Round 6 Nationals 2026 - Otago (Aff) v Bankside Chambers Auckland White (Neg)

Added: 2026-05-25

[00:01:15]The idea that things are simply just not that deep. Is the idea that means you don't come forward to people. Is the idea that means you internalize your feelings. You feel it forever. You never speak out. You are lonely forever. This is where we this debate. A couple things to do. Firstly then on framing then on how this norm creates a lack of drive in society and secondly on social how this impacts social circles and mental health. Okay. Firstly then a few notes on framing. Norms act in accordance with other areas of life. Right? This isn't the definitive point between becoming like New Zealand becoming extreme extremely different. Right? It doesn't mean that we're going to turn into like this massive study society where kids like go to school from like 4 in the morning to like 10 at night. Right? I think what it means to the debate is these norms create where these norms create harms is it specific tipping points in how you make decisions and is how you view your social interactions.

[00:02:08]Okay. So knowing this then what's this norm likely to look like? I think it looks like a general attitude of prioritizing comfort, ease and convenience over like going through strict discomfort or hard work for a greater reward. Right? I think socially this looks like being very chill like not taking things too seriously. You try to put in minimal effort and thinking things that just like aren't that deep.

[00:02:28]Okay. How does this norm act on people?

[00:02:31]I think it's quite pervasive and I think it's ubiquitous in like New Zealand, right? I think you learn it from how your parents, your friends, your siblings interact. I think it's deemed like the Kiwi way. This you know the New World kebab ad infamously, right? I think um it forms international identity and like it is a part of the set of values you hold. Note here, New Zealand unlike other countries does not have a very long history. What this means they've had to make a new identity separate from Britain very quickly. So it's based on these modern values. What this means is it's very entrenched in the entire national identity's behavior.

[00:03:04]Right? It's brought in very highly. If you do break this mold, you're seen as very strange and weird. Okay. Before I move on to my first point, I'll take the POI.

[00:03:12]>> Given many systemic barriers exist for the poor to advance into society, why do they why do they buy into the narrative of competitiveness when they know that these barriers exist?

[00:03:20]>> I think there are other narratives acting on people in poverty that aren't just competitiveness. I think in fact the idea that no, you should just stay laidback and settle down actually doesn't help people at all. I think what does help them is when we celebrate their achievements is when we push them up. So when we actually accelerate their development, they have to do a lot to get rid of that. This leads me on to firstly and lack of drive. The first reason there is a lack of drive here is because expectations are set very low.

[00:03:45]Why is this true? Because there is a culture of not wanting to push high standards because this norm in the back of your mind frames your analysis in the action. This happens in two ways. A, it takes effort to push a student. Like, it takes resources. You have to drive three days a week to like soccer practice. But B, even if people in your life do believe they can you can do really great things, they just like don't view it as the most valuable thing you can do, right? Because their priority isn't on like this grand idea of success. Their priority is instead just on like getting by. Secondly, then on internal expectations. When your base level of effort is low, you internally don't understand like the amount of effort that has to go into things. This looks like maybe your calculus internal is coming up. You ask your friend how they're doing. He says he hasn't begun studying yet, right? I think this sets the precedent for everyone. I think internally you have spent your entire life internalizing this prioritization of comfort. The uncomfortable is often the preliminary step to things like passing, to things like actually making it through. This just means there's a much higher barrier for these students to break in order to achieve anything. I think thirdly then you get away with more right laid-back culture looks like lenience the norm has like less repercussions right there is a therefore a higher threshold to recognize that there is a problem that you are struggling right everyone puts in minimal effort it's hard to tell when people are falling behind it's hard to track that people maybe are having more than like a laziness issue right I think that is where things like systemic poverty do go unnoticed I think that is where things like mental health issues don't get clocked okay but fourthly then even if you don't buy any of this I think this still has a pervasive effect on tall poppy syndrome, right? A lack of like um sorry, a lack of like a priority of ambition. Aiming high isn't valuable or recognized. This means when you do see a great achievement, it's not seen as aspirational and it's sort of unwarranted, right? A this means that recognition isn't provided, people don't deem it as specially significant and people don't see it as really great. But B, it actively becomes demonized and embarrassing. When you see the foreign, you do when you do well, it's you bragging or exceeding the subpar normal.

[00:05:51]This means people are less incentivized to aim high, less incentivized to succeed. This looks like actively needing to downplay your achievements, like being embarrassed, like figning nervousness, like being quiet about the things you should be proud about. That means we actively stop people from getting a positive benefit in their life. That's really harmful. And the outcomes of this, people aren't encouraged to reach their highest potential. There are pervasive harms on every level, right? On a day-to-day level, you maybe just don't do your homework for math class. Maybe you skip your sports training. Maybe you tune out and don't listen in class and you play Tetris because you can get away with it, right? Let's quantify this. Like tens of thousands of students put in 40% less effort in math class every single day.

[00:06:29]They don't do that revision sheet. They don't listen to the teacher. Maybe they skip. Right? Apply this to every single day of your life. Apply this to sitting in the end of your exam knowing 80% less of the content. This is where you fail.

[00:06:40]This is where you can't continue. This is where you can't get into university.

[00:06:43]It's not going to kill you not to play Tetris Tetris in class, right? I think therefore if you're going to do the like weighing up here, it probably matters quite a lot more at a higher level.

[00:06:51]Maybe this is people buying out of their futures and their dreams, right? Aiming high is a lot of effort. You have to cut against the grain. It makes you look abnormal. Now, hundreds of thousands of students don't dain to aspire, right? in your maybe you're in your 60s and you worked an office job your whole life and you never did that thing you were passionate about because you never thought you could make it and no one ever encouraged you. I think maybe you never passed NCA. Maybe you never got out of the poverty cycle. Maybe you never like get to escape social welfare.

[00:07:18]I think that's a massive harm in the debate. Great. Even if you don't buy any of this, we still win on social circles and cultural norms. Okay. At the top of this, due to these values, people are less likely to talk and acknowledge problems in everyday life. The first thing here is being laidback means people are mocked for stressing or caring too much even if these things are out of your control. Maybe you vent to a friend about your problems and they say it's not that deep. Maybe you feel as if you're the problem that you shouldn't worry so much that you don't seek help because you don't value your own struggles. Secondly then though, you have to present as informal and chill all of the time. What this does is it makes it difficult to outline issues you have to point out your feelings and struggles in relationships. This looks like you never express express your stress in an honest way. This like maybe for example like yeah Lola it's whatever about a serious concern on a sports team. Maybe in a friendship group you can't unpack the way like your friends are being mean to you because it isn't that deep. Maybe you don't seek a therapist or counselor because you don't see these things of having a large amount of validity because you don't think your feelings have that merit.

