Semi-finals Nationals 2026: Otago (Aff) v Cooney Lees Morgan Bay of Plenty (Neg)

Added: 2026-05-30

[00:00:29]Can I have one?

[00:00:34]Not everyone can have 10% of Africa's rare earth minerals because there are more than 10 countries in Africa. But even if they do, not everyone can access those minerals. We tell you at Layla and it doesn't get engaged with that these are the most vulnerable and underdeveloped countries that just get exploited by more economically developed countries on the affirming side of the house. They aren't fair. There is no ability to hold them accountable. This is the point where the most vulnerable people lose out on any economic benefit that affirming can provide. Firstly, on model, then on negotiation, then on some impacting, and then on the comparative.

[00:01:10]Firstly, on model. Look, they tell us that they're going to have equal say because they have accountability via the threat of leaving. Two responses here.

[00:01:17]Firstly, no, because you can't leave, right? We told you at Layla that F builds a dependency on these more economically developed countries because A, you don't take the time to develop your own policy experts because you blindly follow the already developed industries of the more economically developed countries. But B, there's no individual diplomacy, right? We tell you at Layla that every other country looks down upon you because you're just a you you're just a collective part of this cartel and these controversial more economically developed countries. This means no one will trade with you if you leave. You can't leave. But secondly, there's this is just not true, right?

[00:01:53]It's intuitive that the strongest countries have the most say, right?

[00:01:56]Because A, they don't care if you leave, and B, they don't even care that you're there in the first place, right? You don't change how much profit they earn.

[00:02:03]They still export the same amount. They still make the same amount of revenue.

[00:02:07]It doesn't make any sense. So, then on negotiation and just like the market, like they tell us that you negotiate better because there's no alternatives now. Firstly, but um but these are the most vulnerable and unnegotiable countries that they're trying to impact impact here, right?

[00:02:22]These are the countries that are a small producer and can't negotiate in the status quo. They don't gain anything then because they're not even if they negotiate better like holistically, they're not making that much profit because they're not producing that much.

[00:02:34]But secondly, they don't negotiate well.

[00:02:36]Um they can't set the terms that they need.

[00:02:39]They can't keep up with these cartels.

[00:02:41]But then why do we prefer uh why do we prefer that this in our negotiation in our world? Because firstly, even if there's a higher price, uh we are Why do countries prefer to negotiate? Because firstly, even if there's a higher price, we're far more secure industries, right?

[00:02:55]These MEDCs on their side which undercut and are corrupt and exploitative, they don't want to deal with them. They would prefer to pay slightly higher to in order to have a stable trading partner.

[00:03:05]But secondly, because we enable them to invest and build relationships with us, they see the potential of low less economic developed countries, the growing economies. They invest, they have people on the ground there. They trust them more. But secondly, it's a huge market, right? Like even if they do go to other countries first, there's still a huge demand for rare earth minerals, right? Which means eventually they still have to become to less economically developing countries even if they do undercut on their side of the house. So, what this means is that they still get a significant amount of profit off these minerals, but they can access them in a way that is independent where they don't get exploited and we don't risk the harm that affirming gives that affirming it has on their in their world. So, then on international benefits. Firstly, they tell us they're going to get FTAs and stuff. Firstly, no, it's far more likely that you face backlash and get caught in the middle of controversy between these corrupt countries and like Western states, right? This looks like backlash against corruption in Africa or like conflicts going on that like Western states don't want to be a part of. They want to tariff against that. But secondly, it looks like the cartel themselves using it to manipulate like the EMDCs using their power to negotiate or threaten against other countries. They They don't want to buy into that. You're not going to put an FTA on such an unstable relationship. But then on avoiding undercutting, look, firstly, again, the market is huge. You're still going to get profit. Secondly, you're now more negotiable, so I think they do still just buy it from you even if the price is higher. But thirdly, it's symmetrical, right? Because in the cartel, the big EMDCs still set the prices low. The you And but like even if this isn't true, you never undercut China because the African industries, even the best ones, aren't producing at such an efficient price where they can undercut China. If they do have 90% of the world's rare earth minerals, then surely you don't get any benefits even to the EMDCs that they claim like oh they'll after they buy all the cars, they'll make good roads or something. So then on that impact, look, they tell us they're going to improve infrastructure.

