no you just the same problem same problem at the Sometimes the hours don't match up to what school and and due to how long you change in the country.

[00:04:20]Now, now there is benefits and there is negatives but also around the world and there are schools in Missouri but it is one problem and it is how experiencing God in their families. Now normally what happens is that when the children when the parents of work to other but now you listen now leave it open the children to say don't that the children are as able to now parents normally pay for things like pennies baby and house to keep the toilet safe. So now proposition say that the schools are going to be open and their parents can bring bring the children there for for that period of time. But what I really happens is that the schools will charge charge extra on onto this contract of the children which is on school fees which pays and this group um it will add to parents expenses which will add expenses expenses and it might as they pay on extra things.

[00:06:00]And that is the end of my speech.

[00:07:39]Terrorist.

[00:08:14]House the first speaker of the opposition. We now the second speaker of the side to give a speech.

[00:08:39]Good morning and members of the house. My name is Rebecca and I am the second speaker for team session with the motion. This house require the department of education to implement a 4day school week in school.

[00:08:56]Firstly for my team opposition speaker once stated a four day school week is worse. Adding five weeks is creating the same problem that we have now. This is simply untrue as this extra day that we are allows the children to reset themselves for the following school weeks ahead and they won't feel with the extended term with the shorter time that we give.

[00:09:28]Team opposition paper one also stated that parents go to work and that no one is there to look after the child. As my first focusing on high school after themselves and they don't process improve mental health and reduce.

[00:09:54]Our students today operate under intense social and academic pressure. They are constantly expected to manage long school hours, homework, tests, extracurricular other supporters by implementing a 4 days after break a chance to recover mentally and physically unlike the weekends that are fully bored in even more study. With reduced school weeks, learners get a chance to reset themselves. When learners are less overwhelmed, they are far more attentive than loss, more engaged in learning and less likely to experience academic decline. due to stress.

[00:10:38]Onto my second point, better academic performance, efficiency, and deeper learning.

[00:10:44]The assumption that more time at school equals better results is flawed.

[00:10:50]Long weeks actually lead to learners becoming exhausted, less focused as the week goes on.

[00:11:03]A 4 days full week shifts the focus from the time that the learners spend doing the homework and studying. It shifts that progress to the quality of their time. Teachers can create more structured lessons that prioritize key concepts and more engagement instead of covering repetitive content.

[00:11:27]The extra day can be used to help learners revise and reflect.

[00:11:34]with care and this crucial care. This is a crucial effect for long-term understanding a shortterm planning for tests and assignments.

[00:11:47]This promotes academic independence and other skills that are more valuable than simply completing a syllabus set by the government.

[00:11:56]On to my third point. More opportunities for personal growth and life skills.

[00:12:09]their own identities and not academics.

[00:12:12]A full day allows me enough time to learn more about their identities and also learning to success in life should not only be limited to how many awards you get or your but should be opened up further towards a combination of skills, experiences and personal growth.

[00:12:39]Lastly, improve teacher wellbeing as well as learners. Teachers are also at the risk of burnout. Teachers are a crucial part of the academics of the academic structure. Yet they are overworked and under significant pressure. Besides teaching, they have to handle marketing, lesson planning, administration, and student support as well as their own personal home life.

[00:13:08]for 4 days school week gives the teachers additional time to catch up on marks or just to take rest. This allows the teacher to give their abs to the best to the learners which benefits them directly. This investment in the teachers wellbeing is also an investment in the students wellbeing.

[00:13:30]This debate is clear. Opposition focuses on fear. Fear of change, fear of adjustment, fear of the unknown. But we as prop focus on outcome. Even if there are small changes, the benefits are greater. Our four days or week is not about reducing academic load. It is about redefining it. It is about recognizing students are humans, not machines. It is about prioritizing well-being alongside achievement. And it is about creating an educational system that prepares learners not for exams and assignments but for their lives ahead.

[00:14:15]And with that I thank you.

[00:14:56]56.

[00:15:00]56.

[00:15:46]You are wonderful.

[00:16:27]speaker. We now call the second speaker of the opposition to deliver speech.

[00:16:43]I will start my in 3 2 1 lossful transportation issues and disruption with extracurriculars and routine. These are all things that this solution brings forward.

[00:16:59]My name is and as second speaker of opposition I'll be giving the and then I'll be moving on to my positive. A positive mental consist of three main points. Loss of vehicle learnings issues of transportation and disruption of now firstly I want to say that clearly they looked at this motion which clearly said all schools and they decided no I'm not going to follow that and they decide to go for only high schools. This person clearly says all schools which includes primary schools includes preschools even next terms 5 weeks longer. But where is the five weeks coming from? It's coming from school holidays specifically designed to give students a break from school. A long break where they don't have to go to school where they can sit and chillax for like a month, a few weeks now. And then they also spoke about teachers experiencing experience. But this there's no such thing as a Friday off or a Monday off for teachers. Marking planning parent emails they don't disappear. This system doesn't help teachers with busy schedules but rather just extends it.

[00:18:26]Meaning workload is still present for teachers.

[00:18:30]Now on to my positive. I feel going this for learners. For many learners is just a place to learn, talk with their friends and play sport. Sometimes it's a day where they don't have to worry if they don't have a meal. With well over 9 million South African learners relying on a national school nutrition program.

[00:18:52]The 4 system neglects the dependence from schools to provide and learn in unfortunate situations more than just academic problems and issues.

[00:19:05]My next point is issue of transportation.

[00:19:09]South Africa is in a size small country.

[00:19:12]In the same way learners can accommodate proper transportation for the new program. Many learners depend on buses to get home from school. This system will cause learners to have to find to use transportation more often which causes additional fees that families especially ones simply cannot afford.

[00:19:36]The other alternative being walking home. Many learners live in areas that aren't close to their school. meaning that walking home walking becomes nearly impossible for some.

[00:19:48]Not only that, but walking poses possible threats, especially with small children when walking through dangerous areas, especially during late afternoons and nights. Many things can happen, especially when crime is skyrocket those areas.

[00:20:09]student.

[00:20:22]We are saying that with the status quo there's not that extra 5 weeks possible in which learners have to pay for transportation and we're saying what five five week extension our learners have to spend money on transportation to get to and back from to get to school and back home as well as as well as accommodating for an extra not compulsory. They if someone must go to that rate, they would have to pay for transportation as well.

[00:21:03]My last point being disruption of extracurriculars and routine schools thrive on an already establishment. This includes the program or feeling of extracurriculars. When a day is lost in a school learners to practice the sport for culture activity that day these extracurriculars are are essential as schools are many people and all around in the sense that extracurriculars get booked up. Learn often might have to choose between extracurricular activities only being able to choose private property options.