[00:08:21]Thirdly then on the strength of perceived relationships look you don't express actual genuine love and appreciation overtly. You are frequently flippant and laugh- seeeking. This looks like, oh yeah, they're chill. You have a lack of vulnerability, right? There is a direct harm in not expressing that someone means a lot to you. This is deep and serious and formal, right? What this means for the debate is NEG stands for thousands less people knowing that they are loved and cared about, that the people in their lives actually want them around. Well, to the hundreds of relationships in your day-to-day life to millions of people in New Zealand, this cover, this low-level impact already is enough to win. At the end of this, relationships are more shallow and silly that you never engage in deep connections because it's like a lot less harsh, right? Note, New Zealand has the highest teen suicide rate in the world.

[00:09:06]This is amplified greatly by an inability to be vulnerable, to speak about your feelings, to ever seek a counselor because it's not that deep, because you should chill out because it's embarrassing. I am not embarrassed and I am proud to say.

[00:09:22]I thank the speaker for his speech and I invited the person who gave his speech to open their case.

[00:10:12]As humans, all we want to do is live happy and dignified. lives. I think it is incredibly beautiful that as a nation we have a culture that gives people leeway to stop and appreciate the scenery as opposed to going onto that hydonic treadmill and constantly wanting more and more in their lives. Four things in my speech today. Firstly, I'm going to do some setup. Secondly, I'm going to do some responses. Thirdly, explain why you just get better happiness of the general population. And lastly, on how the comparative is inaccessible and like how this norm protects society from other harmful norms. Okay, firstly on some setup then one why have the laid-back norms actually formed in the first place. A they formed the response of a culture of overworking for example as a response to the mining culture in the 1800s in New Zealand where you have to pivot people away from that materialistic mindset away from that hadonic treadmill into a life where people can actually enjoy themselves as opposed to constantly seeking material wealth. But B, it also forms response to British colonialism.

[00:11:08]Because what we all know that New Zealand was built off of a colonial system. And what I mean by this is one that when the British people came to New Zealand, they fought that they brought really socially constructed formalities and had the illusion of civility, the idea of manners and speaking a common language for uniformity as opposed to expressing yourself in a more laid-back manner as opposed to being able to speak vernacular, speak slang, right? But two is that colonizers just overworked the Moldi population and forced them into labor and forced them into providing economic gain for the crown. But all these mean is that like these uh these came with like really negative implications and all of that means that like this caused the norm of being laidback to resist that toxic work culture to resist those colonial formalities that are formed in its place. But secondly, in terms of what the comparative looks like, I think it's just analogous to sorts of work culture and norms in Southeast Asia, right? That is because on the comparative, I think that British colonialist ideals would have continued in New Zealand. That is what is like the comparative and it's just probably pushing a similar idea to the American dream that like working hard and conformity to societal norms just gives a very prosperous life and it makes people achieve stability.

[00:12:11]>> Okay, now that I'm going to do a couple of responses. Firstly, they explain to you that people are just not going to work hard and therefore they're going to have tangibly worse outcomes anyways.

[00:12:19]Right? Note here that other norms also exist to check and balance this norm.

[00:12:23]That is, you probably still want to get a job and make a living because you do not want to starve, right? People have an incentive to be able to live like good secure lives, which means that pro probably you're still going to do the baseline in order to make sure that your basic needs are met. But two, even if people work less hard and they're materially worse off, I think they just perceive your lives to be a lot better.

[00:12:41]I'm going to talk about this in my first point, right? But secondly is that this there's this idea of people not seeking help and their feelings are not going to be expressed and people will not speak up for themselves. This is just not true. A because again other narratives exist and there's the like importance of mental health and outside of the house.

[00:12:55]But B, we're able to flip this because on their side of the house when you're constantly going to be very materialistic, you're likely and like you're going to be very materialistic and very proper. You're probably going to be constantly chasing that promotion.

[00:13:05]You're probably going to be constantly trying to better yourself which means you're probably going to step on other people. It is a far more toxic environment on their side of the house.

[00:13:11]Yes, I'll take your point.

[00:13:13]>> Um, yeah. So, if this um framing is like so inextricably linked to British colonialism, why in other countries with the British committed actual genocides is this narrative completely different and do these norms not exist?

[00:13:24]>> I don't think that is just true. I think these norms do exist in other colonial like places as well. Um, but also it is just the fact that like that's just not true guys. Okay, just trust me, bro.

[00:13:35]Okay, now that I'm going to talk about the happiness of the general population and also it's just because New Zealand is uniquely culturally like just like that guys. Okay, contextually these laid-back norms like what does it actually look like? What does this actually look like? How do you how does it manifest? A it looks like prioritizing family and well-being over your career aspirations. B it looks like to ground this for day-to-day people, being able to take off mental health days from work, being able to have cover conversations with your boss and not doing unpaid overtime shifts. But C, this also leaks into New Zealand bureaucracy and policy. Right? This looks like New Zealand having very good labor laws to protect people from overworking. This looks like policy provide like prior prioritizing the environment and the general well-being of individuals. For example, like nuclear free policies even if it like has the trade-off of economic gain, right? The way in which this norm operates is that people are going to work symmetrically hard on both sides.

[00:14:21]Like people are going to symmetrically want to provide their basic needs and have shelter, but comparatively people will constantly be seeking more on top of that. And this means that we're happy to concede that in our waste maybe it is true that some people compromise economic security but it's just fine because if they perceive their lives to be better that is what we went on right okay so firstly how do people internalize this these laid-back norms a people do not see money and wealth and hard work as a legitimate way of measuring their worth and happiness but b that laid-back culture is just incredibly accessible right because people work like the baseline to achieve survivable income and then they focus on other aspects of their lives for example they focus on the relationships of their life they focus on being able to express themselves and like having like living good dignified lives, right? But see, this means that even if people are marginally like less even if marginally less people break out of poverty on outside the house and even if you believe their claim to some extent, it means that people just perceive their lives to be a lot better because you're less likely to stress yourself out from work or seek materialistic gain. People feel happy when they take care of their mental health and give themselves a break. But secondly is that people are more likely to advocate for themselves.

[00:15:21]This is going to further flip their mix here because note there that by like you're probably not going to accept really poor working conditions on outside the house because you care less about pleasing your boss and chasing that promotion. You care more about protecting your own dignity. You aren't going to constantly try to chase that pay raise. But thirdly, because it looks like being free to express your identity, right? Because formality comes with strong social constructs that limits the way you speak. It presses you to shift away from speaking vernacular to speaking things like standardized English to like present yourself in a certain way. you feel less pressure on outside the house to pre present your way yourself in a way in which conforms to societal norms. Right? How do we weigh this point? One, it is incredibly accessible for people to just take care of themselves. It applies to literally everyone and even if economically people cannot compromise as much. It is the expression of identity is to feel secure in the way you carry yourself to walk into a room and feel comfortable with the frame you occupy knowing that you are not like bound by formalities and conformity. Okay. I'm going to secondly talk about how the comparative is just incredibly uh inaccessible. And note here this is the idea that the laid-back norm does good by predicting for protecting what society would have experienced in the absence of this norm.

[00:16:24]Right? One the comparative looks like you lock out really disadvantaged people from low socioeconomic backgrounds for buying in. Right? Because when comparatively the norm is that you have to work very hard and maintain strict codes of formality and rigid discipline.