[00:05:06]Firstly, no, because you don't get economic growth to begin with. You don't have the resources to reinvest. We tell you this is because you're exploited and you can't operate at efficiency, which means you can't keep up with the cartels and the highest producing African countries. You don't make any profit and you're actively harmed by missing out on international collaboration and independence in your industry. But secondly, this benefit disproportionately affects um more economically developed countries, right? Because these are the countries making the most profit. They produce the most and they can profit more off the low medium price because they have already got established infrastructure and industries. Note then that these are the most exploitative nations who are most likely to buy the most cars first and buy like a limitless amounts of cars. It's kind of unmechanized why an exploitative leader could could not just go out and buy a bunch of cars. Like we literally see people do that all the time. I don't think they do care about their people. So, what this means is that even if they do benefit here, it's only to the best the most well-off countries and to the most well-off leaders already. But thirdly, even if this isn't true, it's still symmetrical, right? Like if they all have the capacity to produce this much, they already would be. Like even if they gain some like international legitimacy, they don't mechanize to you how their economy suddenly grows overnight and how they gain any infrastructure. Like at our very very worst, it's symmetrical. Look, I'll take a POI. If there's a huge demand for rare earth minerals and you still go to small countries on our side on this on your side, why do you not go to them on our side and have to offer better deals?

[00:06:40]>> Because you associate yourself with corrupt countries, you can't produce at the low prices. These are all mechanisms we give to you at Layla. They don't respond at a second nick.

[00:06:49]For a second F. So, then on diversification. Look, we tell you we can't diversify. Why? Firstly, we have more capacity to invest elsewhere without the opportunity cost of constantly trying to keep up with the cartel and constantly having to subsidize our our like rare earth minerals industry in order to make any profit, which we don't because you invest so much. But secondly, we have investment, right?

[00:07:10]This looks like multinational corporations coming with their like HR staff who want a Macca's, they want cars. So, we get more industries like put into this country. We get more international collaboration. What does this mean? Firstly, we get more jobs.

[00:07:22]Even if it's not in the rare earth mineral industry, we get more Macca's workers because these people are hungry.

[00:07:27]But secondly, we get a better economy because we get more investment and more growth in this in this country. This is huge. This can affect the lower developing countries as well.

[00:07:37]Look, and just thirdly, like you just get more goods when we develop the economy as a whole. So, then on development, this is my substantive contribution. Like, if you believe that there is any chance that F harms the people suffering in African LEDCs, we should win. But, I'm going to tell you now why we actively benefit these countries through independent management. So, how do we do this? Firstly, we're more informed. The individual government knows what is best. They most directly hear the voices of their citizens. They most have They have the most direct picture of how the economy is doing versus being drowned out by the voices and authority of MEDCs who have the most say in these cartels.

[00:08:11]But, secondly, they have the most capacity to act on those needs. They can easily pass policies. They have government experts who can manage them versus getting rid of them and having no control over export policies and regulations on the on the affirming side. But, thirdly, it's easier to access international support. This looks like investment and MNCs bringing exports. This looks like money, growth, jobs. Like, even if like they do take over, right? They're still hiring local employees. That's still huge. That's still food on the table for a suffering poor uh African family. Um what does this mean? Like, we just get more growth on our side. But, even if you don't believe that, the harms that F does are like incredibly abhorrent and you shouldn't support that.

[00:08:56]Cool. Thank you very much for that five page. Uh we now move on to the next So, that concludes the substantive part of the of my discussion.

[00:09:05]>> [applause] >> So, are [snorts] we all done?

