Debatable with Nina and Kyle

We are proud to present the last Post-Debate Analysis of our Debatable Open series! The Open Grand Finals of our event was all about different issues here in the Philippines. We would like to thank Gab Pacaño for their motions. Motion 1: In 2017, Former President Rodrigo Duterte signed a proclamation formally designating the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army (CPP-NPA) as a terrorist organization. This house regrets the designation of the CPP-NPA as a terrorist organization. Motion 2: This house believes that the characterization of the EDSA Revolution as peaceful does more harm than good. Motion 3: “Friend to all, enemy to none" is the current independent foreign policy of the Philippines, which aims to forge alliances with several nation-states by remaining neutral in times of global conflict. This house believes that the Philippines should abandon “friend to all, enemy to none”.

For the Novice Finals and Open Semifinals of Debatable Open 2024, we talk to Jill Aycardo for the motion theme: RELIGION! Motion 1: [4:26] In religious scriptures, the cause for sins and suffering is usually sourced from the temptations and desires of individuals. Generally, these desires are propagated to be individualistic in nature and it is through the faith in god/s and subscription to dogmas and rituals that save an individual from sin and suffering. THP a world where religions framed suffering as a collective test from god rather than being sourced from individual desires Motion 2: [18:13] Papal infallibility is a dogma in the Catholic Church that presupposes that a Pope can speak no wrong when he propagates doctrines based on religious scripture and tradition. This dogma does not necessarily mean that the Pope cannot sin nor does it mean that it cannot be challenged by other practitioners of faith. Instead, the dogma is related to the story of Jesus entrusting St. Peter (the first Pope) with his church, and thus the doctrines of faith or morals issued by the Pope are in his capacity as his successor to St. Peter. Essentially, sourcing the idea of the pope being infallible due to God's trust to Peter and his successors. Examples of when papal infallibility used was when Mary's immaculate conception of Jesus and her assumption to heaven was placed into dogma, and the ruling of the Catholic Church having to reserve priestly ordination to men alone. THBT the Catholic Church should abandon the dogma of papal infallibility Motion 3: [31:07] The face of god refers to the theory that god's existence cannot be perceived, as their characteristic of being transcendent assumes that they are infinite and are inconceivable to the human mind. TH, as a religious believer, prefers not to perceive god

For quarterfinals and novice semifinals, we had the LABOR/DEVELOPMENT set courtesy of Tengku Omar! Omar is a Human Resources (HR) professional and is part of the only Indonesian team to have broken in WUDC and is also a WUDC ESL finals judge. The motions read: Motion 1: Professional loyalty is defined as an intense sense of belongingness towards an organization. This House supports the decline of professional loyalty in the modern workplace Motion 2: This House believes that workers should be compensated based on output rather than the amount of hours worked Motion 3: Currently, under the labor laws of majority of countries, only non-managerial employees (i.e. employees without leadership capacities or responsibilities) are allowed to unionize. This House would allow managerial employees to unionize Here are the timestamps for each motion LABOR Motion 1: [5:55] Motion 2: [19:50] Motion 3: [32:29]

For Open Octofinals and Novice Quarterfinals, we had the FEMINISM/GENDER set courtesy of Lia Snyder! Listen to the discussions we have in our latest Post-Debate Analysis episode. Here are the timestamps for each motion: [0:22] Transmaxxing is the practice of voluntarily transitioning into a woman, done by males who previously identify as part of the involuntary celibate (incel) community. This is because they believe that transmaxxing is the only way to stop being an incel, and to be able to partake in the perceived benefits that women disproportionately experience. This includes preferential male treatment (free meals or dates), diversity hiring, insurance, the ability to choose sexual partners, etc. There have been accounts of transmaxxers going into hormone replacement therapy, seeking psychologist validation of gender dysphoria, etc. so they can truly receive the benefits perceived to give women a distinct advantage in society. There is sentiment amongst transmaxxers that transmaxxing is a last resort or desperate approach to curbing involuntary celibacy. TH, as the feminist movement, would not support transmaxxing. [18:15] You are a 30-year-old Filipino feminist woman working at a reputable multinational company. You are, by all accounts, a girlboss. Your entire career is marked by milestones of breaking gender-based barriers. You are incredibly competent at your job. The male CEO of your company has recently gotten into a series of scandals that have severely tarnished the reputation of your company. The company has offered you the CEO position, in hopes that you can restore the company to its former success. TH, as the feminist woman, would accept the CEO position. [36:19] THP a world where feminists focus on healthy masculinity narratives (e.g. validating male emotion, vulnerability, etc.) as opposed to toxic masculinity.