[00:21:39]This closes many opportunities that a learner might have in certain fields in extracurricular So educators in this motion we are we are providing that status quo is simply better for learners and that the solution that proposition not only does not benefit the teachers but is hurting the kids that which are the most vulnerable. Thank you.

[00:23:29]The house. the house second speaker of the opposition. Just like to remind both sides that speeches for judicial side.

[00:24:21]Good morning.

[00:24:26]My name is not just to focus on our learners but our teachers as well. My second speaker did mention that teachers also go through burnout. We need to remember that teachers are also human. They are not just robots because they become teachers. They have feelings and mental health struggles of their school. We need to focus on making sure that both our teachers and learners are prioritized in this that will obviously be used as a school neural to choose one extracurricular because it's happening on Friday. Well, the might also have a way to rotate these Fridays for these extra meals. We also um when we say that the fifth day is going to be used for anything. We're not trying to say that um we're going to offset onto the students when you give someone a good opportunity, you don't force it on them. You give it to them and see what they do with it. The students will decide on whether they want to come on that day to either learn or participate anything that's going on that day. The five intervention isn't it won't be because we are trying to um make the parents behum.

[00:26:03]So having five days and not having for the students to come and ask the teachers questions about the topics that will actually put the students in a dangerous situation position when it comes to writing exams as the students time to um get time to ask questions behind or have to seek outside help because some parents can't afford some parents can't you know get other people the children um with leaving the children at home like us high schoolers most of the time we um we can stay up on our own but isn't it more dangerous to leave a child at home than having somebody like I said most of the time us from breaking into we already know how to ourselves You don't really need to parents already set the rules. We know what's going on.

[00:27:11]Now this will also be beneficial to teachers first when my class well technically because if teachers already don't have enough time at school they do things after school but they also have so the teachers can easily and they could have weekends because white teachers are teachers with this better.

[00:27:59]We are trying to make sure that don't really fall behind sometimes things happen and because you're not being that attentive. So we also use that as a day to catch up with both teachers and students with sports as well players.

[00:28:17]Our students play sports on Saturdays.

[00:28:21]So now it is time to catch up on Friday school. It will be a bit difficult because how you supposed to focus when you are exhausted and Sunday most of the time some people actually some get together. Now the child has to find a way to do their homework and only school also isn't just about um isn't just school is also foundation to the real world as how they're going to grow. So having school having student going to be really healthy helping them for the future cuz we already know that they experience a lot of burnout during. So when you have when you're dealing with stress and a lot of burnout, when you supposed to find the time to learn these other skills that are going to help you in the future as for situation most of the time our parents are already paying for so for the fifth day like and in that extended like you said the Friday isn't compulsory. So if you're not going to come to school on Friday that money should be using them next week.

[00:29:49]So and also we are trying to make sure that the children since the children then maybe could be a weekend and those weekends could um also like it could also help also represent show um the students.

[00:30:28]Sometimes also relatives help you live in a community and you believe and you as a team.

[00:31:03]We're trying to make sure that our teachers don't experience burnout because how the teacher supposed to teach if they're burned out. Most of the time when they burn out, we don't put the students in a situation where they're not but not at the highest level at the expectations.

[00:31:27]So we don't feel like they're not being seen or heard because they're also human.

[00:31:34]They have feelings and they also have that to attend to and also for students. We need to make sure that they can be attentive.

[00:33:18]Thank you speaker. I just like to mention to the floor that banging our speaker is not applied.

[00:33:30]Now I'd like to call on the opposition side.

[00:33:49]timekeeper, chairperson and third. My name is Bell and I'm the third speaker on the team opposition.

[00:33:56]This house will require what the department of education will implement a 4day school in all schools. Now I'll be providing majority must be for the rebuttal and summary if time allows. Now on to my the first one of the main points that proposition signed my staff stuck to and my main outlineers of the debate was that they focus specifically on high school and this is simply wrong as as my second speaker has made abundantly clear that throughout this motion the motion itself makes it clear that it refers to all schools. This includes primary, this includes middle school, not just high school. And this breaks down a large majority of the rebal that the proposition has given.

[00:34:40]The proposition stated as my one of the points that my opposition stated was that um many many parents now since they have to pay for manage to take care of their kids during this time. And the rebuttal that proposition gave to that was that many high schoolers specifically proposition three stated was that they were focusing on high schoolers and many high schools to take care of themselves. Well, yes, this is true. What about primary schoolers? What about grade? What about people in elementary school? They're still in school and they don't have anyone to take care of them. They're still children. They need people to take care of them which adds on to the cost which was simply flat out by proposition as they also ignored the cost. As another point that my second speaker stated was the fact that many students require on require a meal from school during those days because while it may not seem like a lot to you, it's a lot to them because it could have be the thing separating them from life and death. the fact the family can't afford to feed in that day and they have to eat at school because school provides them and that adds to the cost because that's more the take care of them as the transport cost as my second speaker has made abundantly clear the fact of transport the kids still have to get there and the fact of five extra weeks wanted to go to transport for there the transport they still have to be transported there and that's more cost and on top of that and a large majority of schools and are far away from homes. So people can't simply walk to them. And that would simply make schools an exclusion activity, things only people who have the money to afford it can get. And this would simply remove the very fundamental basics and need for a school. It was made to educate people and this removes that life from them making them exclusive to people who have the funds to actually get there and actually learn from them. Another point that oppos proposition stated was that the two school weeks gives learners time to reset. Well, yes, this is true. This extra school weeks that give time for learn to reset. What is the cost of this? What is the cost of that time? It is the parents. The parents still have to pay for this time. And the teachers, the teachers don't have time to have organized lessons. They still have business meetings. They still have to answer emails. They still have to do these things. their life continues going that it doesn't suddenly stop because there's an extra day and these five extra weeks just adds on more things that they have to do and it adds less time for them to prepare for the new term as my second speaker has made it finally clear a vital flow in their argument of the five extra weeks that they propose as a solution where the five extra weeks comes from time cannot come from nowhere from the school holidays and school holidays are some of the most important days of the year because they provide a way for where learners can go and relax in a nice break. They can organize projects. They can clear their head.

[00:37:40]They can focus on themselves for a bit while staying focused in school. As well as the fact if you ask any teacher, they will tell you the importance of the school holidays. It allows them to get the last mark on the team. Allows them to plan future lessons. It allows them to plan to plan for the rest of the term because they have a lot to deal with and these extra five years are removed from that. Exactly.

[00:38:02]That first day would be school to their advantage. Yes, I understand how the department wants to be at this.

