Panama WUDC 2025 Open Semifinals (Oxford, Sydney, UChicago)

When your neighbor's house is on fire you do not ask why or how it might affect property prices in the area you just put the fire out the moral Clarity and urgency of the issue in Sudan is so great that it prompts immediate response and only government achieves that first what is the problem in Sudan there is a civil war with an unequal balance of power between the two military sides which leads to sporadic violence and Constant Uprising which saps confidence in Democratic institutions in the long run and to humanitarian and Refugee crises in the

short what will we do about this on opening government we will assemble an international Task Force Under the orices of the UN as has successfully been done in East Tour Lebanon and many other places we will crucially ensure that there's broad-based Regional support for this from Regional actors like Egypt and Other Middle Eastern Powers this means there's an inherent incentive for the crisis to be resolved because these actors don't want to prolong a humanitarian crisis on their doorstep second we have learned from the past all the examples opposition will give you about forever Wars and

unsuccessful interventions are precisely what we learn from no thank you in these key mistakes that we have made so we will not for example go in without clear Intentions we will not bulldo over existing institutions and existing cultural practices as was done in Afghanistan we will respect people on the ground and ensure that we work with them towards a future that is better what are the aims of this intervention the first is the direct protection of civilians in the short run even if we cannot solve the Civil War in the long run at least we

ensure that when the military comes towards civilians there Is a blue helmet standing in the way the second thing we do is we give health food and infrastructural Aid to people on the ground that is impossible in the absence of a military intervention because both sides of the Civil War have an incentive to block this crucial aid from going in and in the long run we will build democracy we will rebuild civilian courts with reconciliatory mechanisms we will restore faith in Democratic institutions in the long run Which can only be achieved no thank you when

when violence is abated I will prove two things the first is that we protect civilians and the second is that we achieve reconstruction first protecting civilians I would note that this is by far the most important goal in this round because it is certain and Urgent for example if you see someone drowning you don't think about whether saving them might increase moral hazard slightly because it prompts more people To drown themselves on the basis that you will save them you just save them because it is a morally pressing issue and given that the civilians in

these countries have done nothing wrong they are by far the most important actor how do we do this we would note that a lot of the violence that takes place in a civil war is unplanned and sporadic so it is not the kind of violence you get when a military leader orders an incursion into a certain Town it is what You get when you get vigilante groups no thank you in a town or unplanned uprisings against a certain other group what happens is feuds and other kinds of low-level insurgencies spiral out into broader conflicts which

neither side of the conflict can we resolve Un Peace kether achieve two things to resolve this the first is deterence many of the soldiers on both sides of the Civil conflict are poorly trained and poorly paid and they don't have extensive um Exper experience fighting in the kind of military conflicts no thank you that we are going to engage in on our side of the house and even if it is true that some un peacekeepers are not necessarily optimal people on the ground don't know that right all they see is the UN logo and the

blue helmet and all of the associations that they have with that and that effectively deters them because many of these people have not been as trained as these un peacekeepers the Second thing that un peacekeepers achieve is they act as a trip wire right you don't want to be the person who killed a UN peacekeeper because all the Hellfire of the country would sent that un and Peacekeeper will rain down upon you at the point that occurs that is a far greater deterent than just someone on the other side of the Civil War because they

know there's International backing behind the UN peacekeeper that is there and so even if the number of un Peacekeepers is small the very fact that they exist in those civilian areas prevents militi militias from engaging in sporadic violence against civilians there that is the most important impact because it means that violence against civilians can directly be prevented secondly in the long run however it also increases civilian legitimacy we would note that neither side of the conflict in Sudan has civilian legitimacy in the status quo and that is because there's Severe distrust on both sides as

a result of the prolonged conflict deteriorating humanitarian conditions and all those kinds of things and therefore it is not very difficult for un peacekeepers to have at least marginally more legitimacy in the eyes of civilians when they go into these conflicts especially if they protect civilians in precisely the way we describe because all civilians in these areas want to do is get on with their Lives they don't really care about the broader political aims of these movements and therefore the UN is better able to achieve this yes your model is incredibly unclear will you work

with the rsf the saf both or neither well it broadly depends on local circumstances right so in areas where one power is more dominant we will work with them but we don't have a kind of you know specific inclination towards either side because we think both sides lack C judgy For precisely the reasons I have described so why do we reconstruct the Sudan effectively in the long run there are three main mechanisms the first is that effective Justice is crucial for reconstruction because it reduces vigilantism a main reason why confidence in these institutions is sapped

in the long run is because people take justice into their own hands they don't have confidence that the courts or military police will enforce the law and Therefore engage in vigilantism which provokes further cycles of conflict into the long run when the UN is able to come in and prevent these things by dispensing civil Injustice through the establishment of Civilian and Military courts that reduces the impetus for vigilantism and therefore reduces cycles of violence this is particularly the case when we have reconciliatory strategies right so we learn from our experience for example in Yugoslavia Where

we impose the kinds of things which are more likely to De to reconciliation in the long run rather than the prolonging of ethnic feuds this means for example that we don't directly Point blame in all instances where it's not necessarily productive to do so but engage in reconciliar tactics like mediation instead finally what is our exit strategy in this debate we would note that a large reason why an exit strategy has been impossible in many Other countries is because of the hubris of the intervening power and as I noted at the top of the speech

that is something we have learned from in specific what many of these countries did not do is respect existing legal systems and arrangements so they did not respect for example the way that power was distributed in these communities or they did not respect the kind of you know nonwestern legal systems that these countries had and it is very possible For the UN on our side to introduce a kind of Civilian justice system that respects these legal systems rather than imposing something completely foreign that is a key benefit because it increases trust in the justice system

on outside and allows the West to eventually exit in the long run because it leads to a proper civilian government on our side that is far better why is is important because not only does it mean we protect civilians in the long run but Also in the short run but also in the long run as well I would note that these are the most important people in this debate because even if it is true that the intervention costs some lives in the short run because you have to go into the country and engage in war

we suggest that those people are marginally less important right because these are soldiers from either side who are less innocent than the civilians who we are protecting on our side and given that The civilians on our side have done nothing wrong and nothing to deserve the kind of treatment that they currently suffer under they are the most important actor in fact we would suggest that on the counterfactual western governments are guilty by Omission for failing to protect civilians in the Sudan for all of those reasons [Applause] propose I thank that for speech call hello here