We understand that the fourth round, being about INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, was especially tough for many of you. Likewise, we think that learning is especially important here. Whether you win or lose is always less important than whether you learned from the experience. And in the spirit of learning from experiences, we invite you all to listen to our PDA for round 4. We are grateful to have James Cachola with us as the motion contributor and interviewee for this set. James is a 3x regional champion and one of the best debaters in the country. They're currently working on their thesis proposal and so we're especially thankful that they gave us their time and expertise in this regard. IR Motion 1: [2:15] A "World government" is a socio-political concept that presumes a single administrative authority should have jurisdiction over all of Earth and humanity. This house welcomes the idea of transitioning into a World Government. Motion 2: [17:07] This house, as socio-democratic opposition parties in developing states within Asia, would implement a singular political agenda. Motion 3: [28:43] This House Believes that international organizations should cease their non-interventionist policy for territorial disputes concerning repetitive offenders.

For the third post-debate analysis for Debatable Open 2024, we talk about the EDUCATION motion set, featuring the insights of the renowned educator Sir Akeem Fabila! [2:16] Space education, also known as space science education, encompasses the teaching and learning of concepts related to space exploration, astronomy, astrophysics, astronautics, and related fields. TH, as the Philippines, would aggressively integrate Space Education in its basic education curriculum. [18:16] You are an Afghan teacher in an underground girls school in Afghanistan. You are also a staunch advocate of girls education in the country. However, the Taliban has strictly imposed a ban on girls education (starting 12 years old up). Recently, the government has undertaken major crackdowns on underground schools putting you and your family at risk. TH, as an Afghan teacher, would continue to teach in the underground girls school. [31:13] THBT educational institutions should heavily de-emphasize the value of academic excellence (e.g. implementing a pass or fail system, abolishing all academic distinctions, etc.).

In this post debate analysis, we join award winning filmmaker Charlie Vitug to discuss the ethics behind Court Shows, reporting on politicians' private lives, and the possible TikTok ban! [0:27] This House Regrets arbitration-based reality court shows. [16:19] This House Believes That media outlets should not report on the private lives of politicians. [27:40] This House Would ban Tiktok in the US

Nina and environmental science major Riv Aquino delve into the intersections of environmental advocacy, corporate responsibility, and consumer behavior. They explore contentious topics such as whether we should accept anything less than net zero targets for multinational corporations, the impact of mandatory graphic warning labels on animal-based products, and the unintended consequences of eco-friendly product trends.

For this episode, we talk about the recently filed House Bill 9448, also known as The Protection of Labor Against Artificial Intelligence Automation Bill. As AI grows stronger each day, we ought to talk about measures governments can take to protect the people who stand to lose the most. Listen as we explain, praise, and even criticize a measure our politicians are aiming to put in place.

Happy Holidays! For this episode, we rant about how Christmas has evolved through the years, and how people have grown alongside it.

How did the Geneva Convention lead video games to update themselves? How did one man's foggy bathroom lead to the marriage of thousands of people? How did sexism create the T-Shirt? For this episode of Debatable, Nina makes Kyle find the missing links to these strange stories. Listen as we train in the art of piecing things together!

For this episode, we talk about the intersection between the world of debate and the world of law. We discuss what makes law debates different, what ideas are essential in debating about the law, and some of Kyle's ideas on how debate prepares aspiring lawyers.

How do you structure your first sessions with your new recruits? How do you make teaching the debate format fun instead of frustrating? What's the science behind curiosity? All this and more in this episode of Debatable!

For our comeback episode, we talk about derusting—the act of getting back into a rhythm, shaking off the dust, and starting over again. We discuss how one can jump back after a break in debate (or podcasting, in our case), and how to have fun while doing it!

Do election debates still matter? 

Kyle spent 6 months in pro-BBM tiktok and would like to talk to you about how they weaponize nostalgia!

In this episode of Debatable, we talk about how to run arguments about giving reparations for historical wrongs, taking an interest in Black History Month as a form of symbolic reparations and remembrance. 