[00:38:17]Thank you. Now on to continue my point teachers to plan future lessons as well as to stretch themselves for future things. Another point that the that proposition stated was that it improves teachers wellbeing. While this this could be in some sense again another point that they completely forgot is it doesn't truly as teachers have more things to work on and they have less time to do so and have less time to plan for the term to themselves because remember teachers don't suddenly plan a lesson just on the weekend. the those four days are vital because they allow them to structure the basis of what they'll do because that basis helps them to say okay this is what I'm going to work off this section of work and I'm going to be specifying on the weekends they might specify exactly what they're going to be focusing on this so proposition all that so this simply removes from the fact of what the teachers need to be done get done and the work that needs to be get done so all that proposition has done is made full and excavated to everyone else.

[00:39:25]It's made it exclusive so that no one else can get it. It's made it so that only people who can afford it may reach it and it's made for comfortability and not educated. The focus of school isn't for your comfortability. It's for your education so that you may get a job in the future so that you may find yourself and be a right human being. Thank you.

[00:39:52]You're husband.

[00:40:52]Thank you.

[00:41:18]Wow.

[00:41:35]Those House It's a third speaker on the opposition side. Here I have our daily speakers. We put our features starting with the use case here.

[00:42:28]I'll be starting my speech in three 2 1 I come to you proudly representing your as opposition for the motion for this motion as a prize speaker as the prize speaker I'll be outlining the main classes of this debate and do you on why we as opposition believe that we have won this debate my first class the first class I'll be outlining is teachers versus My second giving time to find identity versus taking away from it. And my last high school learners versus all learners.

[00:43:08]My first clash who is self teachers versus kids. On on proposition side, they have said that teachers experience burnout. Yes, this is true. We agree.

[00:43:19]But the solution this solution provided helps to help each options while working that don't have options and as as opposition we have told But then obviously learners while we show that the status quo benefits learners who are the most vulnerable. My second flesh giving time to find identity versus taking away from it. Proposition of the long of the long weekend as a wonderful time to find identity. While we have established that this extra five week term takes from school holidays meaning that learners spend time that they should be relaxing or going on holiday worrying about school work. On proposition side we have a system that takes away from holiday time disguised as time while status quo gives learners time to find their identity schools.

[00:44:44]The last question I'll be outlining is high school learners versus all learners. Throughout this motion, in all three speeches, proposition side has stated has put in this motion as the department of education to implement four rates for all high schools. But the we as opposition have clearly stated that this motion says all learners, all schools, not just high schools.

[00:45:12]Meaning that points that were brought up from us from outside about danger and leaving kids at home. Danger of leaving kids at home still stand. We believe we have won this clash because we have because of proposition has clearly misinterpreted this motion through their policy to change the motion through.

[00:45:35]Now for my own proposition not only changed the motion but provided a system that hurts the most vulnerable people.

[00:45:43]The learners while while we as opposition have established that the status the status quo is beneficial for learners once honorable and teachers. Thank you.

[00:48:08]Good morning judicators timeke keepers and fitness in the march I'm telling you why I think my team won by a landslide firstly there stated that extra day as an expense when in my policy um we define We might have the school using it as an ear. How is charing their learners money going to be an advantage?

[00:48:37]Also, they did not acknowledge the benefits of the day and stated that there would be less extracurriculars within that day. It was four extracurriculars days and so that they were able to rest on their weekends.

[00:48:50]Also they they um they said the first speaker said that the not match up was about the hours it was about the student and teachers well also they stated that um if cost more money transport but how much money you spend on a holiday by buying presents presents and keepers I think it's better to be active where it matters also now on to fatal mistake. The first speaker accepted our definition when we defined all schools as as high schools and went on with it. They didn't give a counter policy. They didn't reject our definition into their own. The second speaker decided to redefine our definition which show they have not listened to themselves. How can a how can a second speaker redefine a definition after they have just accepted it? They that is when the whole entire argument must flow. They started basing it off how little children would be able to walk home when that is not what we're talking about. We set the policy not they didn't come with policy everything that we said is they were combating but they as their own little bit when they didn't come policy also they kept saying that we are they going to have less time to learn you know not be able to teach that which is why I'm still that's why also we say the first It takes away their right to their right to learn when how is doing that how is removing one day the school advantage taking away learners right to learn it's also their right to decide if they want to come to school or not that my entire speech speakers have spoken for both competition and opposition. They are all very energetic now. So I'd like to ask that the educators may be willing to discuss their findings and return to resources later and also that the teams would come to the middle and shake hand.

[00:55:36]Hallelujah.

[00:56:06]Oh, come on.

[00:56:39]Thank you.

[00:56:46]I have nothing.

[01:08:35]proposition the moment everyone as well but the moment you pick up inconsistencies you need to address it you can't for you need to I see.

[01:09:39]All I want, all I need is to Heat. Heat.

[01:09:43]N.

[01:10:15]The doing away with of an old system as well as its use which can only be done in this case by providing alternative systems to prevent black markets. For for a better example, if I were if we were to institute a policy of banning cars where there was no public transport, cars would still be on the road but illegally. And if the ban is only nominal while cars are still on the road, does it really fulfill its purpose of a ban? No. Which is why an alternative system needs to be put in place, especially within this context, considering that patents are a very lucrative system, which I'll go on to next. Now patents the ideas and inventions also known as intellectual property owned by a specific person or company which are under copyright meaning that those using the intellectual property without permission to do so face swift swift legal action such as lawsuits and cease and desists.

[01:11:06]Now onto some conization and analysis.

[01:11:08]The problem that arises from the current patent system is as follows. Initially patents were used to protect smaller creators from getting the ideas stolen by bigger companies. However, it has been used in the invis creators by companies which hold a monopoly of ideas which take down any art or media which uses uh the which uses their copyright and then use this to buy out more patents to further fill their pockets repeating the cycle. The issue here is due to two inherent flaws within the system. number one that the patent does not necessarily protect the creators of the intellectual property but merely the owners of the IP. This becomes a problem since this includes companies which buy the rights to ideas only to sell them at access such as how the such as how insulin originally had the patent of $1 only to be priced 300x that of the original uh patent price. The rights of the laborer who created the patent are dissolved intent for the rights of those who extract the ideas of the um of the creators for profit. This blends into the second issue where instead of the labor being protected, the idea on its own is protected. This seems like a non-issue until we recognize the fact that ideas themselves are not original and therefore and even so never are original. For example, the man who made the car technically stole from the man who made the wheel as all ideas are bred within society where we each take and give inspiration from ideas in a symbiotic relationship. No one creates ideas within a vacuum. Therefore, no one can no one can claim an individual idea.

[01:12:40]The protection of ideas while ignoring the labor of ideas is an inherently illogical premise built on idealism as well as the problem I have listed previously being detriment to our MVA, which I'll soon analyze. But but before I do so, I first have to I first have to state what my team is here to prove and who our MVA is. As team proposition, we bend ourselves to prove that our policy will bring more benefit than judgment to our MVA. Being small creators more than the status quo. Now, why are small creators our MVA here? Particularly because they are particularly because they're in the midst of a very unstable market. When it comes to creators, especially artists, they tend to they tend to work within freelancers where uh work is not as unstable. Typically when it comes to things such as art, people don't have a very stable sort of income.