[00:10:10]If I had a nickel for every time at this tournament I've had to debate with Bob about rare earth minerals, I'd have two nickels, which isn't enough money to develop an African nation, but it's weird that it happened twice. Okay, uh three main things to go over in my speech. Firstly, some notes on framing, then secondly, on what I think is the biggest push from either side on economic development, and then lastly, some of what I think our unresponded path to victories are on international relations and conflict reduction. Okay, so firstly on framing here, right? I think one of the biggest points of contention in this entire debate is how do these cartels operate, right? Because we tell you all the way from first that there is a natural mechanism to enforce a large degree of egalitarianism within these organizations, i.e. right?

[00:10:49]Everybody has the ultimate nuclear bargaining chip of I'm going to leave and I'm going to sell my stuff for half the price, right? What we essentially hear as a counter framing from the negative side is that inside these organizations it's like scaled to resource wealth. So, these countries, like inevitably because they're not the exact same country, have slightly varying levels of how many minerals they have and how much they can like mine them. Therefore, those countries boss everybody around, that's really, really bad, right? Uh firstly we hear, right? I feel like we can mitigate this to a big degree in quite a surface level way of just saying that like I don't buy that a resource rich nation has like no mining operation, right? I feel like the differences between these countries, while we do like have to concede just because it's the real world that they do exist to some degree, they're not as large as like Neg tells you, right? But we essentially hear that Oh, no like no only 10 countries could have 10% of the mineral cuz that's how maths works. While that is true, there are like multiple minerals at play here, right? You have cobalt, you have lithium batteries, you have all the other ones.

[00:11:47]I don't know. I'm not a geologist, but there's a lot of rocks involved here, right? There's a lot of percentage points to go around and therefore all of these countries I think have a lot of power. So maybe there's some difference, right? But I think logically for like in any case for you to be included in a cartel you need to have some kind of value. Nobody's bringing in like resource per Paul who has 1% of the world's cobalt cuz he's completely useless and he can't undercut you anyway, right? So then on economic development here, right? I think this is probably where you give the debate to either side. So I'm going to spend a lot of time on it here. I think there's two things under this. Firstly, on just capital generation in general and then secondly on the relations within the cartel. How do these countries interact with each other, right? So on capital generation, right? We tell you essentially the biggest push here is that like selling these things by yourself is really really bad. You're stacked up against the odds. You get lowballed often because you don't have a lot of information and you don't have a lot of power to bargain with the big countries and big corporations that want to buy your stuff, right? What we hear is a several pushes here essentially with Neg arguing that like flying solo is better because like you spread your wings, you get more independence, you develop your industries and you diversify more, right? First thing on this more efficient thing, right? I feel like you're actually like on on their side way way less efficient because there's so many more hanging factors that you have to consider. I think what it actually looks like on Neg when you are going to sell these things is you have to consider Oh, is is Angola going to sell it for less than me? Send somebody over there to check, right? And also uh you know all of these things and and I'm just like a not very developed country. I don't have a lot of you know of you know infrastructure I don't have a lot of cash to develop these resources that I need to consider all these alternatives, right? On our side, what it looks like is you're in this organization. You're able to pool resources together. No like all of these countries are not developed. Even the more powerful ones are not these monolithic states that know everything and have everything, right? So, I feel like the efficiency that you get is apes together strong, right? Everybody's working together, and it's really, really great, right? So, then on independence here, right? I feel like what essentially the the missing link in NX's push here is that you need this capital in order to train your own policy experts, right? You need the influx of money. If they can't prove throughout this entire class that you don't get that initial influx of money, they can't get any of these benefits.

[00:13:55]They have no path to get to them, right?

[00:13:57]I feel like So, then the next thing is like why do you have an incentive to not just rely on like the DRC's policy experts and to get your own, right?

[00:14:05]Because I feel like largely these countries are like not stupid, right?