We know that we have human rights, but where do they come from and how are they enforced? In this episode, Nina talks to Kyle's group in his Human Rights Theory and Practice class. We discuss the philosophical basis for human rights, how they're enforced, how to tell if there are violations of human rights, and a lot more!   TWITTER: https://www.twitter.com/podcastdbtbl FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/podcastdbtbl Sign up for Debatable Open! Phase 1 of registration is open until January 31, 2022: bit.ly/DOPE2022Phase1

We celebrate our 100th episode by talking about the people behind your hosts-- our team, the Debatabeans! You can learn a lot about people by learning about the things they love, and in this episode, we learn a lot. Listen to us talk about Debate movies, how sports are like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, capitalist escapism, and more!

2021 was... A year— not quite normal, but also not as not-normal as 2020. One of the changes we saw was the continued rise of online tournaments. With this rise was a variety of debate topics we haven't seen in our community in a while. In this episode, we look at our favorite motions from 2021.

We're back with another Holiday Special! This time, we talk about the origins of Christmas, and how it has evolved into the event we love (or hate) today.

For this episode of Debatable, we explore the Finals motion of Mindanao Intervarsity 2021 which is about the Main Character Syndrome! In popular culture, the main character syndrome refers to the trend where people, mostly the youth, imagine themselves in a romanticized, fictional version of their lives. This manifests in the way people present themselves online, or even in the way people view themselves in relation to others. Motion: This House would embrace the narrative that individuals are the main characters of their lives.

Solastalgia describes psychological trauma brought about by climate change. In this episode, we talk about how the climate crisis impacts mental health and what that could mean for environmentalist movements.

This week, we talk about a startup CEO facing trial for fraud, new developments on the Afghan refugee crisis, the "resetting" of US-Israel relations, the Pharmally Pharmaceuticals scandal, Texas' abortion ban, and a recall election in California,

Climate change skeptics have accumulated a lot of different arguments over the years with the common goal of making people doubt the role of man in the destruction of the environment. For this episode, we take a look at some of those arguments. We debunk these ideas and discuss why these arguments come about in the first place.

For this matterloading session, we discuss the top stories of the week. We focus heavily on the situation unfolding in Afghanistan. Join us as we unravel the events that led to the takeover of Kabul, and the role played by major political actors all around the world.

For this episode, we discuss the mutations of the COVID-19 virus, and what that means for all of us now and in the future.

For this matterloading session, we tackle the recent Belo Ad scandal, the misused 67 billion pesos, the new leadership in Iran, as well as Sudan's handing over of Omal Al-Bashir to the ICC. We also talked heavily about a lot of environmental news that hit the internet this week!

Debatable issues in the pro-wrestling industry and John Cena have at least two things in common: one, you can't see them; two, you actually can, you just pretend not to.

We have a lot to cover this week! We tried our best to make the stories featured this week reflect a bunch of different fields. We have stories about COVID. About international relations and international law. We even talk about why Rihanna's being a billionaire status matters to what the feminist movement should strive to be!   But we spend a lot of time discussing things that hit close to home--  about the surprisingly layered issue that is Nas Academy allegedly exploiting National Living Treasure and indigenous tattooist Whang Od. How should content creators behave when selling products? Why is pinoybait a thing? How important is consent in the commercialization of indigenous culture? Can traditional knowledge be protected by copyright? So many questions! So little time!  

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

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

In this episode, we talk about how we can set priorities in a debate! Learn about the art of framing as well as different frames you can use.   Phase 1 of our FREE tournament Magiting Open is ONGOING! Don't forget to check us out at facebook.com/MagitingCup

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

Idris Elba was in the news recently for proposing that everyone should verify their identities before using social media to prevent people from using anonymity as a means to be racist or bigoted. Is this a good idea, or would it do more harm than good?   Phase 1 of Magiting Cup is OPEN NOW! Check out our page at facebook.com/MagitingCup and stay tuned this week for the first episode of Matterloading with Nina and Kyle!