[Applause] here contrary to what prime minister says the Sudanese Civil War is already an international Civil War the rsf illegally exports gold to the UAE and Russia and in return they directly Supply them with weapons in Shadi and air bases and they direct their militias in shad and half controlled areas of Libya to enter to enter doar and provide support there conversely the saf uses Ukrainian drones operated by aeri drone Operators sent by turkey to pmel civilian operations in Caan we should not send more people into that conflict we should not Fight Fire with Fire

what we should do is pull those people out reduce the supply of weapons mean that the sides in that conflict have less to Pummel each other with and that is how we reduce civilian deaths I'm first going to explain our counter model then I'll identify where that counter model will simmer the conflict down finally I'll explain what intervention is likely to occur poorly and to make the situation worse or they will deal with reconstruction first we this is a policy debate we have counter Fiat what will we use that counter Fiat on two things firstly

ceasing all current forms of military support and intervention for the sides in Libya that looks like the rsf no longer being backed by the UAE Russia Chad and haa it looks like the saf no longer being backed by Egypt Ukraine and turkey they do not provide weapons they do not provide funding they do not accept gold or oil exports illegally given secondly we'll engage in non-military forms of intervention and pressure those are three-fold firstly the leaders of major groups will be placed under sanctions people like kedi dagalo will be under International sanctions where they currently

are not secondly we will impose a weapons ban that will include things like secondary Sanctions if the UAE continues to defy United Nations orders and continues to fly weapons into chadian air bases that will then enter doar the UAE will be hit with secondary sanctions third we apply the maximum amount of diplomatic pressure given to us by our can of Fiat to resolve these issues first argument these things that we are doing will resolve the current war and I'm going to note the difference in analysis between what I am about to give and what that

Prime minister speech gives because that prime minister speech is about simmering down local conflicts local tensions but that's not the war that is being fought the War that is being fought is two sides which are increasingly fragmenting but still two sides with enormous numbers of weapons enormous capacity enormous strength why do we simmer down the conflict three ways firstly there are fewer weapons to fight the conflict with there are fewer guns fewer drones Fewer air strikes fewer airplanes being flown in from Egypt to supply the saf that is enormously helpful secondly there's less money going

into these areas because these groups are now no longer able to smuggle Goods out and then sell them on the black market sell them to people like UA and Russia they use that Goods to do that money to do two things firstly they use it to buy more weapons which is going to escalate the conflict further we take away their Capacity to those weapons but secondly in particular areas of the conflict particularly in Doan and Caan the areas that are the people that are fighting the war are often mercenaries because those areas have splintered and

have almost never been under Sudanese government control so these government these groups no longer have the military and money power to buy those groups out and to get them to fight on their side thirdly without the backing of International Powers the competence in this war will feel less confident because currently even if they suffer Battlefield losses like the rsf recently took when they lost control of part of West caon they feel like they can keep fighting on cuz they feel like if they ever get too weak their backer will step up and provide more support

cuz their backer doesn't want to lose the sunk cost but now their backer has stepped out so if they start losing there's Nothing to stop them keeping losing which is why they are likely to go to the table what does this mean happens firstly there's less capacity to engage in enormously destructive harms to civilians for instance Mo there there will be drones there I guess residually a the flow of drones in will stop but B most sides don't have drone operators themselves they use Russi or azer drone operators to fly those drones those drone operators

have left because of our Model they're less likely to help them supp but secondly this is likely to push them towards the table push them towards the solution or they able elaborate on why this is likely to work politically but just note that if you believe you're close to a solution If You Believe You're vulnerable and don't have strength that's when you tone down the attacks because that's when you want the other side to start seeing you as a legitimate negotiating power you on the Other side to see you as a legitimate actor in the

conflict so that explains the withdrawal of troops will do what we needed to do closing opening it's possible to be enormously violent very just Geno why do you think they don't have enough weapons to give this going for years firstly R and genocide actually had an enormous flow of weapons they were supplied by both militias in the Congo and France secondly it is not possible to do that Things like the large scale drone attacks large scale air strikes that do the most damage that do things like kill hospitals that do things like takeout seed blocks

in those areas are gone but thirdly weapons get used up bullets get used up drones get shot down planes get shot down if you stop the supply into it that is what trickles it down into the long term why is intervention likely to occur poorly and make the conflict worse firstly it is going to be done badly and I know it's done by the UN but it will be done badly in three regards firstly the groups that constitute the UN forces will not be neutral the UN doesn't have its own standing army it has people

that go into their own forces and there are two types of countries that are likely to be involved the first are countries that use the UN peacekeeping as a way to pay their own soldiers so that's things like Bangladesh which sends most of the rapid action Battalion into the UN to Pay its own soldiers those countries don't want to deploy their forces into war because they're just doing it there to get rid of police forces they can't pay but secondly there are countries that are involved as they say in their model that are Regional powers

that have backed and will continue to back actors those are countries like the UAE which backs the saf that means that they will do things like continue to provide tacid support continue to provide tacit Alignment with the countries they will and PM allows them to do so because in response to the POI they say well in different areas we'll pick different sides of the conflict to back so the UAE controlled areas of the UN police force will just support the rsf in those areas secondary it's lik to be done badly there will be weapons spill

over that's firstly because it's hard to make sure that all of the weapons you're flying in as part of the UN are in the same area That's what happened in Haiti most of the Haitian gangs these days use un weapons from the 2010 intervention but secondly it's an incentive to let those weapons slip out of your control because you back those groups because you think it's good for them to have weapons so that weapon spill over makes the conflict worse but I not it also makes other conflicts worse because other areas in this region are

very unstable places like Chad and Libya and South Sudan have their own Rebel groups which are currently fighting in Sudan so if they get access to those weapons if they can funnel them back home all of those countries experience more harms as well thirdly there's likely to be resource extraction that is the UN peacekeepers will be operating in areas which have enormously valuable resources for instance the gold mines that the rsf uses those peacekeepers which just belong to National states have every Incentive to try and smuggle some of that gold out every incentive to destroy

the legitimacy this International Mission might have at the beginning finally the even if it is done perfectly this intervention will make the war worse for three reasons firstly it will fragment the conflict for two reasons firstly these guys literally say they're backing one side in one area and back in the other side in the other area so they're literally supporting further Fragmentation supporting whoever manages to get control of one staying in power of that state forever secondly the people position themselves around the international conflict when Myanmar was intervened in people in Myanmar fragmented over whether

to support interventions or not support interventions that's like to occur again secondly it gives groups a reason to fight there an enormous number of terrorist groups operating this area Isis groups Al-Qaeda groups al-shabab groups they now have a Western actor that has intervened in a context they have boots on the ground that they can fight with the flow of jihadis into San will accelerate dramatically thirdly the intervention itself will cause deaths they will have to drone strike people they will have to shoot people and those deaths are worse because the West is complicit because the