[00:14:09]Like I just don't buy that you're as a leader of a nation like entirely willing to be completely subservient to another country and not even try to set up your own industries. I think because you're collaborating so much as we tell you, right? You develop the ability to learn from these countries, right? Maybe somebody from the DRC thinks like, "Hey, I'm going to go work in Angola this year." Right? Now you get that. Now you get all of that experience. That's super, super good. We don't hear why that's exclusive, right? Then we also hear this probably one of the biggest pushes here that there's a huge demand in the market for rare earth minerals, right? Like you're never going to get lowballed cuz so many people want to buy them, right? I think there's a couple of responses here, right? Firstly, most of your customers I think are actually one step ahead of you in forming these groups and forming these collectives. A lot of the multinational corporations that you're selling to are all in cahoots with each other, right? They're all like like big American monopolies typically or they're like the one company in China that makes all the EVs, right? There is not a lot that you can go to, right? Secondly, I think um these actors are like quite smart and they're quite business savvy because they're either like massive countries or they're really big multinational corporations.

[00:15:11]If they see any opportunity to lowball you, they will, right? I feel like if a high school debating team from Otago can come up with all the opportunities to lowball these African countries in the status quo, I think that like a really, really big multinational corporation can probably come up with that, too, right?

[00:15:25]So, they're definitely going to be able to do that, right? And then on China here, I feel like there's just there's like a meta thing. It's a bit of a mischaracterization on China's rare earth minerals. They possess 90% of the refining capabilities. They really, really need Africa cuz Africa has the rocks. They need the rocks to refine.

[00:15:40]They can't just make them appear out of thin air, right? So, at the end of this bit, right? I think when Neg stands for the status quo, they don't have an alternative way to get that initial cash injection, right? That's why we tell you get all of these benefits, right? We get this metric increase. That's why our side is so much better off here. That's why the collective bargaining is better.

[00:15:57]Um I'll take that POI. There are many internal conflicts, diverse cultures, and varying incentives within the African governments. How do you get the diplomacy you claim within this cartel?

[00:16:09]Well, I feel like what we tell you actually to very little response is we have a lot of mechanisms to do with conflict reduction, right? We tell you in the status quo, high African countries are often funding rebellions and civil wars in their neighbors and countries around them. We tell you that when you are interested, when you are all self-interested together in a collective, economically, you are then very, very unlikely to keep doing that because you don't want the country next to you to topple. You lose out economically, right? Um [snorts] so, then on inter- inter-cartel relations, right? We tell you that again as I flagged you in framing, is it necessarily egalitarian versus the big dogs bullying you thing, right? Let's say you buy that the big dogs in this arrangement are bullying you, right?

[00:16:44]That they have a lot of power. Um what are the examples of the harms of this that we hear from Neg? I think something we hear first along the line is that like they come in and they strip your mine for parts and right? Um firstly, I think this is just crazy. I don't think they're sending like Triple T around with his baseball bat to bash up your cobalt mine and completely destroy it. This doesn't happen. But let me engage with this on a more reasonable level, right? I think we also hear that they determine where the foreign investment goes. No, we flagged you at Beth. This is not like similar arrangements to like the oil countries in Saudi Arabia. They don't run your country now, right? It's a collective, not a not a union as we hear flagged to us from Neg, right? Then we also hear that you have no capacity to leave these if they do go bad because everybody thinks you're evil. I think what you weigh, panel, and the incentives of your customers who just really really want money and they also really really want these special rocks is that they care more about a lowballing opportunity when that when their potential reputation looks like. I feel like in the case that you're already manipulating developing countries, then you're probably like you don't really care about looking good, right? Um And then essentially finally we hear that these the cartels like won't push for higher prices, right? They'll just go for like a mid-level price because they can get away with it. I feel like you don't buy this it and for several reasons, right? Firstly, if you buy from Neg that these countries are corrupt, I think the leader of the DRC just wants more Bentleys and by process of like doing like subconsciously, he also manages to get a lot of money into his country's economy like we flagged to you at Amalie. I feel like secondly, if you if you think that the leaders of these countries care about their countries, they see their people struggling, right?

[00:18:12]They're always going to push for the highest prices. They finally get the power to negotiate with the big dogs and that's why we're proud to affirm.