[01:13:30]And when it comes to and adding on to the fact that they actually put in the labor to create these ideas, that means that the rights to these ideas are actually very integral to the stability and uh economic stability of our MVA. So anything that this policy institutes will be in should be in their favor.

[01:13:49]Therefore, not only not only uh should we create a policy that instead of protecting the owner but protects the creator, we are creating a policy that protects the labor that protects labor instead of protecting ideas. Now, you know what's another institution that protects creators and also protects labor unions which is who we're basing this off of. Starting off with our policy. It policy starts with the patents and the copyrights which are valued over $10 million will be made fair use for all purposes. Characters, characters, designs, all sorts of copyrights will be made fair use for all purposes.

[01:14:27]And then after that, a system similar to unions in which creators pay uh patent dues where anyone who uses their art without permission gets a 10 to 20% tax on that commodity given straight to the artist. The artist cannot sell that patent but can make agreements and deals as the owner of the intellectual property. The dues are for the purpose of the patent union hiring lawyers on behalf of the members for violations of the creator terms. The terms of use are in the hands of each creator and can be as restrictive or as lenient as they wish. They can be within the union for as long as their total earnings of their patent is below 2 million as they will be ineligible once they reach the threshold. This is to make the alternative patent system comp uh be composed of and benefit smaller creators exclusively.

[01:15:12]Now we've understood the fact that the patent system brings a lot of issues because um because of its lack of protection for labor as well as how it does not protect um creators specifically. But with this policy we see that small creators still have protections while bringing forth new ideas into the marketplace. Which means that in turn creators will get to make more by making things with lovable characters. Characters that are valued over 10 million are characters that we all know and love or designs that we all recognize. Meaning that creators will be able to make things akin to those designs since no one technically owns these ideas as they were inspired by other ideas way back when. meaning that there will be a better meaning that there will be a more stable market for them including the fact that they get the tax from the from their ideas being taken which gives them a more steady income therefore benefiting our MVA along with that along with that there is along with that the issue of bootlegs and by bootlegs I mean people taking a specific idea and then creating a worer version of it is then keb because if you're able to because the issue with bootlegs is that they are typically worse quality because of the fact that they are not because of the fact that they're trying to steer away from the from the patent being in place or it uh applying to them. But in this case, when it comes to these noble characters, people will be actually actually able to do what they want with characters that they know.

[01:16:43]So we've So with me uh instituting this policy, I now call up I now um I now recognize that it is my time to leave.

[01:16:51]Thank you.

[01:17:14]Time is 7 minutes 4 seconds.

[01:18:21]How you doing?

[01:20:04]the house. Thanks Prop One for the address. I would just like to mention as soon as you get as soon as you finish your speech, please turn off the mic and please come. Um we now call first speaker of team opposition here. Yeah.

[01:20:38]Okay.

[01:20:54]Good morning adjudicators, timekeepers, chairperson, my fellow debaters, and the flu at large. My name is Kizia Jordan and I am the first speaker for team opposition. The motion bill for today is this house would ban patents. Moving on to my case split. As first speaker, I'll be doing the rebuttal. the most vulnerable actors of this debate.

[01:21:14]Contextualization I and I will be adding on to the definitions as well as accepting. My first point is without patents meaningful innovation declines and my second point is banning patents harms small investors and empowers the already powerful. My second speaker will be doing rebuttal and her points of patents encourage investment in research and innovations and patents create order in global trade. My third speaker will be doing rebuttal and a summary if time allows. Now moving on to my rebuttal.

[01:21:45]Copyrights and patents aren't the same thing and copyrights in the in this debate are not meant for big companies but for small companies the companies that actually need pro protection. And he said something about a wheel and a car and something about patents or whatever but a wheel is useless without a car. And art cannot be patented. We are talking about patents. Patents are for ideas of inventions not creativity.

[01:22:08]Art can be copyrighted but not patented.

[01:22:10]And this entire debate is about whether patents should be banned.

[01:22:14]And in propositions world there's no protection. Less innovation and copying.

[01:22:20]In our world innovations continues and there and problems can be reformed even if their policy sounds good in theory.

[01:22:27]Our world clearly produces better long-term outcomes.

[01:22:30]And what happens to existing patterns?

[01:22:33]How do they ensure fairness? Their policy is is unclear on how it actually protects creators, which is the core issue in this debate. A policy and a policy is only as good as as its outcomes and their models leads to less innovation, less fairness and more exploitation.

[01:22:50]>> Yes.

[01:22:50]>> Did you mention that you would people would have to pay a fine benefit?

[01:23:00]They would have to pay a fine either way if they want to use a patent, you know.

[01:23:04]Okay, now moving on to my most vulnerable actors in this debate. Small investors and independent creators. They're vulnerable because they don't have money, legal teams, or production power.

[01:23:17]They rely on patents to own and protect the ideas. Without patents, anyone can copy them instantly. In a world without patents, the ideas get taken by bigger companies. They can't compete or take legal action and they lose income, recognition and opportunities. The very people who drive creativity and fresh ideas are the ones most exposed in their world. Researchers and scientists, especially medicine, they're vulnerable because their work takes years and huge funding. They depend on patents to justify investment.

[01:23:48]>> Declined. Without patents, funding decreases. Few research projects happen.

[01:23:54]Breakthroughs like new treatments slow down. You cannot expect scientists to dedicate years of their lives to discoveries if they there is no system that sustains their work.

[01:24:06]Startups and entrepreneurs, they're vulnerable because they rely on one key idea or product.

[01:24:13]Their survival depends on a competitive edge in a world without patents.

[01:24:18]Larger companies can copy the idea immediately. They lose their market advantage. Many startups may fail may fail early >> declined. Startups do not don't lose-au because their ideas are bad. They lose because they can't compete with the scale. Future consumers. They're vulnerable because they depend on future innovation. Not just products without patents. There are few new medicines. So tech advancement and less variety and progress. The real victims of the of their world are not just today's consumers but tomorrows. in in their attempt to make ideas free. The proposition for gets to protect the people who create them. Now moving on to my added onto definitions. A temporary and conditional legal right that gives investors inventors exclusive control over their invention in exchange for public disclosing how it works allowing society to learn and build on that that knowledge. ban patents the complete removal of all legal protection for inventions meaning any individual or corporation can immediately copy rep reproduce and profit from another's idea now moving on to make contextualization before we even begin debating whether patent should be banned we need to ask what kind of world we are ask we we are being asked to create we live in a society where progress is not accidental every major advancement we benefit from today whether medicine technology ology or engineering exists because individuals, organizations chose to invest time, money, and effort into creating something new despite uncertainty and risk. Innovation innovation is not just about having an idea. It's about testing that idea, refining it, funding it, and bringing it into reality over long periods of time.