[00:16:36]a that is just inaccessible because the majority of low SCES people just cannot access social mobility, cannot access the ability to work incredibly hard, right? It's because there are structural barriers from you being hired if you're born in a poor area, if you go to bad schools and if you like everyone around you is very demotivating. You do not have the resources to properly climb, right? This means that hydonic treadmill is going to lead you to absolutely nowhere because no matter how hard you seek the success, it is never going to come to you because you are structurally locked out of that. Right? This means that B the upper echelon is also just going to be incredibly materialistic on their side of the house. Like this narrative gives rich people an even larger incentive to exploit people below them for economic gain as opposed to empathizing for people and being more lenient with your workers as opposed to giving your workers more days off and allowing them to actually relax in the first place. Right? All this means that like this narrative is incredibly harmful for people who cannot like cannot properly economically actualize.

[00:17:25]If you are unable to break out of this poverty cycle, you're constantly going to be seeking something you never have.

[00:17:30]Whereas on our comparative, you can just feel happy. You can just like live a dignified life and actually take care of yourself and I think that's comparatively better. People perceive their lives to be better. That is good.

[00:17:40]But secondly, this comparative is just inaccessible for a lot of people other than people who with low SCS backgrounds, right? For example, for parents and it's just hard to take days off and to always work overtime. If you want to spend time with your kids, if your kid is sick and you ask your boss to leave a couple of hours early, they're probably going to say no on side uh whatever side affirming, right?

[00:17:57]Because I think there's just this narrative that you have to constantly work hard. That you have to constantly prove your worth in terms of capitalist system. You cannot stand for this. These people are largely locked out from corporate success on both worlds. But on ours, they do not spend their life trying to chase fake success. They do not try to spend their lives chasing this fake materialistic gain. For all those reasons, just be happy. Guys, I thank the speaker for this speech and I invite seek him for a minute.

[00:19:18]Today at 6:00 a.m. I threw up from nerves. the same again yesterday. I didn't tell my coaches. All I told him was I was hungry because I didn't want to harsh the vibes. I didn't want to be formal. I just wanted to be chill and laid back. Okay. Love to coaches. Couple things to do in the survey. Firstly, on framing. Then on is is this idea inaccessible? How do people like react?

[00:19:37]Do they work hard? Do they stress people out? Then outcomes socially. Okay.

[00:19:41]Firstly, then on framing. They tell you that this is like in response to colonization. I think firstly like it's probably like we tell you at NPI that's mostly like there's other colonial countries do it but I also think secondly we flip the impacts here if we we prove that we do break the poverty cycle we'll get into that more lately they tell you that the counterfactual is turning into Southeast Asia with like Singapore cram schools look I think you probably this is like quite a stretch right a couple responses here firstly New Zealand like as a whole academically does is just like not as super intense rightes and UK are doing what we do and level two I don't think that national something revamps the curriculum and makes it all like 10 times harder just because of this norm.

[00:20:21]I think secondly there's like structurally not reasons for this, right? Southeast Asia is like millions and billions of people in it. New Zealand has like much less people.

[00:20:28]There's just like less competition that way. I think lastly, you're just like structurally not equipped to do it. You don't have the money. You don't have the setup. You don't have the position. I don't think you like buy that. That's the kind of facial. Lastly then on like the laid-back norms, look, this is just the status quo, right? Millionaires and millionaires don't just become like happy and chill and give all your workers laid off days. They still have all these incentives that they themselves to fame you about profit about like that. Okay. Firstly then on is on do people still work hard and like do they get happiness? Right. They tell you at first that you still just have incentives to get good jobs. I think firstly you probably don't work as hard to get like this this means you settle for like like normal, right? I I think mean you don't push yourself to get like the really good job, right? Because it's too much effort. You don't push yourself to the highest thing. I think secondly here, it's not clear if you actually are aware of these norms, right? I think retroactively you're probably like, "Oh, I should have worked harder in high school." But I think there's like thousands of kids in New Zealand who get to year 13, realize they need to get UEIE and realize they've locked in too late but didn't pay attention beforehand. I think they just like still those incentives don't apply to those people. Then on like do you get happiness if like if with with this norm I think firstly they tell you that survival survival wage is just like important and you can do happy things otherwise couple responses here I think firstly in the status quo money does have like a large degree of ability to buy happiness right I think the more money you have like you can take your family on vacations you can afford to take days off work I think you do have more happiness on our side secondly it's like not fulfilling right I think going on a barbecue every Saturday after working your like dull office job 9 to5 for 40 years doesn't outweigh all the boredom you feel doesn't outweigh all like the labor you do I don't think they get as much happiness there secondly to tell you that you're more likely to advocate for yourself I like stand up for a boss when the like labor conditions are poor firstly I think in that example right you just have other incentives to stand up for yourself I think on their side it's actually like we flip this right because you want to avoid conflict because you want to just be chill and laidback you're like it's just not a big deal I won't do Okay, last then that you like present yourself more harshly. I think still even if you are more happy, right? I think I think okay going on to prove why like we do get more people pushing themselves, getting better jobs, why we don't stress everyone out and why we get better outcomes that way. I think at the top of this the baseline of effort like and stress people operate in New Zealand is very low, right? I don't I don't think it kills people to not play Tetris in class six periods a day, five days a week, right? I think people can work and operate on medium levels of stress. No, we're all at night's here and we're like mostly having fun, right? I think at the top of this some stress is unavoidable, right? Maybe on their side, you do chill. You try you try to be laidback, you don't work. But I think you don't do the homework. You don't study, but you still have to be in the internal. You still have to sit end of year exams. I think the point you're so like laidback that you like now spend a week sitting in your mid like end of year exams staring at the laptop screen for 3 hours. you know nothing because you didn't study. You feel absolutely stupid and hopeless. That is such a greater harm than just like studying an hour every week for a couple of weeks could ever be. Right? I think that's hugely harmful. I think at the end of this I think you buy to some degree that this norm just does prevent people from fulfilling their potential. Right? We tell you three weeks and Emily to no response. Right? You just don't buy you like internally aren't push externally people like don't do these things for you. But then also you just don't think that the standard of effort you need to reach like those high things is like achievable. You think you can get away with doing bare minimum and you still just somehow achieve your goals because you're young and like idealistic. I think this is a huge debate because at the point like on just lower levels you just like are worse off, right? You do you like don't go to university because you didn't get UE. You just have like less money in your job, right? You have fewer luxuries. Your job probably sucks given you spend like 50 years of your life in that. I think you have to weigh that really highly. Maybe out of the work they like have more time with family. I don't think that's true. But even if it is true, you just like have a less ability to enjoy it, right? Because your back's really sore because you like working in a construction site all week, right? Maybe you're just bored out of your mind in your office job. I think the point where you just like are encouraged to study more at school. We never get all those harms. That is huge.