West is the one firing the bullets it has intervened far Too often in the Arab world it should not do so [Applause] again for that spech now i' like call the prime minister [Applause] two factions in Sudan are treating innocent civilians like pawns atrocities and war crimes are regularly committed across the country in the name of a greater cause those political machinations pose an existential threat To the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and we are the side that gives you a clear way to protect these people on their side they would do

nothing they would sit back and they could continue allowing the untold suffering of so many people continue and the problem is that despite what they would have you believe there is no civilian legitimacy left within the Sudan yes it may be that at the beginning of the war you had a clear Delineation of sides but given the erosion of existing institutions and systems given the continual fighting and basically the usurpation of Power by the military on both sides that is precisely when people have lost faith the first thing I want to do is be very

clear about what we're using our FIA to do in the short term and why it is that this solves the concerns on opening opposition the first thing that we me begin the negotiation process and we Play both sides of each other because we want them involved we want to make it clear that we are happy to offer amnesties or necessary and to have them involved in reconstructing the country in the name of protecting people the second thing we do however is that we establish an interim civilian Authority with the support of the Sudanese democracy camp

and this is the interest to see democracy reestablished within the country itself the reason this is Important is because this offer is the crucial Buy in by people on the ground we're not simply intervening the way we did in Iraq we're not putting foreign people in charge of the country but other were working and collaborating with the locals to the extent that this is possible the third thing we do crucially though is that we offer guarantees and rewards to the soldiers and the conscripts who are willing to lay down their arms on our side and

Here's the crucial framing which is that the majority of people in that war simply don't have an alternative they're neither ideologues nor trained soldiers and note here The crucial mechanism as to how it is that these people step down you see a well-trained soldier in modern year you often have an outdated uniform and an old rifle that jams on you sometimes your stomach hurts and you're exhausted by the experience of War on our side we offer you all you need we Offer you protection we offer you safety for yourself and for those you love and

that is the reason why you step down because your leadership has failed you you know that you're disposable and you know that on our side we want to offer this piece and this is precisely how we stop the conflict because even if they're right and we cannot get groups to negotiate with us we get them to basically lose the support of the majority of those forces and that is Precisely what can change the situation but also fourthly and very importantly we tactically clear out areas where possible but we do a cost calculation as to civilian

casualties crucially many areas can be captured without firing a single bullet why if you're able to cut military supply lines that is precisely when forces can be incentivized surrender that is you can basically get them to tactically retreat to different areas of the country if they're Threatened by being surrounded the people who stay behind are often the ones who precisely want to surrender and that is why we are able to secure those civilian seds note then what this means we take a very lowb burden claim which is we're able to protect civilians within many population

centers this is important because we're talking about the majority of the populace and we also merely stop these people from becoming refugees the way they do in the status Quo but even if this is not right we are able to directly provide the aid to those individuals let me not respond to the case you hear from opening opposition the first thing I want to point out is that we have Fiat and definitional power within this debate this necessarily means that they cannot just push and me that like you know Libya or the Ukraine are going

to continue doing like horrible things with equipment they give but this Intervention has to be effective importantly deterrence most happens against countries like Saudi Arabia when you do have peacekeepers on the ground Taj explains to you the trip War mechanism which is that if your gun if your drone with your country's tag on it kills a un officer that is when those countries will be hit by sanctions the next thing I will point out however is that the O counter model is just not mutually exclusive I am happy to stop Military Support I am happy

to do non-military forms of intervention simply then they just haven't given you much of a case for the first half of their speech however I even want to note how it is that weapon smuggling happens that is it's not the case that you have like clearly demarcated weapon serpents that is most weapons come in through things like foreign aid or food Aid they're being masquerad at the border the problem is you can only effectively Stop the import of weapons when you have boots on the ground on their side to do so they have to be

overly cautious therefore for every single packet of amamos they stop that is tens of tons of Civilian uh Aid and health equipment that is necessary to protect those civilians therefore they're the side that has to starve the country out in this debate preemptively next up I want to explain why it is that they're not able to stop the war this the way They're saying the first problem is that opening opposition hasn't heard of the Kalashnikov which is why of the cheapest guns to produce to manufacture or to use given the reliability of this it's simply

false that you don't have the equipment to keep the war going that is both sides have bought much ammunition preemptively and therefore they're very ready to continue fighting on their side the second problem however is that they don't respond to our mechanism about un Peacekeepers and the problem is that even if you want to fight the other side you have no reason to escalate in the areas that we are protecting in so far that this puts you at a tactical disadvantage you basically have a standoff in the sense that if you are the one fighting

the US that's going to make you weaker in the conflict but also thirdly mercenaries form a minority of those operations so it's simply false that they're going to be like the Prevalent force that keeps the war going next up I want to basically Clash on them on the question of fragmentation and explain why it is we're very happy to see it I'll take a few from closing please your claim about abusive modeling is true but hypocritical at the point where you defend like paying soldiers to leave the army that is no longer a military interventions

I I literally have people with rifles on the ground and I'm basically pushing these people Like like this is this is fake I'm sorry let me then explain why it is that the like other like model bashing about the like UN forces doesn't work firstly we F in accountability then that's fine secondly though we will prioritize the trustworthy countries for like areas where you have like a high chance of like crimes Etc like I just don't think they can just push on me that this happens badly finally on fragmentation why is fragmentation good the first

one Is that at the point at which you have the military breaking apart the person who is likely to rise in charge of the factions is the one who is most able to gain concessions from the West that is when you see that your legitimacy and your underground support is falling apart you need someone who can push the conflict to an end secondly and crucially this means that we apply preemptive pressure to leadership that is the fact that your subordinates May C You exactly because what we're describing doesn't just affect people on the ground but

rather you fear that you'll be taken out you're afraid that basically you're going to have what you have worked for taken away and you fear for your life and for your family's well-being that is when you're are pushed to negotiate with the intervening forces therefore I just think that even if you have extremist factions these are the ones who are going to lose support The quickest even Beyond this I think that the factions themselves in fighting is a good thing in so far attention is focused away from the civilian centers and away from the more