[01:26:01]This process is is expensive, uncertain, and often fails. In many cases, innovators spend years working on something that may never succeed. What makes that this risk unacceptable is the existence of a system that says if you succeed, you will have a fair opportunity to benefit from your work.

[01:26:20]This that system is patents. Patents are not permanent monopolies, but they are temporary protections that exist as a part of a broader social contract, but can be renewed. Inventors must publicly disclose how the innovation invention works. In return, they receive a limited period of time exclusivity. This means society does not lose knowledge. It gains it. Information becomes publicly available and after the patent expires, anyone can use it unless you need.

[01:26:47]Instead of encouraging openness and progress, it creates fear of sharing ideas, reluctance to invest in long-term projects, and a shift toward shortterm low-risk innovation only. Most importantly, it changes power. In a world without patents, success is no longer determined by who creates the best idea, but who can produce it fastest, distribute it widest, and dominate in people >> declined. And this overwhelmingly benefits large established corporations and disadvantages small innovation innovators. So patents are not just about profit. They're about balancing private incentive with p with public benefit. Now contrast this with the world the proposition is asking you to support. A a complete ban on patents means no legal ownership of ideas, no protection for innovation, and no consequences for copying someone else's work. In this world, the moment an idea is released, it becomes vulnerable to immediate exploitation by anyone with more resources. This fundamentally changes how people behave. So this debate is not where simply about where the patterns have flaws. They do. This debate is about removing the whether removing them entirely creates a better or worse system and we firmly believe it creates a far worse one. Point one, without patterns, meaningful innovation declines. At at the heart of this debate is a simple but critical principle.

[01:28:12]Innovation depends on incentive.

[01:28:14]Developing new products, especially in areas like medicine, technology or engineering is not quick or cheap. It requires extensive research, highly and highly field labor. Patents exist to make this process sustainable. They provide innovators with a temporary window in which they can re recover costs and earn profit. Without this protection, the entire model collapses.

[01:28:35]Let's break it down clearly. In a world without patents and innovator to create something new, they receive exclusive rights for all limited time. They can sell, license, or develop their invention. They profit their investment and potentially make profit. In a world without patents, an invnator creates something new. The moment it is released, competitors may copy it.

[01:28:55]Competitors sell it cheaper because they did not invest in a development and the original innovator cannot compete. This creates a powerful disc incentive. Why would any individual or company invest in years and resources into developing something new if they know they will not benefit from it? Instead of the market becomes more focused on copying existing ideas, making minor improvements and competing on price rather than originality. In short term, it may seem like banning patterns increases access and competition.

[01:31:42]Time. Um, 8 and 30 seconds.

[01:32:09]The house thanks OP one for their address. We now call on the second speaker of team proposition here. Here.

[01:32:43]Sorry.

[01:32:46]Here we go.

[01:33:16]panel. We think that creative minds don't exist without the freedom to use tools and ideas, which is why the current patent system is inherently bad.

[01:33:25]But before I head on to that, what does my setup look like in today's debate?

[01:33:28]Firstly, I'll be stating my strategic views on how side proposition has already taken a soft line at this motion and how that doesn't really benefit today's debate. Secondly, I'll be doing my argumentation where I'll be further explaining from my first speaker's policy on how the current patent system only creates more harm and how and my second argument will just be revolving on the implementation of our policy in today's debate and how that furthermore benefits our MVA which is small creators. But why is site proposition soft overtly harmful to our MVA?

[01:33:59]Firstly, this debate comes down to whether we're benefiting small creators and why a site proposition doesn't do this. Firstly, enable for you just like in any debate, you'd have to engage with what we have given site proposition what we heard from your side opposition first speaker they made this assertion that we're by banning which is something we're not doing by banning by banning patent systems we're innately not protecting creators and their ideas.

[01:34:26]Firstly, a huge main bulk of our policy revolved around not banning these pattern systems but improving them because we acknowledge that the current pattern system is flawed. We we we acknowledge the fact that because the current patent system was like this because a a small invent to patent it, you can't really engage with it. And we also mentioned that ideas are not original. Which is to say that as my first speaker has mentioned that you don't create ideas and inventions out of a vacuum. they have to be influenced either by society or people you know. So that is why we think that they're not co cohering with our with our debate with our case in today's debate. Secondly, another thing that they're doing is that side propositions world is so contagioned on their side. They put these extreme measures on us by saying that if you're banning patent systems, this is what's going to happen. People are going to not going to be created.

[01:35:20]people's ideas that they worked years on are going to be stealing, which is not the case. Because another huge thing that we mentioned from our policy is that the new this new patent system that we're going to be enrolling is that if anyone tries to steal from these small inventors, you'd actively be paying you'd actively be paying 10 to 20% more, which is benefiting our small creators, which is something I feel like they missed a lot. But firstly heading on to my first documentation. Why are patterns more harmful to small creators? Firstly, patterns don't the pattern systems doesn't actually work. Why? Smart companies don't care. Today's success in a market place requires selling fast and selling first and selling fast. Your product can be easily stolen. When it comes to consumer products, ideas and speed is more valuable to the market than a patent. Secondly, applying for a painted is generally a long and complex process depending on the painted you would choose which is typically there typically four main patents design provincial um utility and plants. We don't need to really go into depth with that because they just revolve around your product, right? But firstly, to apply for a painted normally for a small creator now, normally it takes up to four to five years just to apply. You don't even obtain that. And in my clients, you'd have to pay money all the time, which has to my third point. Patents are expensive. With a patent requiring an active monthly fee, often being around 50 grand and and yearly, that can double.

[01:36:54]>> I'll answer at the end, speaker. So as a small creator now imagine you just started your business you just started your idea how are you expected to pay this amount of money obviously you're not going to have the necessary means to meet this thirdly thirdly another reason on why pat the current patent system is more harmful to small creators is variations and workarounds studies from shorts studies from show that to get a patent with claims with claims that I initially bought it by saying that oh it's my idea It won't it won't it won't stop people from stealing your ideas. Which is to say because I have a pet, it doesn't stop anyone from stealing my idea.

[01:37:34]People can still use it. However, that also doesn't mean that people won't get rectified for it. Think of it. You are a school student. They're actively stealing from websites. These websites have patents. However, we're not getting we're not paying these original makers because their terms are too broad.

[01:37:50]Either if either if you're going to be starting I'll be answering at the end.