[00:24:46]We went on death and stay there. But I think secondly, the highest level harms here is that your dreams go unfulfilled, right? You look back at your life and you're like, what have I done when I was a teenager? I wanted to change the world. I wanted to be young, but I like let it all slip past and now I've like done nothing with my life. I think that's a huge harm, right? When thousands of people aren't doing what they loved when those who do succeed have to constantly play down, pretend they didn't study, pretend they didn't work hard, or they actively just get like docked upon. I think that is a huge harm as well. We increase negativity there. Lastly, then on social, right, they tell you that it's inaccessible to many people. Then they tell you about structural barriers in their world. They they just want the people to give up and be happy with your like life in poverty, right? I think often for these people, work life balance isn't possible, right?

[00:25:31]Because you're working three part-time jobs, you're struggling, you're suffering anyways, right? I think at least they try. If you buy there's even a 10% chance that this person studies really hard, gets good grades, manages to be the first person in their generation to go to university. I think that is a huge benefit that is exclusive to our side.

[00:25:50]I think at the end of this they tell you that you're like you get better social relationships. I actually think you are more when you you have social relationships you are more dedicated and focused, right? You aren't flippant. You aren't trying to get like clown points.

[00:26:01]You actually really care about them. You want them to be fulfilled, right? I think we tell you about taking mental health issues seriously. No, you can't just like wish anxiety or depression away, right? I think when you have external and internal factors telling you that it's just not that deep, you shouldn't care. That's huge, huge harms because now you don't take relationships as seriously, right? You have a lack of appreciation. Maybe on their side, you just don't tell your wife you love them as much because that's too serious, that's too formal. You just give them a hug and get on with the barbecue, right?

[00:26:31]That is a huge harm when thousands of people just like never get told that as often. And then secondly here is the lack of vulnerability, right? You can't point out harms in friendships. You can't deal with big discussions. That is a huge harm.

[00:26:46]You can't talk about your emotions or bottle up. You just bottle up feelings, right? Young people never express that.

[00:26:52]That is a huge harm. Lastly, then your relationships when you do have them are shallow. They focus on shallow things because you're always masking because you're always trying to fulfill the idea. There's less deep deep connection.

[00:27:03]Everyone feels they're seen. You work a mediocre job. When you do have fun, you can't even be yourself. That is a huge harm on their side. I'm proud to stand.

[00:27:16]I thank the speaker for this speech and I invite the second negating speaker to continue the debate.

[00:28:05]Anyone who's seen my coaches crash out after debate know that a laid-back culture does not mean you're not able to express stress and feelings of frustration. A couple things in this speech. Firstly, I'm going to talk about some framing and the comparative. Secondly, I'm going to talk about this idea of people breaking out of poverty/ a lack of drive that students have. Then I'm going to talk about happiness. Then socially. Finally, I'm going to do my split on a principle.

[00:28:35]Okay, firstly on some framing then they tell you that this idea of a cultural like normal being laid-back looks like everybody constantly feeling the need to be chill. I think you can just sense check this in generally, right? I think that it's not true that people in New Zealand walk around looking like robots.

[00:28:47]I think that it's true that we have such a large emphasis on mental health, right? Note that we are one of the countries in the world who I would say are most progressive in terms of incorporating mental health education into school. We have the Indian mental health foundation. We literally don't like devote like millions and millions and millions of dollars into mental health every year in the health system.

[00:29:02]We care a lot about mental health. We care a lot about people like expressing things, right? And note then they tell you that like in the comparative they say that like oh it's not going to get that bad. It's not going to be like extremely harsh conditions because the New Zealand curriculum isn't that strict and we don't have that set up in the country. A couple things here. One, note that it's not enough for them to just say this isn't what happens because we're talking about what would have happened if the norm didn't exist because this is how the norm protects us, right? So they have to justify why the curriculum and setup of New Zealand wouldn't have been changed if this norm had never happened. Um, but secondly, we tell you that like it is just like not enough. But secondly, we tell you that we don't we win even on the margins even if you believe that what it just looks like is like kids feeling more stressed and pressure from their teachers. But then I'm going to deal quickly with their POI because I tell you that like why do these norms not exist in other post British places? And I think this is like some sort of idea to try to like link it away from like British colonialism when that is in undoubtedly where these norms started. The reason these don't exist in other post like colonial places even if you want to believe that's true is because we feel like in uniquely early postc colonial as in we broke out fairly early and also we have like a pretty large like culture of protest think of the lanti right these protests didn't necessarily happen other countries we don't have the same culture of police brutality knocking these protests down therefore that allows for a lot more like social like movement but also not that like the modi culture is uniquely non-materialistic compared to like other cultures around the world which has allowed for New Zealand to have like strike quite a strong core because modic culture focuses so much on water on well-being on connection to the land. This is very important in New Zealand being able to have these like norms and this is why these moments have originated. Okay. Now talking about this idea of how this norm is going to impact people because they have a couple claims here. They tell you here that people have like a inherent lack of drive and they have a couple pushes. Firstly, they tell you that expectations are set low among people, right? Firstly, we say that like money is a fairly strong incentive in the status quo, right? As in I think it's pretty intuitive that people want money and people know that working a high paying job is going to get money, right? What does this mean?

[00:30:50]It means that people already have some sort of incentive to work hard and to have relatively high expectations of themselves in order to meet the like barriers to have these like jobs, right?

[00:30:59]What does this mean then? It means the only people who don't buy into this, I'd say, are the people who are not going to buy in on either side of the world because either A they're just very disengaged from the norms of society because they see themselves being locked out from the traditions of society because they're like so disadvantaged or because they're like from a low ACS background, right? or B they just see it as incredibly unlikely that they're ever going to get into this because they are aware of the structural barriers that face them right i.e. if you are like a kid who has to work after school it is very hard for you to fathom like being able to study after school even if you have like an even stronger incentive from this norm to do it right but what changes in the comparative then is that on on their side of the house you now feel this pressure to do so because the incentive of money is a personal incentive but a norm is a cultural incentive that pushes everybody to conform to the same thing. This means then that this norm just incentiviz pressures you to do things that you were never able to do in the first place.

[00:31:46]Right? But then on this idea of expectations again even if you don't believe any of that you should believe that people want to be happy and people have expectations on themselves to set themselves to achieve that. Right? I.e. you want to be happy based on your own metric of success. And I think it's fair that people in New Zealand set themselves expectations to meet that. If you want to be fit, people set themselves expectations. I'm going to go to the gym every day of the week. If you want to be like really good at playing piano, I think people set themselves expectations. I'm going to do this. The difference is is that these expectations are uniquely able under this norm to be tailored to you and they're not able to be like tied to this like singular metric of success. They're not able to be like culturally enforced on you from these very like culturally enforced things that we tell you would get on their side of the house. Then they tell you that like other people don't push you and like other people don't have this expectation. I'd say this is largely like a good thing if you want to believe it because even in the best case where people don't push you, I think I've just proven why people have a general incentive to do well themselves.