[00:18:19]>> [applause] >> Thank you very much for that, Prime Minister. And now to the steps of the stand part of our piggy's case, we welcome on to >> [applause] >> When one African country is exploited by China, one by the US, and one by their own government, the countries' needs are all vastly different. We don't support a world where the most vulnerable and developing nations' economy and people are put at risk for the benefit of those that are already headed in the ahead in the industry. Two points of clash.

[00:20:56]First, on African countries' economy, and then international relations and exploitation. So, first on the economy.

[00:21:02]Firstly, they tried to say that everyone is like equal negotiating power, and everyone's happy. This was pushed all the way down the line. So, I see this only applies in a world where all nations like like Absed, it's a very changeable continent have the same capacity incentives and economy. Like the truth is they just don't like Layla's Like Layla said, like you got if you have the biggest production, you're going to have the biggest power. I don't know but anyone in here that knows basic geography knows that not all rare earth minerals are just like evenly distribute distributed throughout the whole continent. It's not that hard to believe. Like So, why should you believe our setup?

[00:21:34]Like if you provide 20% of the minerals, this is more than important than the tiny little country in the corner providing 5%. Like I think it's pretty um fair to characterize that within these negotiations, those providing most of the minerals are going to have the most say. They try to say that like they're all mineral rich so it doesn't matter.

[00:21:51]Like like I just said, that's just like even if they're all mineral rich, some are always going to be more than others.

[00:21:55]Yes, they're more mineral rich than US but like a tiny country is not more mineral rich than one that just like even if you believe that they're all completely evenly just distributed, like if one country is just bigger than the other, they have more. This is like obvious. So, then even if you still don't accept our setup like that this will be true, it's still not even because one country is just like more developed, they have bigger production, they've got a better economy, they can better afford to like have bigger mining productions, they have more labor, they've got more people actually get these minerals. The amount of minerals don't matter when they can when no one can get them anyway. And also that um countries that are more like corrupt can just like scare other countries into what they say. What does this mean? It means that these countries are seen as more powerful whether they actually have like a bigger negotiating power whether their vote is like taken more seriously doesn't matter when other countries see them as more powerful, they want to agree with them more because they just have a bigger stake in the industry. Other countries are scared of them. The impact of this is that like the middle countries tend to benefit like the most economically developed ones. All these countries just have more negotiating power. Note that you should weigh this highest on severity because this means that the most vulnerable countries are not getting to say when negotiations happen. They're not helping the tiny little country, they're helping the masses of the ones that provide 90% of the minerals within the cartel. So, then they said that like any resource like if you're super resource rich, you're just going to have a mining operation and you should just believe this. They didn't give any mechanization. So, why is this not true?

[00:23:17]Because like no matter like if you've had a civil war going on for the past 2,000 years, you are not focused on like extracting lithium. You don't care about that. You care about the fact your people are starving and dying. Saying that all these countries just like automatically have mining operations because they have these minerals is just stupid, frankly. Like it's like if they all had these super good mining operations, then why aren't they all just like why don't they all have like a booming economy? And why aren't they all so rich? When it says on the info side, these are such essential minerals. Like this doesn't make any sense. This is so harmful on their side because they're forced by the cartel to like first reject certain investments. This looks like a big country in the cartel like not like having a strong alliance with another country saying that no one's allowed to allow like China to invest in their industry. This means that these countries that could highly benefit from this, even if it's ex- exploitative, like any investment is good investment.

[00:24:06]And then it also means like they just restrict the selling price. This means these countries that already can't afford to be like mining all these minerals, they can't afford the labor, cannot like raise their price to account for this.

[00:24:17]This is when people are harmed. This is when their economy can't grow. This is when they even if they're in the cartel, they're not selling any minerals anyway because they can't afford to. So, then they said that like you have like less conflicts within Africa because like you have stakes in other countries. So, like even if you have a civil war, you're going to like care about the other countries now because you care about the mining. But the truth is like they don't all pull together their resources and then sell them. They're still selling them individually. So, just because like that you're deciding the trade agreements together does not mean you suddenly like don't care about the civil unrest that's been going on for the past 2,000 years.