moderate parts we are the ones who show you how we're able to get any form of lasting peace and we protect the people who harm the most for all these Reasons I'm very proud to propose thank God speaker for the fine speech now to close the I like to call on the deputy leader of the opposition Here [Applause] here I'm going to prove two things firstly I'll prove that our counter model ends the war faster and with less debts than side openening government secondly I'll will prove that their intervention substantially worsens the war from the

status quo killing millions of people by far the biggest impact in the debate let's start with why we're able to end the war the first thing I Want to note is that Jack explains very clearly why our counter model is likely to be extremely effective that is to say firstly that weapons bans means far fewer weapons within that country and therefore far less capacity to kill secondly that less money for either side means less weapons means fewer militias means it's harder to pay off locals means that the conflict grinds to an end and finally less

foreign support means that each party feels weaker the Incentive to continue the conflict is lower the political pressure against them is stronger and is not counterbalanced by the support of international participants that explains why the parties are in a much weaker position an opening government concedes themselves that they say many people just want to lay down their arms they say many people don't want the war to occur they're just looking for shelling point for peace that is precisely why Our C model provides the very mechanism necessary to convince those parties to come to a table

provides for example independent parties to the war who not fighting in it who can negotiate that settlement who can enforce the agreements that occur can ensure that peace occurs that is not possible on their side when these participants have militarily intervened in the country when they are not trusted and when they're not seen as impartial what are The responses we get to this argument firstly they say well why is our counter model mutually exclusive from theirs three reasons firstly Fiat they use their Fiat to do their model we use our Fiat to do our counter

model you can't do two things secondly because it's literally mutually exclusive you are intervening and sending more people into the country we're saying we're pulling people out of the country we're Banning people from being able to participate or Uh support that conflict those things are literally the opposite of each other but thirdly because we explain the process of intervening means intervening badly because when you allow as this team says in their model Regional powers to lead the UN Force into that region they have incentives to do it badly they have incentives to support different factions

within the war to empower them so they can control resources so they're ideologically more important within the Country so that they have more of a stake in the Sudan that forms at the end of the conflict which explains why it is bad the second thing they say is like well why are more weapons bad what if we just have less weapons but use them more or something but Jack explains many reasons why more weapons are bad the first is just that weapons tend to be destroyed over the four over the time period of the conflict

so yes if you have fewer weapons Your Capacity to Engage in violence literally erodes but secondly obviously things like aircraft can kill far more people than something like an AK-47 which is why the most intense conflicts are those with the most most advanced weapons with are by far the most civilian deaths if fewer people are able to die each day because each side is weaker that is a massive win for our side but finally we would just note that if you think about historical comparisons clearly the wars That have been far more devastating are the

ones as Weapons technology has increased you just can't Mount the kinds of operations that you can on their side like if all you have his AK-47s and the conflict's kind of Frozen very few people die but when you have drones you can reach over the the No Man's Land when you have planes you can engage in strikes of other people's capitals You Can Hurt civilians in a way you cannot on the other side finally we explain why We're very likely to get political resolution on our side what does this team have to say there firstly

they say we will get reconstruction and peace because we'll enforce rule of law but firstly like how do you change the facts on the ground they say well we'll just cooperate with everyone who exists there at the moment so as soon as you leave those people will just resume the war because they still have all the same incentives to want more territory to Want more land to want more resources that doesn't end the conflict secondly they say we'll give people amnesty which will never work because if they freeze the conflict the way it is the

RFS still controls some territory the saf still controls some territory why would you ever believe these amnesties will be enforced once the West leaves and you're surrounded by your political enemies who obviously want to kill you that would never work finally they say well we can Just exit because we won't have hubris the reason you can't exit is because the conflict is frozen you know as soon as you leave it will restart which ties you there forever slowly losing troops slowly bleeding the country to death with nothing ever changing on on our side political Solutions

are viable we erode the capacity of states to fight which means that the cost of violence is higher and the benefits of Peace are greater we explain why political Solutions are viable because they've happened before both in Sudan and in other countries but also because we have parties that can negotiate and force those agreements because they're not involved in the conflict themselves they said and obviously those things are much harder to do when you're involved firstly for the reason that you've killed many people and you've lose you've lost trust people feel that you are complicit

in the conflict that you Are a bad actor and they don't want you negotiating the surrender when they feel that you cannot do so finally we would just note that morally it is wrong to be complicit in the conflict in the way that this side would they say they would work with the rsf that is currently committing a genocide against the muset people in daur they say they would work with the saf an autocratic organization that kills people we say it is morally wrong to do that it is certain that it Is morally wrong and

you ought not be complicit in it both because it is morally wrong but also because when you are complicit in atrocities they tend to happen far than when you are not which is why you ought not be part of that that explains why on our side it's very likely that we could see an end of the war because we decrease the incentive to continue the conflict and we increase the incentive for peace we have the mechanisms necessary for that peace to Occur you said your is exclusive they're increasing weapons and decreasing weapons but weapons are

not entirely fun increasing weapons in one way while still cracking down the second and third responses to that argument still hold both about Fiat and also because the intervention will necessarily occur badly and involve those weapons being brought in you can't Fiat that out actors have incentives to do bad things let's talk about why they're worse in The conflict and I want to note here the huge problem for opening government is they just sidestep huge parts of the debate they're like well we'll have troops on the ground and they'll stop the violence how are they

getting on the ground you have to invade the country that's where millions of civilians die so they tell you well we protect civilians on our side no you kill millions of civilians in getting your troops there in the first place the RAF and the saf don't want you there they want to be able to continue the War which is why people die they don't explain why they would cooperate with you and if the reason is just that well they have to they don't explain why once you leave the war doesn't just restart secondly though they

don't explain a capacity to stop violence on civilians firstly you could just attack the UN troops just as how US troops were attacked in Afghanistan you could attack The troops where they're not you can't have troops in every part of the country and in every city or in Yugoslavia maybe the US troops just do nothing as genocide continues to occur no explanation as to why civilians are helped there but we give you many reasons why things get far far worse firstly because you fragment the conflict could say UAE has different incentives to Egypt has different

incentives to aeria uh to to to aaban And to Russia which means that you have different groups getting more weapons weapons being leaked to those various groups uh you know resource extraction occurring all which makes the conflict harder to resolve all we which means there are more actors there are more groups you need to bring to the table but it also means more people dying because the invasion will kill people because more weapons will kill people because you're complicit in the Violation of sovereignty and in the atrocities and the genocide that will serve certainly occur