[00:32:38]But if you don't believe like money and success is an incentive, I think generally people just like want to be good at things. I think that's like a relatively intuitive thing that it feels good to get questions right in class. It feels good to be on the top of the leaderboard in class. It feels good to like have learned a new skill to realize that you are now able to do that calculus problem, right? I think this is a relatively intuitive and what this means is that when other people don't push you, I think it's a relatively good thing. But I'd say that I disagree with this because people do generally push you. I your parents also want you to be happy. Your parents are also telling you, "Hey kid, do your homework. Your teacher also wants you to like do well in their class either for their own incentives or for yours. Therefore, other people do push you to the extent at which I think is healthy." But then note here at the top of this, right, that they firstly I think their framing here is just hugely unrealistic because they tell you about these kids who are like constantly sitting in exam classes have no idea what's going on. They tell you about these kids who never study.

[00:33:26]This is not what we see in the status quo. New Zealand does not have a 100% fail rate. We see students who actually try. We see students who do put in academic effort. This is like this framing is unrealistic. And what it means is that they cannot claim that they have such a massive shift if these cultural like laid-back norms aren't enforced because these are already the status quo. They have to defend the status quo which is a country in which people are generally academically fairly successful. Not to the extent of these other countries maybe, but generally people pass, people get into university, people do get good grades, people do get scholarships. That is what they have to defend. Clearly these culturally enforced norms do not actually create this. But finally then, even if you want to believe that you can push everyone to do better on their side of the house, and you can push everyone to work harder, the money in the economy is finite, as in the jobs in the economy is finite, as in there still has to be 10 janitors in the school, there still has to be five managerial positions, right?

[00:34:17]If everybody is rising, it is very unclear why this necessarily means some people rise above others. They cannot do this on an individual level because when they tell you that this one individual is going to work harder and therefore get a higher position that necessarily means that they have to consider the rest of society. If everybody's working harder then the actual comparative like change to an individual is not that large. Right? If the kid from the private school who got tons of resources is working hard and you are also working hard and now with this norm both of you are just working harder. They're still going to just end up in a relatively higher position than you. you're still going to have the same relative position in the economy even at their absolute best where they do incentivize individuals so much more. They have to deal with this to prove any incentive for individuals, right?

[00:34:58]>> Quickly, I'm going to talk about socially because I tell you that like socially it looks like people not celebrating achievements, people not speaking up about stress and mental health. We tell you that's actually far better on our side of the house. Mental health is far more prioritized when you don't when you're not this hiddenistic tradem where you actually do not chase corporate wealth and you have more time outside of work. Note that in the status quo it is like fairly reasonable for people to take mental health days off school. people to like tell their boss they're feeling stressed about something like this, right? This means that like people just feel far more comfortable talking about stress, when your like worth as a person is not tied to your material success. When people do not believe that their career defines their like life, they believe that happiness and well-being is far more intrinsic to that. And that is where you get people talking about mental health, which we do see in the status quo. Okay. Finally, now I'm going to move on to my principle on why is it really good to resist colonialism and preserve multiculture.

[00:35:41]Note that multiculture never centered around prioritizing materialistic success. It pri it prioritize connection with the land holistic well-being the far model which note includes like familial social emotional mental health that is very locked out by corporate success that only measures you by your monetary success right what this means then is that as we tell you first these norms largely came from European and British work culture right therefore these harms these norms in society are actually doing quite big good because it allows that original culture of moldi culture to like preserve in the status quo right it allows that New Zealand in general still believes in having a strong conction with the land. It assumes that New Zealand in general still values that all those like other different types of well-being that are so important to Modi culture. This is principally really really important because at the end of the day our land is built off of Modi. Our country is built off of Modi people. We need to preserve this culture. They need to deal with this to have any chance of winning this debate.

[00:36:35]I take the speaker for this speech and invite a third affirmative.

[00:37:51]The word that negaton stands for in this debate is the status quo. It is a world where no matter how many chill barbecues you have on the weekend, moldy culture in this country is still neglected.

[00:38:02]where like hundreds of thousands of children are killing themselves like every year because they do not feel like they can express themselves fully without being cut down in the meadow.

[00:38:13]All of these things are really really terrible. We do not stand for them.

[00:38:16]Right? So that's why I'm very proud to negate affirm here. Right? So a couple things to do in this debate, right?

[00:38:21]Firstly, some notes on framing and particularly like the comparative and how other norms interact with this norm, right? Then I'm going to talk to you about ambition and like success. Then lastly, a big push on mental health here, right? So firstly here like we hear this push from from negating that I think essentially boils down to that this norm comes from this like history of like British colonialism and stuff and that naturally that means the comparative is that the country just has no protests about indigenous rights at all and that it looks like some kind of like autocratic state where everybody's working themselves to the bone and dying. I don't think this is true. Note, I flagged you in my POI that there are a lot of a lot a lot of countries that have been invaded by Britain at some point in their history. A lot of them like do not have like these norms that look like this at all. Right? I feel like you cannot just assert this. Right?

[00:39:07]So, we framed you at first for actual reasons what you actually believe each word looks like, not just assertions about former British colonies. Right?

[00:39:16]So, then secondly here, we hear like a lot of pushes on materialism from the other side. Right? I think what we believe here on a is that materialism is a completely separate norm and we think it's largely independent of this debate.

[00:39:27]Now you might be a little bit confused because we tell you a lot about success particularly in academia and your career. What we tell you though is that while money maybe is a part of this what is driving people here and what the harms are if they don't reach these burdens is that they don't feel fulfilled, right? Is that they know they have this kind of potential inside of them and they're not able to do the things that they love. Maybe somebody who would love to become an anthropologist is stuck putting fries in the deep fryer at McDonald's. That is the really big harm. That is what you can't stand for here. Right? Success does not just equal that you are rich.

[00:39:59]But I think if we can give people more money, that is definitely a benefit. And I think we can still do that, right? So then on ambition and success here, right? Essentially, our push to you is that we motivate people to work harder, right? Because the interiorly in and of themselves, they're more driven, but also everybody around them pushes them forward more, right? And secondly, we also tell you that in our word uniquely when people do get to those positions of success, they're no longer cut down, right? They're no longer belittled. We tell you about top Bobby syndrome at first. It doesn't hear like any response at all. I think that's debate winning, right? Um so firstly here on this on this academia point, right? We hear like a couple of lines of response from NEG as to why on their side people are still hardworking. They still get things done, right? We hear essentially for the for the points about kids. If you're thinking about this debate in terms of the context of a school challenge, whether or not they put in effort, whether or not they pass their exams, big outcomes for us. We hear that your parents want you to be happy and successful and so they're going to push you to do this anyway. I think yes, obviously your parents want you to be happy. I think most of the time we believe your parents aren't evil. I think the difference here is how do your parents conceive of what will actually make you happy? We think on their side it looks like they give you like more days off like that your teacher doesn't really care if you're playing Tetris in math class all day and you're not doing the work. you turn in the homework late because you went to the beach over the weekend instead of doing the work.