[01:37:55]If you're going to be starting a shoe brand, you're going to be saying, "Oh, it's my original idea." No, honey. Nike started with shoes. Firstly, another example than saying that patent systems don't actually work. Have you guys re have you guys recognized one thing about patent systems is that a huge industry in which patent systems works is in technology, phones and etc. But one thing that is flawed about this pages system and that why and why why we're standing for against it is that if you have noticed that Apple Apple from 2018 released this new innovation of new phones of new features of fingerprint and facial identities. They pressed a patent on this. However, a year later, Samsung released another phone including those features. Another year used the same features. Patents do not stop people from stealing your ideas because your ideas again are not created in a vacuum. You are either influenced by either or. Now heading on to what we are actually debating on in today's debate.

[01:38:56]How is heading on to my second heading on to my second argument sorry and how the how policy would look and how the world would look when once this policy is implemented. Firstly, the sun won't stop shining. People won't die. But hm, let me show you how it would actually be like. A world with a world with a better patent system with people actively paying these patterns more commission on them would look like this. In the in the economic market with patents innovating and improving their ideas because the original patent system is so restrictive, you can't actively improve your idea or collaborate with anyone because you're saying that this is my idea. It's going to stay like this. But why is this wrong? Firstly, your product will go outdated. People forget about your ideas. But one but why is collaboration and innovating your current idea and your current innovation so beneficial? Firstly, think of this on Tik Tok when music when music when music artists release their new music, people collaborate and make new dances out of it, making your streams go up. Meaning that if you collaborate, meaning that if we place our new policy where people at least can engage with your product and can promote it and add their new ideas to it, your your your business will eventually grow and your name will grow, which we think is more beneficial to our to our case.

[01:40:19]Now, panel, the decision is on your hand whether or not you would want to stay with a house that benefits small creators and actively knows what they're talking about. returning to a side proposition and yeah, thank you.

[01:40:51]Oh, yes.

[01:41:00]Do you know how to put it on?

[01:41:03]Okay. So, when you are ready to speak, you're going to be pressing this button.

[01:41:08]When it turns green, then you speak.

[01:41:10]Okay.

[01:41:12]You can can try put it on here.

[01:42:48]The time is 7 minutes 16 seconds.

[01:45:01]Okay. The house thanks Prop 2 for the case. You now call the second You now call the second speaker of team opposition here. Here here time keepers chairperson and pro at large. I'm Zach Buis when I stand before you guys as second speaker of team opposition against the motion this house would ban patents. Now further ado, let me begin with my rebuttal. First of all, I was your second speaker stated something about the Nike example. Yes, Nike started their ideas with shoes, but when I take that idea and I make rainbow sneakers, for example, that is my product that I can patent. Patents are for inventions, not ideas of something.

[01:45:54]Onto my next rebuttal. You can have an idea that's not original but still build something an invention that you can officially patent. But if you do not put the time and energy into actually building the invention, you cannot claim it as your invention actually. And then your first speaker said something about lack of protection for labor. No, it is not. Patents are actually protecting laborers because without them individuals who work day and night for their projects and for their work can be protected by them, ensuring no one else can copy their work. And a benefit is that women it's declined and that the money that they spent on their labor can be guaranteed to return to them with patents. Now onto my positive matter. Patents encourage investment in research and innovation.

[01:46:41]Because patents give in inventors a guaranteed period of protection, usually about 20 years when no one else can copy or sell their innovation. This inclusivity means that inventors can expect return on the money that they put in their risky projects. Example, developing a new project can cost huge amounts of money and let's not forget about the decades of work that they put into it. So without patents, companies would fear im fear inventing these things because of immediate coping copying and would not spend that money on investing new inventions. Now we can sit here and argue about alternatives such as government funding, prizes or trade secrets, but each fails compared to patents. Let me further elaborate.

[01:47:22]Prizes. They give one time a rewarded but don't support long-term inventions.

[01:47:28]Government funding. It is limited, slow and and depends on political priorities.

[01:47:34]It cannot cover every industry.

[01:47:37]Takes trade secrets. It hides knowledge forever. means society will never truly benefit benefit from the inventure.

[01:47:44]Patents are more reliable because they fund the fund the risk in innovation and ensure society will benefit from it. In developing countries such as South Africa, they attract foreign direct investment and technology transfer. For instance, patent protection for South Africa has helped secure partnerships in biotech and renewable energy projects and this is a major reason why we should not ban it.

[01:48:08]accept it.

[01:48:09]>> Speaker, we're not giving away patents.

[01:48:10]We're giving an alternative. Any problems you bring up don't mean anything.

[01:48:14]>> As I've said, I've mentioned alternatives that clearly fail because your alternatives are similar things to patents. For example, the union you guys brought up about how you have to pay a fee every single month. It kind of falls flat because that's what a B patent is basically for, for laborers to make sure that nobody can abuse or take away their invention.

[01:48:34]Now, on to my next point. patents become short-term monopoly with long-term public gain. For about 20 years, the inventor is the only one allowed to sell or license their product. This monopoly tells lets them recover the huge cost of research. Example, developing a new hardware can cost a huge amount of money. Without protection, companies would not risk in investing.

[01:48:56]But the monopoly is temporary. Once the patent expires, anyone can make and sell the inventions. And countries don't always have to wait 20 years. Mechanisms like compulsory licensing, patent pools and tiered pricing allows government and NOS's to negotiate cheaper cheaper access earlier which is a huge benefit for the public as well as our developing countries. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, there was about 3.5 million patent applications filed worldwide in 2022.

[01:49:26]This shows this shows us how inventors rely on patents decline relies on patents to secure investments.

[01:49:34]At the same time, studies in the journal of health economics found that when patents expired, it reduced drug prices by 60 to 80% proving that long-term benefit proving the long-term benefit while the monopoly is short shortterm.

[01:49:49]Onto my next point, patterns create order in global trade. Patents create order in global trade because they give inventors legal protection across borders, making international businesses predictable and fair. Without patents, companies would fear their inventions being copied. They the moment they enter a new market with patents, they know that their rights are recognized in other countries so they can safely export, license, and invest abroad.

[01:50:14]Think of a hardware system. A South African company that develops a new hardware can patent it locally and internationally. That pattern means if they sell it in Europe or Asia, competitors cannot immediately copy the formula. This encourages crossber trade and partnerships. Patents are also standardized rules. International treaties like patents patent combations treaty allows inventors to file one application that is recognized in over 150 countries. This creates a common framework reducing chaos and disputes in global trade. Example, Samsung uses a patent to license their innovation worldwide earning billions through structured agreements countries patents structured agree structured agreements instead of endless legal battles. For example, for developing countries, patents can also attract foreign direct investment. Multi multinational firms are more willing to set up factories or at research centers in places where the inventions are protected. Patents are are the rule book of global trade. They turn international markets from a freefor all into a structured system where invent inventions are protected protected and and investors are confident. Countries can attract technology and jobs without pay without patents global trade.