[00:24:48]Like these like wars aren't tiny little arguments that like happen like this debate. No, it's in conflict where people are dying, where people are like actually being impacted in proper ways where people are like not being not being able to afford to eat, not being able to just live. This is like where people's lives are being taken away.

[00:25:05]They care about this far more than like wanting to agree with them because you go to like a monthly meeting. This doesn't make sense. They don't actually have stakes in other countries. In fact, it's still better like even if they're just like doing trade agreements together, it's still better for them if the other countries aren't doing as well because they're still just selling more minerals.

[00:25:21]So, they said that um like the struggling nations are like still struggling they don't go to our side because the bigger nations just do it cheaper. Like first these people still buy like countries are still buying things for a higher price. Like these minerals are very necessary. And if China has a night has a night like or they try to say that China like really relies on these African nations because they only refine it. This just like proves a lot of points that people are going to be buying from these nations. Like I didn't under This sort of just contradicts their entire push.

[00:25:48]And then so either what does this mean?

[00:25:49]That no one buys from any African nation cartel or not. Like this isn't symmetrical. Or people that don't buy from China still like go to the lower still like if you believe at all that people are buying minerals from Africa, you're going to believe that they're buying them the ones that have them at a slightly higher price because if Africa only has like 10% of them as once you to believe then like that's a limited supply. You can't buy them all for them on the cheapest price. Like heaps of countries need them.

[00:26:13]So, what does this mean? That they can still like afford to sell them at a higher price. And even if they can't, this just means that these lower economically developed countries are screwed either side. So, where do we get our benefits? We get our benefits when these countries are like actually developing independently. Like we'll go through this further later. This is because like on either side if they like if no one's buying their minerals because on the on our side they're not buying them because they really can't afford to produce them at the rates that they're being forced to sell them at.

[00:26:38]And on our side no one's buying them because they're too expensive. Then there are just no benefits at all. On our side can't On their side countries with established industries have a lower price limit for everyone. They can afford they lower the price limit for everyone. They can afford this while established while unestablished countries are left to struggle. I'll take the fewer. When all these countries get together and decide what to price to sell copper, what is the incentive for bigger countries to not make it the highest possible price and get the most profit, which benefits everyone? Because they still want to be selling the most minerals. They can make it lower because they know that the other ones can't compete. I just don't think this like is very relevant in the debate. So then on like international relations and exploitation, they said that you get screwed over by other countries when you're independent.

[00:27:16]But like let's actually go through what exploitation looks like on either side.

[00:27:20]Like note that like exploitation is always going to happen to some extent.

[00:27:23]This looks like China putting military bases in small African countries. This looks like the BRI. Like this is just a match girl. And then their characterization is that like now China's going to lowball them and they're going to like make a little less profit. Note that these minerals are like very valuable. So it's like really necessary to China. If the demand is high, the price can be high as well.

[00:27:40]There's no reason for these small countries to take the lowball offer when Japan just like offers them more because they need them more. This is when these countries actually get money. On the other side, they're not selling any or they're having to sell them for a lower price. Like this just doesn't make sense. And even if you like still believe this is like still if you don't believe this, why is it worse on their side? Because now not only they're being exploited by China, they're just also being exploited by the country next to them that is like forcing them to not take certain investments. So essentially they're now exploited by the So what does this mean? This means that like when one country has strong ties with the US and then wants to like make trade agreements to benefit the US, doesn't mean that small countries now not only being exploited by China through the BRI, the countries next to them through stopping investments, but now just also the US because their entire economy is like helping the US.

[00:28:22]Like And they said that you're not going to be corrupt if you want to appeal to other countries. When Japan's economy relies heavily on these minerals, they don't care if like an African country is exploiting their people for this labor.