[00:41:13]Right? This is the perception of happiness on their side. On our side, we tell you that people have a better, more long-term focused perception of happiness, right? That they motivate kids to do things that will make them really, really happy in 20 years, not just kind of happy in the next one, right? We also hear that people like want to do well themselves, right? This is like a big push from negative. People are self motivated. They don't need a societal norm to tell them to do well because like getting questions right in class is sort of fun. I think when we tell you the mechanism about tall puppy syndrome, when we tell you that kid in that class, it's answering that question, right? And everybody's going like, "Oh, it's not that deep. Oh, that's so high cortisol, right? That's not actually a fun thing to do, right?

[00:41:49]You lose that motivation because every time you try and grow, somebody cuts you down. That's so so big. If neg don't respond, they cannot win, right?" Then we hear essentially that the problem isn't that bad in the status quo. New Zealand doesn't have a 100% failure rate. I don't think it needs to because we characterize to you that there are a significant portion of students who are failing because of this. Maybe it's the difference between passing or failing.

[00:42:08]Maybe it's the difference between getting good enough grades to go to med school or having to like go and study something else that you don't like. I think what are what are pretty shocking are our attendance rates, right? I think we fix this in the case that there is a societal pressure on you to go to school because it's good because it will actually make your life better in the future, right? Um yeah, and yeah, I feel like I want to sense check this idea on materialism. I think I tell you at the start that I think it falls out of the debate. But even so, I think if we sense check this point that everybody's like now fiending for a Bugatti because they're all entirely materialistically driven. If you look at other countries that don't have this specific norm, people just do not do that, right? I feel like we need a lot more mechanisms on why this stands more than pride and fulfillment. I think the big dreamers matter here significantly in this debate. So then let's talk about poverty. Right? I think there are two different ways that you can weigh poverty in this debate that are provided by both teams. Right? They tell you that you should weigh this based on how those in poverty feel and where their hopes and stuff are. What we tell you to weigh is how many people are actually in poverty because we give you a path to motivate these people and get them out of there. Right? Essentially, we hear a lot of pushes as to why these people are always going to be stuck in these like low economic environments. Firstly, here we hear a push that like no matter what happens to the economy, there still needs to be low-skilled jobs. I feel like the difference that on our side that is not engaged with enough is that maybe those people are in those positions, but they have the extra drive. They know that they can get out of them. They know that they can take on extra study, whatever. They could level up, right? They can progress through the career ladder. They know they can do better and so they choose to, right? I feel like in general, teaching these people, no matter how unlikely it is that they succeed, teaching them that there is no way that they can succeed, that they should throw in the towel and just give up means they stay in poverty forever, no matter what. And they can never get people out of poverty. Even if you buy there's a slight chance we do, we save lives. That is so huge for the debate. We can simply win off of that, right? There was no point in just sitting and Buddha maxing and being sad, right? Um so then like uh I'll take a POI actually before I continue on.

[00:44:05]All right, assuming none. Uh I'll continue here. Right. So then on mental health, right, we tell you this is a huge push for us that this um societal narrative essentially creates an environment where people are unwilling to be open about their feelings, right?

[00:44:17]They believe that their feelings are like not that important. They're less likely to seek therapy. They're more likely to have these really really high skill harms we tell you about where they commit suicide or they self harm because they just have nobody to come to. Their relationships are not close and deep.

[00:44:31]Right? I think what we hear largely is like a sort of gatekeeping mechanism from Nick uh to us on this. But then we also hear a very late push on Mai culture. Right? Note as I flagged you in my intro, this norm is clearly not doing a very good job at like this in the status quo because Mai people do face a lot of discrimination. Right? The fact that everybody's like all chill and laid back and it doesn't matter doesn't help them out, right? I don't hear mechanisms as to why this somehow is not the case, right? But then on relationships, we hear a couple of responses from them. We hear that New Zealand apparently curse a lot about mental health. Feel like this is simply not true. New Zealand has some of the highest suicide rates in the world. It has some of the highest rates of depression, right, and self harm, especially among like men and young boys, right? It's really, really bad.

[00:45:10]The mental health system is not funded enough, right? Okay. Um, also your mental health days that you apparently spend with your family to have better connections. I feel like in either side of the house they are legally enforced.

[00:45:20]No, I don't think we hear enough mechanisms as to how in either world this norm affects policy and the way that parliament acts. No, we tell you in our debate that we don't think that's in the scope of what happens here. We tell you mechanistically how this norm influences the way that people think and which areas of society it does it. So then what's left, right, is maybe you do buy that you get to spend slightly more time with your family because you're not working as long hours. I think this doesn't matter when you can't bring yourself to tell your friend or whatever that you love them. When you're just still in a situationship instead of having a girlfriend, right? I feel like when you don't value your own um problems and you don't think anybody else does, so you never bring them up and you suffer in silence. So so bad. So so proud to be a >> I thank the speaker for this speech and I invite up the neg.

[00:46:11]Thank you.

[00:47:08]The affirmative team was very smart at first because they told you that this debate doesn't exist in a vacuum and that there's other narratives and norms and incentives that incentivize you to do other things and that exists on both sides. I think that was the smartest thing in this debate, but it also was strategically very bad for them because then they can never claim any of the harms that they tell you that you literally don't tell your mom that you love them, that you exclude yourself from relationships. They can never claim that. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. My speech is very, very simple. I'm going to go through all the layers of contingency and stratification of their case and why they can never get any of the outcomes they claim on what the norm actually looks like. And then I'm going to talk about what the norm of laidback looks like and why that's far far better on the idea of what the norm of competitiveness looks like. I think at the very top level their case is extremely contingent that people buy in in the very first place and that they buy into a great degree and that's a very good thing. We told you at first and down the line that the rich buy in either way because they have incentives to be comp competitive because they're in spheres where everyone's very s very successful. That is the same. The kind of people that actually change are the people who are less advantaged, that are poor, that don't currently like ex exist within these like spheres of success. We tell you that these people experience a lot of like harm and that they view the government as not doing enough. They never think that they should buy in because it's a going against like historical prejudice that they've experienced, but also they see it as unobtainable. They tell you that these systemic barriers are like you can get over even if it's 10%. But that's not the point because it doesn't matter practically. It's a perception that poor people don't think they can. That's why it's so important. I'll note two responses here because we told you we told you at PO that they told you at PY that poor people can just like celebrate small wins. But that doesn't deal with the perception in the first place that you never get poor people buying in anyway. But also they tell you that you get a 10% try chance. Again, that doesn't deal with the fact that they never buy in. That top level contingency was never proved. They didn't fortify it enough. They lost here. Notice here that this takes down the rest of their case.