[01:51:31]Without patents, global trade would collapse and the cares with inventions stolen and innovation would be stifled.

[01:51:37]In conclusion, patent patents are not just a legal tool. They are the backbone of innovation in investment the global and global trade. They create order in international markets and attract foreign direct investments and foster crossborder corporations. Banning patents would dismantle the very framework that drives innovation, secures investments and sustains fair global trade. Patents are the rule book that ensures progress, prosperity and justice in the modern world. I thank you.

[01:52:09]Nothing.

[01:53:14]Sorry.

[01:53:16]6 minutes 40 seconds.

[01:53:57]We thank up two for the case. We now called on the third speaker of team proposition here. Here here I'll be starting my speech in 3 2 1. You cannot win an argument against an opponent that doesn't listen. I think that sentiment quite well summarizes the entire debate. And whenever they do listen, they don't explain why they get to their conclusions or how. Now, I'm not going to waste any time. Let's get straight into this. Obviously, starting off with rebuttal, then weighing out both sides, just reminding the panel who's really won this debate very clearly. Now, starting off with our rebuttal slash also strategic realignment, especially with this first part, and that is about definitions that were brought up. but didn't really matter much in the debate. Let's get into it. So early on my first speaker described patents as sorry described patents as patents, copyright etc. It's the idea of sorry it's the idea of an idea of someone idea invention etc being put under ownership of that person. That is what a patent is in this context. Now the opposition yes denied this didn't give a reason why they denied it and then it never came up in the debate again. So really this definitional clash never went anywhere. We simply didn't engage with it because number one they didn't explain why and number two ideas still stand regardless. So we will be sticking by both patents and copyright falling under this though it won't matter much. It just applies more generally and it's a natural extension of what the word patent in this motion means. Now moving on sorry now what did we get from opposition in this debate?

[01:55:47]I'm sure you know what we got from proposition. I'll go over that later.

[01:55:49]But a lot of what opposition has said was simply ignoring our policy coming up with a bunch of matter and now we are forced to engage with that. However, it's very difficult to engage with something that isn't actually your case.

[01:56:01]For example, a lot of what the first speaker of opposition has said was regarding banning policing patents completely which isn't what we're doing.

[01:56:11]What are we doing though? We are giving an alternative. I think we agreed there that ban would mean giving an alternative since both parties have agreed with that.

[01:56:19]In this case, we aren't getting rid of them entirely. We're replacing them with a new system. I think we're all we can all understand that and I'll bring up parts of the policy when relevant. Now, giving with this said, let's just go over a few arguments that mean nothing when you actually take our policy into account like I brought up in a POI. Now, firstly, they talked about how small creators cannot take action. Now, this is without the sorry, this is without patents existing. Small creators cannot take action in any way. Well, number one, they are going to be sorry, we're not getting rid of patents entirely.

[01:56:51]There's a different system, as we explained, through unions where people will still be able to patent ideas, quote unquote, but now the costs are removed and it's done collectively.

[01:57:00]Furthermore, we mentioned that small and very inexpensive fees that would be paid by everyone within this union would go towards lawyers for the small creatives.

[01:57:10]Yes, we said that. Therefore, the point of small creators not being able to take action kind of falls flat because we gave a solution in our policy. Moving on, um they talk about not doing we can't do away with patents. Again, that's not what we're doing. Then they mentioned that competitors can steal your ideas without uh can steal your patents that aren't patented. Sorry, your your invention and ideas. But furthermore, again, we're not getting rid of patents. People will still have their ownership. And furthermore, while other people are allowed to use his ideas, they will have to pay 10 to 20% of the revenue back to the original creator. Therefore, the original creator is still going to benefit. There's nothing bad here. Everyone wins in the system. Now, continuing, um, there was a point where people won't innovate if it means that ideas could be stolen. Again, ideas aren't being stolen. And furthermore, wouldn't people innovate when their labor is protected? When they know they're actually going to get credit and money for what they're doing?

[01:58:06]Wouldn't that actually boost innovation?

[01:58:08]See, suddenly when you put it through the lens of the policy, most of what opposition said is just irrelevant.

[01:58:14]Furthermore, patents don't protect, sorry, patents don't protect the creators, they protect the owners in the current system. We've identified issues in the current system. They haven't addressed them. We gave a solution, then they ignored our solution. So, how can we even argue against what's been said?

[01:58:30]Furthermore, like what I said earlier, how can small creators even afford the fees of patents up to 50,000 rand okay 50,000 rand a year at minimum that is how low we are going there how is a small creator Mr. John creativity in his backyard supposed to afford that. He can't. And this can take multiple years.

[01:58:50]This process of simply applying. How are they going to afford that? We don't know because they never addressed it. And in their POI where they brought up, okay, wait, I'll get to that just now. Now, I asked a POI asking them to engage with the policy to which they did partially.

[01:59:05]They mentioned that this union that we're implementing also has fees.

[01:59:09]However, it's going to be a lot less than 50,000 rand a year. Obviously, small players will be able to afford it.

[01:59:13]That's why we're implementing this policy.

[01:59:16]However, they mentioned that this was similar to the current patent system.

[01:59:20]Yes, this is what the second speaker said. Now, let's just take this into context for a bit. We mentioned this.

[01:59:25]Sorry, we gave our world comparing it to the status quo. We mentioned how it's different and how it addresses the problems of the status quo. Then, they ignored it and said it's the same system and that's the reason why they haven't engaged with it in this debate. Really, it's a bogus argument on their behalf.

[01:59:39]So, yes, it's a very different policy as we explained. It's a complete revamp of the system. Sorry. No, moving on. Uh, another thing, and this is something that was brought up, but kind of been in a limbo in this debate, not really properly engaged with, is the idea that no original ideas exist. Now, this is obviously just a rewarding what my first speaker said, but he mentioned that the inventor of the car took inspiration from the inventor of the wheel. Yes, this is true. To which we got a straw man from their side ignoring what we said. Now to put this to just explain this a bit better or not better to explain it further because I don't think the opposition understood this and just as the panel understands what we are saying is that ideas are abstract things that are very difficult to place ownership upon. Therefore we can't have a concrete ownership system where this owner of this idea again how do you own an idea gets money and only this. Now the reason why we're redoing the system is because having it done in this way doesn't make sense. The inventor of the truck was inspired by the inventor of the car who was inspired by the inventor of the automobile. Sorry, the steam engine who was inspired by the by different You get the point. It goes down a chain and you can't pin down who originally invented the idea because stories are just retellings of one another. Inventions are just inspiration from one another. Like my second speaker said, all ideas grow out naturally from each other and that's where inventions come from. So this entire idea doesn't mean anything on their behalf. Now just engaging with a few more opposition points they mentioned that patents are inventions and not ideas aren't inventions ideas. I mean you have an idea of an invention it's still invention regardless. They didn't really go much into this and it's not really relevant. So I'll just leave it at that.