[00:28:32]There's no accountability actual because it's so necessary. At least on our side, you can believe there's like some level of accountability when there's just more options for people to go to. People don't have to go to the cartel and there's like more things that more places people can buy minerals from. At the end of the debate, we win on economy when countries aren't adhering to policies that don't benefit them and only benefit those already ahead and they can actually afford to innovate within their own industry and we reduce the amount of exploitation and note that uh the importance of independence when developing from Ollie was completely unresponsive to and the importance of not being codependent when you're such a small and developing nation.

[00:29:09]>> [applause] >> Thanks very much for that last speech.

[00:29:13]So, as tradition would have it, we'll go to the speaker who was top of the speaker times and I welcome >> [applause] >> When you collaborate with countries that are actively incentivized to engage in exploiting you but already do things like conflict and other harms, you have no accountability mechanisms against them. Your economy fails and the most vulnerable people in the most vulnerable countries face the consequences and we never get independent development. Look, um firstly on model, then on security, then on economy. Look, firstly on model, like they basically give us this push the whole time that you can have equal say in these in these cartels. Look, firstly we tell you that you don't all have equal resources. Secondly, you don't have equal ability to access them and thirdly, intimidation and authority exists, right? It's uh we would prefer a world where we have to stay out where we stay out of these um these cartels than ending up doing like human rights violations to keep up and to have a say in these in these organizations. But then they tell us, "Oh, we want to be friends with them, so everyone will be nice." When has Africa never not had a conflict happening? It doesn't happen.

[00:30:59]People don't get along. We tell you we tell you this pretty reasonably from Leila when we tell you that a lot of these countries are very corrupt and they do engage in conflict regularly.

[00:31:09]But firstly, they still want to sell the most, so they do lowball and cut out these smaller less economically developed countries. But secondly, they want to maximize international competition against other countries which do also have these rare earth minerals. So at the end of this, you should believe that there is a lot of capacity and a lot of incentive for these more economic developed countries to exploit and exclude the less economic developed countries even if they are not actively corrupt. They want to make the most profit. They want to look out for their people. You exclude the most vulnerable people who need it the most. Then on international on security because I think they don't engage with the harms here very well. Look, we tell you that on international security, these cartels never stop the BRI from preying on the less economic developed countries who can't protect themselves. Whereas on our side, we have more diplomacy which enables more protection from Western nations. But also on domestic security, you actively enable and engage with countries who constantly doing conflicts in your nation or nearby you or constantly trying to attack you and your people. You're now dependent on them or at least associating your nation with the terrible and apparent actions that they do on a daily basis.

[00:32:22]Look, at the end of that, you should believe that even by association, this is a big enough harm to your people that you should not engage. So then on economy, why do they not get any benefits anyways? Firstly, because you can't keep up. You have to reduce your supply to match the low price set in these in these cartels. This looks like laying off workers, people who are already vulnerable and there's not a lot of jobs in these countries. We tell you again from Layla, they don't have a lot of options. This is a huge opportunity cost where you could have just reinvested in your country as opposed to spending money trying to reduce supply. But secondly, you're actively exploited, you're used for the MEDC's needs. That's really bad. Look, at best, they disproportionately benefit MEDC's who have the most corrupt leaders. They just get cars. Like, is that a real benefit? I don't think so.

[00:33:08]But if it's so easy, we could do it with on our side without losing independence.

[00:33:12]Like, we give you so much impacting on why stability is the most crucial thing for these countries and independence. We don't want to be dependent on very unstable and corrupt MEDC's in these in these in these regions. It's more important that we have job stability so people don't get laid off down the line.

[00:33:28]So then we tell you we do get better economic growth on our side because governments are the most informed and they have the most capaci- capacity to promote independent development and independent economic growth. But secondly, they don't associate with corruption or conflict and they don't pose a threat so you look better, you get better diplomacy and trade. Even if they do get undercut, you still get our buying. But also, we get investment.