[00:49:04]I think you should find this very important in this debate because it means that we can win our positive material that I'm going to work later on the principle, on the health, on the things that you should care about the most. They told you that you get better education and success on their side because it necessarily means that you need to work for these things. We gave you that we we told you that you they already didn't prove the contingency, but let's take the best case and wipe the slate clean and say that people do work harder to a very great degree. Why do we tell you that you still don't get this benefit? Because firstly we tell you that if you believe that the narrative if you believe that this debate exists outside of a vacuum then you understand in the status quo there are already narratives that you should work hard that you should go to university and that you should be successful. Notice that the kind of individuals that don't that they try to change are the ones that couldn't buy into these narratives anyway. That means that they're not going to change likely because this is even less direct narrative and it can't be the tipping point if the others didn't. But also we told you that in in for example if they want to talk about work if they want to talk about pay that if competitiveness increases that it doesn't mean you can just work more cuz notice that you're not paid for how much work you do in a day. It looks like having to get promotions and stuff. If you buy that people are competitive you can never get those promotions cuz the bosses don't want to give it to you because they want that money cuz that's what they buy into on their side. On to their next impart impact because they try to tell you that you get a lot of discourse around mental health. Note, this is really important because this is where they tried to contend the most with our positive material. They told you that you're more likely to express the kind of like mental health issues that you have because you're not so chill about it and you're not so flippant. We tell you that what it looks like on the ground level is if you're competitive, if you're ambitious, you don't want to show that you are experiencing bad mental health because it looks like conceding to other people that you are weaker than them, that they can do more and that they can capitalize on that. If you buy that people are competitive and that everyone wants to do the best, you never tell people that you have worse mental health because you don't want to appear weaker.

[00:50:54]But also, it doesn't exist in in a vacuum. There are a lot of narratives that you should care about your mental health in New Zealand. They give us stats on why mental health is so bad, that so many people are going through suicide. But the these narratives are far more direct, that you should care about mental health, that you should express yourself. if they can never claim that their narrative does it because if these didn't meet the tipping point, the less direct ones that they want to support never do either. Okay, let's be clear though. Even in their best case, let's say they get the better job. Let's say that they get a lot more money. Let's say that people do buy into a very great degree. They never gave us a sufficient outcomes for why this is so important. Because notice on both sides, like if everyone works harder, there's still only the same amount of positions.

[00:51:36]If everyone's competitive, there's still only the same amount of people. Not everyone can get into these positions.

[00:51:41]Not everyone's achieving the success even if you work hard because this is on like a whole societal level. But also, there's nothing wrong with just having a job and being happy in a family. That is the most tangible thing that you can do.

[00:51:52]You can experience the most happiness when you're just with your family. It's what makes us human. It makes us different from this table. That is the most important thing. You can be happy on both sides. It's very, very unclear why you should do it better on their side. Okay. On the last thing, they tried to make a massive claim on the POS poverty cycle by saying that small wins will be celebrated, poor people are more likely to work harder, but also that 10% is enough. I'm going to firstly we already told you they don't buy it. But also, if you buy that people are competitive, if you buy that they're ambitious, the small ones are never enough. We told you this at Lucy and they never dealt with it sufficiently because if you think that you can do better, if you think that you're ambitious, then the small ones were never enough. But also notice this deals with their idea of tall puppy syndrome because if there's a focus on competitive on competitiveness on their side, then you never celebrate other people's successes because you wish that was you. You're ambitious. Flag that response there. But also thirdly, they never deal with the systemic barriers for the poverty cycle. They're never actually able to deal with the fact that they're more likely to get like trial in court. They're more likely to have to get a part-time job during school. They can never deal with that. But thirdly, don't buy their rhetoric that 10% is enough to get out of the poverty cycle because that was never true. Because let's talk about the 19% that didn't.

[00:53:02]Why are they so much worse off? Why should you care about them more? Because what the society looks like is that the rich people now think if you just worked hard, you're fine. So if you are still in the if you're still in poverty, if you're still poor, then it's your fault.

[00:53:14]You didn't work hard enough. That's very, very bad for this 90%. But also, they think it's their fault as well in their best case when they buy in because they thought they didn't do enough. That is so so bad. You should care about this 90% because it outweighs the 10% but also because they are the most vulnerable. If they want to win on the poverty cycle, 10% was never enough.

[00:53:30]Don't buy their rhetoric. Before I move on to our norm, I'll take that point.

[00:53:34]>> Uh, don't you agree there is not a fixed amount of jobs in the economy when immigration funding and innovation change those numbers all the time.

[00:53:41]>> I don't believe that. I think there are a set amount of jobs in these kind of businesses. If you buy that, everyone is becoming more competitive and everyone is uplifted. All the relative things are the same. You can never buy those metrics. What does the laid-backness because they try to um what does like being laidback look like? We told you that the first major benefit we get is mental health and well-being. It looks like being able to focus on the things that you actually care about. Notice they tried to straw man this into just like playing video games in class. But we tell you it's a lot more important things like caring about your family and not going over time because you want to go back to your family and care about them more. But also we told you that labor law literally gets better because if you care about the work life balance more then you're more likely to have better laws in place so that people get like cared for more. No like responses there but also care about those children that get more attention because these are the people that get most tangible impact. These are the most vulnerable.

[00:54:32]They tried to outweigh this indirectly by just saying that mental health discourse is a lot like more improved and that's a lot better. We already dealt with that on their side. That was never sufficient and never dealt directly with the why it's so much worse. I think though you should just care about these people so so much.

[00:54:47]These are the most tangible people impacted. You should care about those children. But lastly on the principle of colonialism, their best response was the fact that Maldi are harmed anyway and therefore it doesn't like do anything.

[00:54:57]We should just not try. But notice this is a principle point. It was never contingent on any practical outcomes. We should do it. We have an obligation to do it regardless. That is really good.

[00:55:06]But if you buy that it's practical. If you buy that we shouldn't that margin is enough cuz if they want to claim that 1% or like 10% of the people gain out of poverty is enough should buy that these maldi are so important or white is not uptight >> I thank the speaker for the speech and as is customary I'll reverse speaking order so I invite up the negating reply When I am on my deathbed and my life flashes before my eyes, I want to see my family. I want to see myself laughing with my friends and maybe see myself hitting a little Instagram real scroll.

[00:55:53]That is what life is about. Three things in this reply today. Firstly, I'm going to do some framing. Secondly, talk about fulfillment and perception of your life.

[00:56:00]And lastly, on relationships. First in some framing because they tell us that the materialism does not actually sit in this debate and is out of the scope.

[00:56:07]Where does materialism actually sit in this debate? Know the materialism is always linked to the counter norm that neg that side of affirming necessarily has to support. That is you have to enforce pressure upon yourself and when you chase ambition you do this because of the materialistic outcome of success because a pay raise that you now have makes you tangibly better off. That is why you were happy. That is why you chase it in the first place. So it is 100% in this focus debate is inherently linked to their case and they have to contend with this. Okay. Firstly on fulfillment and the perception of your life one their largest impact here is that people live tangibly better lives.

[00:56:37]Right? One people have a baseline incentive to survive. Right? And we told you just down the line which means that people probably just do not have like do not get into conditions where they're just absolutely like not surviving and not having the ability to survive. But two is that poor people can work incredibly hard. But the benefit of that is like the tangible benefit of being better off is just incredibly incredibly speculative. We gave you so many mechanisms as to why these things just don't ever happen. You can work really hard, but if everyone constantly strives forwards, we told you at all three speakers that we live in a capitalistic system. And what that necessarily means is that if everyone works incredibly hard, people will still be trapped at the bottom because society is always going to be relative. So then there's just not really that much change if you weigh this on a macro level, right?