this was a bad idea you ought not be [Applause] involved I thank that speak speech and all speakers onp so far welcome the member of government to open back half you're here the problem for opening government in this debate is that while they identify stopping the war is obviously a good Thing they fail to really engage with what opening opposition says about their counterfactual mechanism for stopping the war so closing government will enter this debate in two ways the first thing that will explain is that in the in the short term you will get far

more brutality in Sudan through the way that opening opposition wants to stop the war the second thing we will explain is that in the long run the kind of government that opening opposition gets would be Incredibly bad without un intervention let's start with why the measures needed to stop the war on their side would be far worse in the short term cuz the thing that I want to identify here is that they say well these groups would be poorer and therefore we would disempower them and would be less brutal which is totally a factual to

what we see through the rest of History which is that when these groups become poorer when these groups become more desperate that is When they are at their worst that is when you get the worst kinds of atrocities that's when you get the things that are truly chilling why is it that these groups being far poorer is way worse the first thing to say is that they now have to find alternative ways of displaying their power when they don't have the guns when they don't have the actual power over these groups they have to rely

far more on how they're perceived which increases their Incentive to do things like public massacres to do things like engendering fear in that population in order to control them which means that you get far far more of the most performative and most brutal forms of repression secondly when they don't have the money to be able to pay their soldiers that means they're far more likely to do coercive things that's things like running through towns doing conscription that's things like getting child Soldiers thirdly when they can't get resources externally for instance by exporting things from the

gold mines that they have or by getting the humanitarian support that opening government points out they need to get more resources domestically that looks like taking slaves that looks like the expropriation of property which is incredibly harmful and finally they do more brutal things for the reason that they have less targeted weapons yeah why Don't they do these things right now because they have less of an incentive to when they have other mechanisms for being able to achieve their goals because every single one of the things that I talk about comes with an Associated cost

right like for instance you lose support in the population so at the moment the benefit of that is smaller than the cost so they don't do it but now when they don't have other Alternatives the cost is far the benefit Of it is smaller than the cost so they do it far more the final thing to say is that they have far less targeted weapons that's to say that they're more likely to go around uh massacring people with machetes when they don't have access to the drones that these guys talk about which are likely to

allow them to take out SM far smaller groups of people we think that it's a bad thing when you have the most brutal machete massacres and I know this this seems like a narrow Delta but it's actually not like a large number of people being killed by a machete is one of the most horrific things that can happen to a person why is it that we stop these bad things from happening first of all we can simply end the sanctions faster as opening government describes we're able to send in a large number of us of

un soldiers massively overwhelm them and end the conflict faster but secondly we're able to directly protect those civilians when That is happening so we have troops there that means they're not subject to it no second argument why is it that any solution would be bad because opening opposition says we will end this they will come to the bargaining table and we will have a long-term government and there's no work done to describe what that long-term government looks like and we think that that long-term government would be absolutely horrific the because when they put down their

arms and we Have it and we have a negotiation probably what it looks like is a power sharing agreement between the Sudanese armed forces and the jid which is the solution that was started before why would you have to involve the J in any long-term resolution first of all they are incredibly powerful themselves secondly by opening opposition's own mechanism it's about bringing these groups together and negotiating thirdly this group has a large number of other Ethnic groups aligned with them who would not buy into any peace without them being a part of that agreement fourthly

they have a history of CPS against uh against that government which means that you you wouldn't have stability without including them fourth fifthly if they weren't included in it then the UAE who's been supporting the jungu aggressively has more of an incentive to ferment chaos within that country in order to get their supporters Back within that country noting fully half of Sudan's exports go to the UAE this is incredibly important to them and finally the jungu has a large number of very important gold mines any government that didn't involve them would be incredibly poor what

are the harms of involving the juned in a long-term power sharing solution in this country first of all it would be highly unstable and Incredibly likely to break down as it has done so before and that is not only Because the Jered and the saf are very opposed to each other but also the Junger is very internally unstable with various leaders and power factions within it Rising so even if you got an agreement in the first instance it's likely that that agreement wouldn't last into the long- term secondly it would now be impossible to stop

the Junger weed from streaming across the countryside committing ethnic cleansing because they would be a part of the Government that would have power in that government and that is absolutely horrific thirdly when you have two big Power bases within government it shifts government in governance incentives in an incredibly pernicious way because when you're one government who's controlling that country you're the growth of that country 100% accrues as its benefit to you whereas when there's two power bases in government only 50% of the growth of a country accr to you As a benefit what acces to

you 100% is relocating resources from the other set of ethnic groups to your set of ethnic groups so have far is more of incentive not to grow the country but to redistribute the pie from other people to your aligned uh to your aligned set of people that explains why the government that opening opposition gets would be incredibly bad the next thing I just want to briefly explain is why it is that we think this intervention would Work and why you wouldn't get Mass fight back from the saf and the rsf the first thing to say

is whatever group of those two was the first to attack the UN soldiers would disadvantage themselves in a pairwise comparison between the two of them right because now the UN soldiers would Target whatever group was being more militaristic towards them which would mean that the rsf like if it's the rsf they would lose out to the saf where that conflict was continuing Because they would more have to deal with un soldiers and secondly they would see what's coming they would see we're heading for a democratic government and they wouldn't want to for instance be banned

from running in those future elections which gives them an incentive not to be the party that is incredibly bad the final thing that I want to prove in this speech is that Sudan needs a democratic State and cannot have an authoritarian State as the future Because there can be some prosperous authoritarian States but a number of structural features of Sudan means it will never be a prominent authoritarian a prosperous authoritarian State first of all it's an incredibly resourcer country out of time it's incredibly resourced rich country which means that you don't really have an incentive

to share the pie because if your economy on services or agriculture you need to grow and develop the population because You're reliant on labor intensive Industries to make you money when you're very resource dependent it's not very labor intensive so you don't really care about the population which explains why an authoritarian state in this instance doesn't have an incentive to enfranchise the population and make them better secondly this is not a sufficiently homogeneous state has a high amount of ethnic tension and authoritarian one party States rely on enough homogeneity Within the population for them all

to be able to agree on one government or one power structure that is able to delete it because it is so divided you'd never be able to get that agreement on what that power structure needs to be which means that you would which means you need democracy in which you can enfranchise a plurality of voices and thirdly you need to develop unaligned institutions the problem with the power sharing agreement is all the Institutions would still be either saf or rsf just in a temporary truce against each other which makes it incredibly unstable on our side