The theme for the grand finals of this year's Debatable Intervarsity is Arts and Culture!  This motion deals with cynicism, an attitude characterized by a general distrust of others and their motives. We see more and more cynicism in various areas of life, from people refusing to believe in governments,  in vaccines, and even in the very idea that people can be altruistic. Cynicism has been around for a long time, but never before has it been this prevalent in our culture as a society. The motion reads: THR the mainstreaming (e.g. in art, media, politics, etc.) of cynicism. Much thanks is due to Papat Lozano, who contributed this motion and this post-debate analysis! 00:00 Introduction 1:08 What is the importance of arts and culture? 4:11 How is cynicism related to art, media, and politics? 5:53 Who should this debate focus on? 7:07 What is a strategic general frame for cynicism? 11:09 What is the counterfactual for gov bench? 19:32 How will teams evolve and adapt to the counterfactual? 20:52 How will society function on Opp? 23:02 Arguments for CG 29:41 Arguments for CO 34:37 Tips for encountering similar motions in the future

The theme for the open semi-final of this year's Debatable IV is international relations. On April 21, 2021, the New York Times published an article that illustrates a key dilemma facing the Biden administration-- can it really work with Beijing on issues like climate change while effectively challenging Beijing on human rights issues? The transition into greener energy through solar panels is one of the ways the world can combat climate change. Currently, China controls the majority of the solar supply chain. One of the key materials of solar panels comes from Xinjiang, a region in China where Uighur internment camps are located. Recently, China held a business conference warning the world of unilateralism pursued by certain countries that would ultimately discourage cooperation. This statement is directed towards the US who recently talked about self-sufficiency in supply chains. The US is now faced with a dilemma: should they cooperate with China on climate change or exclude China until it resolves its human rights issues in Xinjiang.  The motion reads: TH, as the US, would cooperate with China. Much thanks to Ashley Dejarme for contributing this motion and for giving us their valuable insights! 'China's Solar Dominance Presents Biden With an Ugly Dilemma' (Swanson and Plumer, New York Times):https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/business/economy/china-biden-solar-panels.html 00:00 Introduction 1:17 What is the context behind this motion? 2:15 Why mix environment and international relations in a motion? 5:13 There must be a tradeoff between environment and human rights 6:28 Framing on gov + Realist theory 10:43 What arguments to prioritize in the opening half? 15:08 Extending on gov 18:52 Reframing on opp 22:04 Could opp give an alternative partner for the US instead of China? 23:41 Arguing on opp 27:02 Extending on opp + Hegemonic Challenger theory 30:44 Advice for IR motions

The theme for Debatable IV's novice and junior finals is philosophy! The nature vs nurture debate is a classic one in psychology and philosophy. The question of what makes us who we are gives us profound insight on the nature of humanity and the human condition. One recent contribution to this debate is a concept called the "collective unconscious," defined by psychoanalyst Carl Jung.  The collective unconscious is a body of knowledge containing all of human experience that all human beings tap into when making decisions. The collective unconscious is responsible ffo many deep-seated beliefs and instincts, both positive (ie: charity, selfless acts, open-mindedness, etc.) and negative (ie: racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc.). It is said to influence a person's preferences, dreams, ideals, and goals based on the many factors that a person has no control over, even before they are born. It establishes the idea that a segment of humanity is genetically inherited and not shaped by personal experience.  The motion asks us whether even the very idea of a collective unconscious is doing more harm than good. It reads: THP a world where the idea of a collective unconscious does not exist. We are so thankful to Miko Bombeo for contributing this motion and for letting us interview them for this post-debate analysis! 00:00 Introduction 1:15 What makes debating philosophy fun? 2:27 What is the collective unconscious? 3:30 What inspired this motion? 5:09 What was the context behind this theory? 7:09 What is the debate about? 8:48 Framing for gov 12:01 What's the alternative? 13:53 Arguing on gov 17:13 Extending on gov 19:30 Reframing and arguing on opp 21:58 Weighing harms and benefits on opp 25:31 Extending on opp 28:05 Advice for philo motions