[00:57:18]Resources don't really change on the whole. Immigration is largely symmetric on both sides of the house. Which means then some people can move up, some people can move down. It is largely symmetric. So if that is symmetric, where is the change in this clash? We say the society is still going to be unequal, right? People aren't going to be tangibly better. But everyone on net is probably going to be more stressed if you want to believe that their impacts are really like if they they have really high impact case, you have to believe that this narrative and this these norms exist to a huge extent, right? This means then people are never going to be content with their conditions but not that many people actually move up or live tangibly better. But thirdly following that we gave you a lot of material on perception right people can just feel happier on net if you do not look back with your life of regret because they inter like they internally just weigh things up very differently under our lawn nor right you care less about having tangible success. You feel more fulfilled when you've lived a life where you feel comfortable in who you are. You spend good time with your friends and your family. So on your deathbed, you're not going to look back on your life and being like, "Oh, I never achieved this material success because you don't care about the material success, right? You care about your family. You care about your friends. You care about the connections you foster with other human beings." How do you weigh this clash at the end?

[00:58:26]Because even if you break 10 people out of poverty, Hamish told you you have 90 others who never made it. 90 others who are following a false capitalistic dream that has been forced upon them by societal norms. Their hard work has gone redundant. These people die at the end of their life, never being able to chase their dreams. They feel incredible amounts of regret. They look back on their lives with a negative lens. Right?

[00:58:47]Lastly, I'm going to briefly deal with relationships and this is their alternative path to victory. Right? They tell us, okay, you don't speak up for yourself and that you have tall puppy syndrome when people condemn others with ambitions. This never stood, right? One, tall puppy syndrome itself is just going to be worse on their side anyways because Hamish tells you, right, like it just it is just really flipped. It comes from a place of jealousy. It comes from a discomfort knowing that other people are trying to get ahead of you, right?

[00:59:09]That is inherently materialistic. that doesn't stand. But secondly, relationships can also be flipped too.

[00:59:14]And we did this down the line. We told you you tend to be less toxic and competitive on outside the house. When you can genuinely feel happy for the success of your friends, when you feel like your success isn't going to be relative to the materialistic gain of your friends, right? You can genuinely feel happy for people. You can genuinely take care of the people in your lives.

[00:59:28]That is incredibly meaningful because at our wash, even at our worst, this is a wash. And if that is a wash, thoroughly on our principle, right? Because you can call it incredibly marginal. But this debate is comparative, right? Which means that on their side of the house, if you value things like economic gain, if you value things like, you know, like stepping on other people, then it means then that their princ the principle is far worse and is not fulfilled on their side of the house. Moldy people get terrible outcomes when people just do not care about the environment. They marginalize their culture a lot more.

[00:59:54]We're very laidback.

[01:00:00]I thank the speaker for his speech. And to close out the debate, I invite out the affirming reply.

[01:00:53]This is a de is a debate about whether something has done more harm or more good. In so far as a principle hasn't done either, it literally doesn't matter. it falls out of the debate. A couple things to do in this reply.

[01:01:05]Firstly, some notes on framing. Then on how much and how deeply does this norm impact people and then on some general comparative way. Okay. First of all, we tell you this is debate about whether an individual norm has majorly created harm or not. Not about counternorms. Right?

[01:01:20]We tell you that separate norms like colonialism and materialism are how the entire world operates. This is not going to be dismantled in whether or not people are laidback. Right? money and colonialism have existed since the beginning of time and then like you know thanks for the compliment but I think why do I actually tell you from first that like this isn't in a vacuum because we tell you that this norm acts as a tipping point right this is where you do think you can this is where your attendance policy does force and involve people because we tell you that these like this is where you interact with people it's a cultural and social norm right maybe yes people in poverty maybe don't buy into all of these narratives as as a points out we Do they buy into narratives when it's what their friends are saying, what their family are saying, what the people around them spew in rhetoric. Therefore, that is where this norm plays into you. Therefore, you are affected by it. None of those responses stand. Okay. What this means to the debate is that 80% of their benefits fall out, right? Their principle on my culture falls out. The material on like materialization like just doesn't change on either side. It's metric sizes. You can't weigh that.

[01:02:21]Okay. So then on how much and how deeply this norm impacts on like people working hard, right? We aren't saying that everyone is going to work harder and therefore there will be no janitors. I what I think we tell you that some people do this right it's a norm.

[01:02:37]Instead what we do do is we require to people to bypass their own baselines.

[01:02:42]Right? It's not a relative forward. It's vulnerable people who pass exams. It's people who fulfill their dreams. Right?

[01:02:48]I think at the end of this like what it actually does is it means that like when you force things like attendance when you force people to just like think a little bit more I tell you at first like you know pay 20% more attention in your class you do retain more information.

[01:03:04]you do do better on average. When people who are disengaged are just forced to engage whether they like it or not, it means they do just do better. Maybe that's 10 people who just do get to like have a qualification to get them a better job. That gives them a better life. That that is what they care about because that's how they pay for their groceries. That's how they feed their kids. That is inherently very important.

[01:03:24]They give us this principle point. Look, even they don't care enough to spend more than one minute total on this. they can never fulfill the principle when the government doesn't attack like doesn't fulfill this when like rights are currently under attack it doesn't matter okay what has done the most harm in this debate I think they don't give us enough sufficient response to vulnerability here right what we tell you is when you buy teenagers literally kill themselves due to their inability to ever express their feelings when people literally like have these internalized things they can never thing out when they can never be vulnerable they can never tell people that they love them Like this is where people internalize things. This is where it bottles up. This is where you have fights with your friends. This is like we also talk about systemic barriers in the poverty cycle are actively challenged, right? Thousands more people are able to get that job that pays them the extra $10,000 a month that lets them get rent that lets them get better housing to like not freeze during the winter, right? They tell us like about jealousy and discomfort means you're toxic when you're competitive. No. Look, I think that like what we do tell you is that this like you're not going to be ridiculously competitive. It's not a game show. It's a country. It's your life. I think what actually happens is we tell you tens of thousands of people just put slightly more effort in at a baseline. Your daily interactions are less surface level. They are more vulnerable. You can go into depth. You can communicate when you have issues.

[01:04:46]You don't internalize and bottle things up. If at the end of this debate you buy absolutely nothing except for the fact that like on our side teenagers just don't have to internalize their own depression that is a ridiculously massive harm. We fix New Zealand's like top of the world suicide rate. That is clearly debate winning. I am proud to stand.

[01:05:08]I thank the speaker for their speech and both teams for the debate. Just before you get up, uh you're welcome now to go get lunch, which is on the ground level of this building, not the law school building. Um be back promptly enough to hear the OA cross floor, shake hands, leave your I think we