[00:33:50]This looks like diversification, collaboration, and expertise coming into your industries. This is like inherently very good growth. Look, even if this benefit takes a little bit longer, at our very worst, eventually, you get stability. Like, you don't get like miners getting laid off and not being able to feed their family or like afford a higher quality shelter. Like, um this is like a very appealing to exponential growth. Like, we think this stability and independent growth should be the biggest impact. I'm very proud to hear this.

[00:34:19]>> [applause] >> Thanks very much, Ethan.

[00:34:30]>> [applause] >> Look, in our absolute worst case, when we only benefit these massive corrupt African nations and only they get money, to me that still sounds like millions of people in developing African nations still getting benefit, still getting an economic benefit, still getting more jobs, secondary industries that was never responded to. I think in so far as you believe that is true for one country in the entirety of Africa, we win this debate. A few things to do in this reply, a couple notes at the top of this. Then on why we actually do benefit the most vulnerable, and then um on like the best case. Okay.

[00:36:06]Firstly, at the top of this, I think there are two ways you can look at this debate, right? I think in the world in which we like can mobilize rare earth minerals, it's just more intuitive to join the cartel. And I think if you can't, there's no change in the debate whatsoever. I think then on why we benefit the most vulnerable. Look, in the status quo, we tell you from first there is a race to the bottom. The most vulnerable most vulnerable countries are the most likely to sell themselves short because they need the money so desperately. We tell you because corporations want money and profit, they're likely to want the shortest price possible. What this means for the debate is that under neg, the most vulnerable nations that they try to win on will do anything to get any degree of money. They undercut each other. They lowball and lowball and lowball. They end up with barely a profit margin. They end up with barely any money to pay back the mining industry all together. I think in so far as that they just don't get a benefit, right? Because these vulnerable people they try to win on just end up selling themselves short. If you buy this is even vaguely true, I think they just can't get a benefit here. But even if you buy none of this, they push that in the status quo. Small tiny countries get offers because minerals are in really high demand. They give us no reason why they stop buying on our side then. We just now offer better deals and give them better benefits. And then secondly then, I think like agreeing to sell minerals at a set price just helps the most vulnerable nations because now they aren't undercut by bigger African countries. Part of their own mechanisms, I don't think they dealt with that sufficiently. Next then, what happens if let's say three countries offering their 5% of lithium, cobalt, and nickel like do undercut, do exit, and do offer to China. I think this is a massive harm for them, right? They try to tell you that you can just leave. I think maybe China takes it, right? There's significantly less need for them to pay a lot for the block countries, right? We tell you that they tell you that prices are never going to be very high and people will just say no and won't pay it. We tell you this absolutely isn't true, right? Because even if they still buy from the block, the block can't push China's need for a crazy high price to the same capacity because now China's supply is never going to deplete. Now they still have some degree of supply to make their electric vehicle industry.

[00:38:17]And comparatively, when we all band together, there isn't incentive to be egalitarian to not be corrupt, because by working together, you mean everyone can get the highest possible price all of the time. Even the most corrupt nations are still self-interested. Even the most corrupt nations will always prioritize themselves. They tell us that no one will buy minerals at high prices cuz it's too much money. Pearl knifes this when she tells you that Japan's entire economy relies entirely on accessing these minerals. When we tell you that China refines 90% of these minerals, the biggest economy in the world needs 80% of cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo, right? I think you inherently need these things from these places specifically. If it's still on an individual basis, you just buy from these countries, and we just win. Look, even if we just benefit the most powerful countries in the cartel, at the top of these, these are still developing countries. 80% of the population are still below the poverty line. I think Let's say these nations do make a really large profit. We never get a response to the secondary industries make we give you. We never get response to millions flooding nations, to millions of jobs. No matter how you corrupt you are, you can't prevent those secondary industries from building up. You can't prevent the insurmountable benefit that we attain here. I am proud to stand.

[00:39:42]Thanks very much for that fine speech.

[00:39:43]And thanks to to both teams for a fantastic debate. Let's have another round of >> [applause] >> All right. I want the teams to cross the floor, shake hands, and we will go to the break.

[00:40:23]>> Wow, where did it go?