The quarterfinals motion for this year's Debatable IV is about gender! Many trans people find their appearance a point of scrutiny in the public. All many of them want is to be treated like any other cis-person and to blend into everyone instead of being stared at. Some people "pass" for being cisgender, but most do not. The term "passing" might be problematic, implying that trans women are not really women and that trans men are not really men. Nevertheless, there is now a concept of "cis-passing privilege" that many trans individuals are aspiring for in the hopes that when they get that privilege, they will be able to lead normal lives.   This motion is about whether the trans community should accept or reject this trend. It reads: THBT the transgender community should outright reject the notion that transpeople must aspire for cis-passing privilege. We'd like to thank Hez Casasola for giving us some of their time and for contributing this motion.   00:00 Introduction 2:16 What is cis-passing privilege? 3:10 What does the pursuit of cis-passing privilege look like? 4:36 What are the main issues of the debate? 5:37 Framing for Government Bench 8:32 Arguments for OG 11:37 Arguments for CG 15:35 What does it mean for the trans community to reject a notion that may empower some individuals?  19:00 What has the trans community achieved in empowering trans individuals who wish to pass as cis? 20:21 Framing for Opposition Bench 21:50 Arguments for OO 24:04 Arguments for CO 27:09 Advice for those who are going through gender-related struggles

TW: Mentions of murder and rape; The theme for Debatable IV's open octofinals is Sociolegal! It is said that due process is nothing more, and nothing less, than the concept of fair play. In most jurisdictions, the right of a person to due process is protected with procedural rules. One of these rules is that a criminal case may only be filed by a prosecutor who finds probable cause that the accused actually committed the crime charged. Supposedly, the probable cause standard makes it so that prosecutors don't file baseless or frivolous cases. However, whether that actually happens is debatable.   That's why this motion reads: THBT prosecutors should use the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt instead of probable cause when deciding whether to file a criminal case against a suspect.   There is an infoslide: The standard of probable cause is met when evidence exists to prove that the suspect is more likely than not to have committed the crime. A finding of probable cause does not require the prosecutor to inquire whether there is evidence to secure a conviction or whether there is evidence that could exculpate or acquit the suspect. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is met when evidence exists to produce moral certainty, not absolute certainty, that the accused committed the crime. Alternatively, it also means that no evidence exists so as to produce reasonable doubt that the accused did not commit a crime. We thank our Immortal friend Jesus Falcis (in DOTA 2 rankings!) for contributing this motion to our tournament!   00:00 Introduction 1:11 What is the current procedure for instituting criminal cases? 4:43 Why does the prosecutor have the ability to file the case? 7:18 What's the difference between probable cause and beyond reasonable doubt? 11:13 Is it all over when the prosecutor files the charge? 12:46 Framing on opening gov 16:22 Framing on opening opp 20:55 Arguing on opening gov 24:00 Arguing on opening opp 30:50 Extending on government side 36:31 Extending on opp 40:15 Advice for legal motions 42:16 REGISTER TO VOTE!

The theme for round 4 of this year's Debatable IV is economics! We are living in the middle of a recession because of the pandemic. One of the ways that central banks try to stimulate the economy is by setting "ultra-low" interest rates. Theoretically, low interest rates help stimulate the flow of money by encouraging lending and investment, but theory doesn't always match reality.   The motion reads: THR the policy of central banks to set ultra-low interest rates when facing severe economic downturns. Thanks so much to Nicky Solis for contributing this motion and post-debate analysis!   00:00 Introduction 1:24 Getting over your fear of econ 3:46 What inspired this motion? 4:57 What do central banks do? 7:51 What are interest rates? 11:33 How does the interest rate affect the economy? 13:16 When and why would rates be high? 15:59 Framing on gov 19:14 Are the harms inherent to ultra low rates? 24:18Will bank runs happen? 25:55 Extending on gov 28:26 Reframing on opp 32:36 Why would people follow the central bank? 35:21 Usury Laws & the Opp alternative 36:30 How do low rates help the economy? 40:20 Future matterloading 43:01 How can debaters be more interested in economics?

The theme for Round 3 of Debatable IV is Science! The past couple of years have been defined by the importance of creating and communicating scientific knowledge. This motion asks us to question WHO gets to make scientific knowledge and why that might matter.   The motion reads THW priortize the funding of scientific research conducted by members of historically marginalized groups. We thank Dr. RJ Lim for contributing this motion!   00:00 Introduction 00:47 What inspired this motion? 1:50 What is the importance of Science debates? 2:46 What does priority funding look like? How are grants given? 4:35 Framing government side 6:43 Arguing for gov 12:30 Extending for gov 15:12 Reframing for opp 17:51 Arguing for opp 23:07 Extending for opp 25:16 Advice for science motions (Especially if you have no matter!)