we can develop unaligned institutions which can be truly prosperous into the future I thank that speaker for that speech now to open up for the last team the round call member of opposition fair warning this will be quick starting in 3 two one Helen will deal deal with CG all deal with OG Rather I'll deal with CG and oo first on CG their first argument is that you get more brutality when you resource constrain these countries one they mitigate their own argument they tell you that there are huge political cost to doing these kinds of

things the rsf and saf won't go to child soldiers unless they absolutely need it there's no reason why this is the likely counterfactual second they create this incentive on their aside when they make The enemy of these groups far Stronger by creating a huge military intervention that's why you need to go out and recruit child soldiers and start doing things like expropriating property from other people their second argument is that you get a better long-term government because the janed is going to like mess with all of your stuff this is completely symmetric on their side

of the house they never prove why the Jed is likely to be excluded from the Government if the UN steps in secondly the Democracy claim is not explained they impact democracy but they never make the argument itself new mechanisms are allowed in whip but new arguments or not Charlie cannot extend on this then on opening opposition the problem is that the counter model is entirely unrealistic they say that they're going to cut off all weapons but as OG realistically points out they knife themselves when they say that there are Weapon spill overs so it's entirely

unclear how they block any weapons from entering the country the second problem is more meta the actor that they like do this for that is the UAE and turkey groups that are already involved is different from the actor that OG specifies so they can't do counter Fiat on this actor given that it is a different set of groups and third and finally I just don't think they prove enforcement that is there are many Nations like Russia uh China like Syria just finished a Civil War and has a bunch of weapons lying around it's really unclear

how they're going to deny all these weapons from entering the country um oh finally it's non-unique they don't prove that the that sanctions don't already exist in the status quo then what does Co defend we think that the likely counterfactual is that the UN uses the resources that it does not put into a peacekeeping mission in Sudan and To better more tractable conflicts no this doesn't knife the O model even if you believe that that you can do arms embargos you can just do like the arms embargos and like do interventions either way but we're

not dependent on the o model of arms embargos for this to work first claim the UN is uniquely capacity constrained right now in its peacekeeping missions this started with Nikki Hy under Trump who did things like withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council and Signal a return to us isolationism under Biden this Trend continued Tom perello the US Envoy to Sudan resigned because he felt like he wasn't getting enough support from the Trump Administration and El stonic Trump's next nominee to be the ambassador to the UN is likely to continue these Trends he is similarly

isolationist and is unwilling to intervene in foreign conflict except for Israel then the peacekeeping budget Broadly has dropped 25% this was in The Economist this morning from $8 billion to $6 billion this $2 billion reduction in the past year means that current conflicts are already capacity constrained un cannot afford to go into a new place finally the African Union which might be expected to fill in the gaps in its backyard is also struggling with a fiscal cliff many nations are suffering from huge debt burdens after covid which is why William rucho was Almost recently ousted

in Kenya because of the huge austerity measures he's had to take after debt there's just no money to spend on this intervention uh second this intervention is likely to be uniquely expensive first the rsf and saf are relatively even Powers which means tipping the scales is incredibly difficult you can't step in on one side and expect to Smite the other immediately second it's a proxy war there are many arms flowing in from Abroad which means you don't just need to counter domestic actors you also need to counter International actors like the UAE who are likely

to spark an arms race and funnel more weapons in as you funnel your own weapons in third there's a legacy of violence things like Janine militias conducting the darford genocide which means they're likely to engage in the worst kinds of violence which are incredibly hard to stop fourth and finally they're are high variable costs A military doesn't have very large fixed costs instead you need to do things like pay boots on the ground for a larger intervention this extension has two implications on the round first it means that the intervention that OG defends is limited

in scale and short term we limit the total amount of Fiat power that OG can access they needed to prove that there was some willingness from this actor to do this in the first place at best they get a year of intervention and It's immediately repealed by the UN sureal yeah but I I I guess you don't get per feel on your side of the house and it is some ways dependent on the incentives of the actor itself so if the UN doesn't want to intervene in Sudan you can't like compel them to do it

um over time and the the other thing I'll say here is that they say they're going to fight fire with a hose I think it is more like just passing water buckets down the line while the fire grows Bigger and bigger second implication for the round this tradeoffs this trades off with more tractable peacekeeping efforts that is we can better deploy un resources and this is the likely counterfactual the first case where this happens is places where you can work with a pre-existing government yeah Tajin middle easn actors are uning to support other interv when

the West is seen as ignoring sud they're they're they're much more likely to support Other interventions that they don't have a direct stake in right like they continue getting gold because of the Civil War they're much more likely to support an intervention that doesn't have a direct impact on their gold Supply then working with a government is much easier you can do things like collaborate with an existing military and share intelligence whereas on their side of the house they are fighting a battle on two fronts this looks like Things like uh working with Lola tanbu

in Nigeria to combat and ingent groups like Boo Aram or going into Haiti to fight gang violence these things are both broadly popular meaning that there's one side which has the people's support and you can rely on for intelligence and just have much more capacity than going in as a third party without relying on either of the two pre-existing parties and second you can go into places that are less Sophisticated that is places like the Civil War in the Democratic Republic of the Congo where there aren't pre-existing paramilitary groups that you have to fight against

instead it's much smaller militias which means you're more likely to win and create a Tipping Point to humanitarian intervention these conflicts also deserve our attention this is a normative debate not just about what is best for Sudan and we are better able to make a change in these Places with you resources second piece of extension is that peace talks get much harder on their side of the house a couple reasons why peace talks are viable in the status quo first the rsf is already at the table they came to peace talks in August 2024 in