[02:01:19]Now furthermore um what else? Oh yeah and now another thing that was brought up was that investors uh sorry investors can put uh sorry can put investment into these small creators. Furthermore, how these small creators are able to afford it and within our new patent system, this benefit still this benefit quote unquote still exists. Now, what has been said on both sides? Our policy wants to create a union where people pay small fees to be protected for their ideas to be protected for other people to use their ideas, discouraging bootlegs and encouraging more creativity as a whole and also the further development of technology and inventions as p people are able to take inventions and build off of them. Meanwhile, the original creator or discoverer still gets the original credit. That is all the benefits we have listed. And how many of these benefits have been rebutted? None.

[02:02:07]The opposition hasn't engaged with any of them. And if they have, I rebuted them right here because the arguments were bogus that they made. And what has the opposition said in this debate?

[02:02:17]Basically ignored our policy and rambled on about no patents would lead to the end of the world. Obviously storming their apologies. Sorry. That no patents would lead to creators, small creators being bullied in a ditch. Meanwhile, the big companies laugh over them. No way, Jose. They're describing the status quo when they talk about that. Not our policy. I hope the panel understands everything I've said so far and why we've obviously won this debate because there isn't even anything to compare.

[02:02:40]It's a It's sorry, it's a coughing baby versus a hydrogen bomb. Thank you.

[02:02:58]The time is uh 8 minutes 16 seconds.

[02:04:19]We thank up we thank prop for the case.

[02:04:22]We now call the third Okay.

[02:04:53]Okay. Good morning. Once again, my name is Kizia Jordan and I am the reply speaker for team opposition. The first class clash that I have identified is the improvement the improved system of patterns versus keeping patterns as is.

[02:05:07]Team proposition stated that they would be improving patterns by but their method is not solid or concrete. Keeping the pattern system as is provides protection. A safety net saying that says that even if your ideas may be copied, you could still sue them and you could get your money back which is the main issue here. Our system provides that. Therefore, we have one day that clash. The second clash I've identified is minimal profit from their system versus full profit from one patent in a regular system, our system. They said that they would get that the inventors would get a 10% 10% of the money back when other people use the inventor's original idea. But wouldn't it work more in the inventor's favor to have full control and payback of their own idea?

[02:05:54]Our system fully gives a return of money and investment back to the investor.

[02:06:00]And another thing that that I've realized in this debate right a clash that team proposition defined ban as eradicated meaning completely do away whereas in their speech they completely contradicted their whole case. In conclusion, patents are not just a legal tool, but they are the backbone of innovation, investment, and global trade. They create order in international markets, attract foreign and direct investments, and foster crossbenefit border cooperation. Banning patents would dismantle the very framework that drives innovation, secures investments, and sustains fair global trade. Patents are the rule book that ensure progress, prosperity, and justice in the modern world. Banning patents may sound fair, but it removes the incentive to innovate and leaves small invest small creators unprotected. Instead of fixing the system, it creates a world where ideas are taken not created. For these reasons, we firmly support the opposition side.

[02:07:26]2 minutes 13 seconds.

[02:08:49]Okay, final thanks to team opposition.

[02:08:52]We now call the reply speaker for team proposition for the closing response here.

[02:09:26]Good day to all. I return to the stage to make one thing clear that opposition has deliberately ignored the main premise of our policy which is to install protections on labor almost as if their case has no logical defense against our policy if they actually listen to what we were saying. Now let me ask the question in what world does opposition win in this case in none and I'm going to prove this by looking at the main clashes within this debate why we won those clashes and why we want this debate as a whole. Let's start off with a rather comical one. The definitional clash definition uh starting off definitional clashes are only applicable uh when they are made by the first OP who so graciously accepted our definitions. Rookie mistake but you forfeited any right to contest our definitions. This clash was over before it even began. But let's give you some grace. Since they think that we defined um banning as doing away with, which is correct if you only listen to half of what I said, which is what I said was doing away with. But I also said that this is done by offering an alternative.

[02:10:30]In turn, all of the arguments only make sense if you've listened to half of this debate.

[02:10:36]So when we look at this we see that opposition has framed this has has framed this debate as patents versus no protections whatsoever or patents versus patents which is a complete contradiction meaning that they haven't listened to anything that we've said.

[02:10:52]So let us actually look at what um one of the main clashes labor protections versus idea protections. Now this isn't even a clash since both proposition and opposition believe in the same thing. We both believe that the labor of the creators should be protected. They however forget that we have mentioned that patents do not do this. Not they do not in inherently protect creators. They protect owners who can buy um where patents can be bought by people that do not create them. Therefore, why should the protections go for the people that do not create it? Why would we pick the side that why would we pick the side that kind of soda maybe protects creators rather than the side that directly supports them? And speaking of directly supporting creators, we have to look at innovation. Now typically people innovate things due to the fact that due to monetary incentive right now the now team opposition has looked at the status quo and said that it uh that patents inherently give small creators economic stability. This comes with the assumption that creators with economic instability can somehow afford to get a patent renewed renewed in whichever time frame they haven't given us um and afford this patent and renew it. And they also forget that the problem that we listed that the that the patent protects the right of the owners even if they are not the creators. They have forgotten this very fatal this very fatal there's a very fatal flaw within the uh within their um within their critique which makes all of their case irrelevant looking at this um but looking at this since we've won all three of these clashes let us look at my team's burden of proof our bop was betting ourselves to prove that our policy will bring more bring more benefit to or than detriment to our MVA a smaller creators more than the status quo. Now we when we look at it we see that we give uh create creators direct economic and legal stability while this while opposition has given us a fairy tale in which creators suddenly have enough money to have patents have patents and have given us an illusion where we have e we have either said that patents should be done away with altogether with no alternative or that we should just have patents uh just have a just have patents again which which is what we haven't done because they forgotten a very simple thing within our within um our policy which in which is who it affects. Again, let me reiterate the fatal flaw of patents is that it protects create that protects owners not creators and therefore we want to protect the people that make the innovations the creators labor over ideas. Thank you.

[02:13:59]Final thanks to team proposition. The floor is now open as the adjudicators leave to discuss their findings.

[02:16:02]All I All I Heat. Heat.

[02:16:40]All I All I Wow.

[02:16:58]Heat. Heat. N.

[02:17:18]All I All I Heat. Heat.

[02:17:56]All I All I Heat. Heat.

[02:18:34]All I All I All I All I get into it.

[02:19:50]All I want, all I Heat. Heat. N.

[02:20:10]Heat. Heat. N.

[02:20:27]All I want, all I You all I All I get to be All I want, all I All I All I get to wig.

[02:24:02]All I All I All I feel