Switzerland second there's International connections that is the UAE is involved and has a partnership third the fall of Assad in Syria creates fear in the saf that their regime will fall too and Makes them more like like negotiate and fourth there already was a peace settlement in 2021 this is much better analysis than o who says that like uh peace talks are politically viable just because of their unrealistic arms embargo counter model then why do PE stocks fail on their side of the house most basically the mechanism that o misses is that on their side

of the house you have to attack both the saf and the rsf at the same time they are Both doing human rights atrocities so you turn both of them against you and no this does not create like an incentive for both of them to stay out of it as CG says for instance in Syria Kurdistan turkey and Isis all fight against each other all the time even if they have aligned interest for some of the time the implication for the round is pretty clear I don't think either side proves that there's going to be long-term

stability in Sudan it's just unrealistic To expect that the next government is going to be very stable but in the immediate term we allow for things like a ceasefire this is how you actually get humanitarian Aid into the country if people lay down their arms for a beef period of time so you can get trucks burying food and water to people who need them the most proud to oppose [Applause] [Applause] firstly defending the extension secondly Enclosing opposition and then finally an opening opposition the weighing against other way around a weighing against opening government the weighing

against opening government will be done integrated with the responses to opening opposition firstly then on defending our extension I think the most important response we get in that speech to our claim is that we create the same incentives for conflict to escalate because we also create an impetus for More desperation there are a few issues with this firstly the way this has been set up by opening government is not as an armed conflict against another an armed like a like a full invasion of another country where you're attempting to wage war and introduce a third

party to that war that might create a large part of amount of desperation the way this has been modeled by opening government is that you'd send in un peacekeepers to create stability Within Regions to function as a civilian military police force to set up for example things like courts to stabilize areas in which you can rot out conflict that's different in a meaningful way because it means that you don't get the same level of increase in desperation that's required for this flip to work secondly if this is true we quite obviously prefer that the conflict

ends sooner because this requires an acknowledgement that that escalation Happens that when parties in a conflict are more desperate they get substantially more brutal if you believe that to be true you should prefer a world in which you have un peacekeepers on the ground in order to prevent the worst parts of that brutality and you have some form of military intervention in order to ensure that the conflict from which desperation is arising ends faster rather than lasting longer and we explain a series I think there's a Pretty clear series of reasons why it is that

it will end substantially faster when you have military intervention that is because the distance inability between UN forces and other forces is so great that it's unlikely this desperation manifests in more brutality but rather in members of this armed conflict putting arms down giving up being less able to find troops at all in any form thirdly the UN presence might escalate the incentive for Brut but it Also escalates the tradeoff against that brutality which means that it doesn't actually cause the amount of brutality to increase in the end that is to say the local people

now have a third option from the saf and the rsf which means that you when you have so the trade of we explain with brutality is like you get more people because you're able to make them more scared of you but they also like you less because they're more scared of you now that is an accentuated Trade-off when you have a third party to the rsf and the saf who are in there as a presence in order to provide people an alternative towards things so in addition to not wanting them to radicalize against you you

specifically don't want you them to turn towards and cooperate more with un peacekeepers which means the amount of brutality doesn't go up fourthly many of the things we say are not about desperations but are about the means that the rsf and The saf have which is to say if you cannot arm all of your troops with guns you need to make the civilian population believe that if they step out of line of your control or cooperate with other forces or engage in something that might undermine your rule you still have the power to crack down

on them if you can't literally show with a gun in your hand that you're going to crack down on them or if you only have a few troops that are stationed in that town in order to Demonstrate that you can crack down on them you need to engage in public demonstrations of brutality that make people so scared of stepping out of line they never even consider it that looks like beheadings in the streets it looks like massacres that people hear of and know the fear that that region will have that is all far more accentuated

not because of the amount of desperation that occurs but because of the amount of armaments that because because of the Change in armaments that happen fifthly we explained that in the worst case the UN will be there to protect people so as I said before we'd rather it happen on ourside then say that we mitigate the amount of brutality that will increase by saying that they don't want this because of trade-offs but this is a pretty uncomp argument that is the status quo level that occurs of brutality that occurs we meaningfully change the way this

trade-off happens Which increases the amount of brutality finally in response to our second extension all they say is that we don't explain a reason why the Junger weed would not have to be involved on either side but I think the reason for this is intuitive which is to say that you no longer require watching from the background and hoping that the two sides come together to form things like courts and infrastructure in order to run government we provide an alternative Which is international forces setting up those courts and setting up that infrastructure for democracy and

for government which means that neither party necessarily needs to be the primary force in that and even if you think that this requires support from both the S saf and the rsf in order to make those infrastructure happen it's substantially better when you have an intermediary between those two you can ensure that the worst excesses and Beliefs of either side don't manifest in the infrastructure of a country going into the future being premised on ethnic cleansing genocide and violation of people's rights so we prefer a world in which that is mediated by International forces physically

on the ground rather than externally hoping for the best let's respond to closing oppositions then they say that we can't afford this into the longterm firstly we have long-term fear in addition to shortterm Fat this argument essentially amounts to the same thing like year six Debaters say when they're like well this policy would get repealed after it's implemented so you can't enforce it we have Fiat over it being implemented into the long term secondly opening opposition's model is also expensive sanctions cost a huge amount of money so if they have acknowledged that we have this

level of fear closing opposition has to stand by it and thirdly the Spending creates incentive for more spending which is to say once you do a military intervention politically unpopular for that intervention to fail so once you've started it that's where you get the momentum for more spending even if there currently isn't a lot in the status quo next they said there's a trade-off against other interventions firstly sedan is the most pressing and secondly this is contingent on this intervention failing if it is this Likely to be a successful intervention obviously it's the best trade-off

to make finally they say that we could uh have us peace talks I don't understand the reason why peace talks wouldn't be more successful on our side we create the incentive in order to engage in those peace talks by creating better infrastructure in order to do so of the speech then is going to concentrate on opening opposition and explain why our extension is the most important in the Debate they claim we would use counter Fiat to sanction and disarm the conflict obviously none of this is mutually exclusive but her Deputy Prime Minister doesn't really explain

why that's true the reason why sanctions are not mutually exclusive to military intervention is that military invention intervention creates the impetus for sanctions if you are intervening in a conflict you do not want the opposition to that conflict to have guns which is Why military intervention enables sanctions and disarmament of a region they have a few responses then that doesn't get captured by DPM they say the regional Powers will make up the UN troops be destabilizing firstly we have fear over who the composition is so it's not going to be those people but secondly Regional

actors also want stability which is what creates make makes them more less unlikely to be uh destabilizing even if there are other Regional actors they say if you bring in weapons the local forces will get hold of them this this true when you're supplying arms to other people in a conflict KN when you're bringing your own forces with those guns because those forces OB protect the guns yes even if each individual Soldier is more brutal there are more soldiers on your side more jihadis more militias more mercenaries more chatting Rebels more living Rebels well they

can't get the Mercen if they can't pay for them I think it's unlikely that other people from outside of the conflict come in if that conflict is both being invented by the UN where you are therefore unlikely to succeed but also I don't think it's really explained uh why that really creates a meaningful inent of them distract from the other conflicts they already a part of and they have stronger ID ideological reasons to care about that but also it's not true that there Are fewer soldiers just that they get those soldiers in worse ways which

we explain like through conscription or through using child soldiers which is substantially worse because we should care about those people too secondly this is obviously contingent then on proving that un peacekeepers are overrun we explain those peacekeepers are well trained well armed and fresh and less tired of War which means they're unlikely to have arms slip over why is This important is important in two ways that DPM doesn't point out firstly it proves why intervention will be successful and escalation won't happen because if you can prevent countries from wanting to further help Sudan by sanctioning

them that should explain why it's unlikely that intervention leads to escalation in the long term but secondly it explains why o is UNC comparative deescalation happens faster when coupled with a threat and an outside actor on The ground and this is important because sanctions starve civilians specifically when the arms come through through humanitarian so on their side to make SS effective and effective they must block humanarian Aid we block it for Less wrong we prove that sanctions without military intervention don't work and make things worth oo never explains how the incentive changes to make peace

happens both sides might have less weapons but they're still symmetrically Weaker and still want to kill each other even when arms are set down how do you stabilize a poor conflict we do it with the UN very proud to govern [Applause] starting in 3 2 1 OG tells us that when there is a fire we ought put the fire out so what I don't understand is that in a world where there are wildfires all across the world why it is the case that we ought put out this fire rather than other fires that are much

more efficient And much easier because presumably a life is a life right A dollar is a dollar so what they need to do is situate this debate in the normative world not just talk about in abstract whether whether or not this is good for Sudan but whether this decision is good for Sudan relative to other priorities that the UN could be making in the status quo why do we win this debate we actually take the gov benches mechanisms about why the UN is pretty well trained And well armed but what we do is introduce the

capacity constraints that uniquely exist in the status quo and we explain why these same well-armed troops could be going into things like the DRC right could be going into places like Haiti where the marginal efficiency of each dollar and each troop on the ground is far higher and the violence reduction that you are able to achieve are far better which is the reason why we get more sustainable Liv saves in the long Run and the reason why these types of things are mutually exclusive is what Ethan described to you because of the fiscal and Personnel

cost that they incur but secondarily because very often times these priorities are set regionally that is you set the count that you are able to prioritize in a given year and when it becomes a thing like you you prioritize something like Sudan it becomes exceptionally difficult to get the buyin to intervene in other Countries like Haiti and the DRC but thirdly because people are specialized so obviously the troops that exist in Africa the experts that are knowledgeable in Africa are limited on both sides of the house which is the reason why there is a substantive

trade-off that exists and Ethan provided the mechanisms for why when you're able to work with local groups on the ground when you're actually able to take an explicit side which they just do not Respond to in our POI it's far easier to create cre substantive change and to enforce peace in the long run because they don't even like describe who is going to be leading the government who is going to be put into office who is going to be leading these local institutions because presumably if it's the saf that is the counterfactual the rsf is

a paramilitary group that operates extra legally and extra judiciar so it is entirely unclear to me Why they do not get backsliding on their side of the house the second thing the second thing that we prove is just that peace talks are possible and this is a scaler impact we do not need to prove that they get peace entirely but just that it is possible to have a ceasefire and the ability to do so gets a lot worse on their side of the house and the reason for this is because we already told you that

the rsf is willing to come to the negotiation table because they Want to be seen as a force for democracy and they want to be seen as relatively reasonable in the international stage so the question is who better gets the saf onto the negoti negotiation table what we told you is when you militarily intervene instit ions like Europe and the US which were previously seen as aligning with the saf has an incentive to further isolate them that is when they do not explicitly take aide when they do things like try to shut down Both saf

and rsf institutions it becomes way harder for instance to convince Egypt to apply pressure to get saf to the negotiation table it means that's trades off with substantive things like economic sanctions that you can use to convince the saf to come to the negotiate table or humanitarian Aid packages that you can use to offer the SF as a very tangible metric so obviously if they do not engage with the substantive ways that these negotiations Exist in the status quo they cannot prove that they just somehow get better on their side of the house next on

OG there are massive gaps in the case and I think the simplest way to describe it is just capacity first it is fine if the UN has good incentives but they do not describe how many troops and weapons it needs for this to take place they do not explain how this balances with competing priorities they do not explain why you win over the rsf and saf besides just Saying people are scared to kill un troops like okay what if they do accidentally then what happens and the reason why these things are unlikely to work is

number one these groups are decentralized so it's not like you can just tell every single worker to every single one of your soldiers to not touch a un troops two they're ideologically motivated that is the rsf is willing to take extreme actions because they believe that they want to unify all of Sudan so it is very unclear to me why when the UN peacekeeper wears their little blue hat they're just going to suddenly back down and say hey you guys can take our country right like they've been fighting for decades the third reason is because

obviously they they have far better evasion techniques to the extent that you do not want this to be massively costly then surely the rsf and saf massively outnumber these troops so it is entirely unclear to me why if They know the geographical regions they can just outmaneuver the UN they can just avoid them in many cases they can do things like evade accountability by blaming it on the other side to the extent that it is very hard in Wars to figure out exactly who killed the UN peacekeeper all of this stuff is entirely unclear to

me they do not prove capacity the second reason is because they are just entirely unspecific Ethan describes that when you do not describe Which group you are likely to work with you double the burden because now it becomes the case that you trigger your allies like Egypt and the UAE and now it becomes the case that the proxy wars also upscale because like the UN doesn't just exist in a vacuum so to the extent that you send un peacekeepers it is entirely unclear to me why Egypt and the UAE just doesn't send more weapons I

don't think you can fat perfect compliance from them on either side of The house the third reason is just because this is non-comparative right like they talk about why negotiations are possible they do not engage with the very likely counterfactual that it is also possible in our side of the house and the final reason is they just do not do any incentive analysis about why the fighters on the ground are likely to have anti-western sentiment why dealo has fostered these passionate beliefs for many many years and why the UN Peacekeepers have a more convincing mechanism

than they do yes opening says their exence isn't this okay yeah you can POI them if you want to CG then fails for many of the same reasons that is they point out a problem and they don't provide a substantive solution that actually has efficacy in the long run like maybe it is the case that like for five years you set up courts in these institutions they Do not fat why if you do not actually take away the rsf is claims to power that they do not just rise again right like if the UN if

it is true they get perfect Fiat and the UN just does this for the rest of time surely this is super costly and super expensive entirely unclear to me how they get enforcement why do we win over o o wants to argue that you have a magic wand that like gets all weapons to disappear surely in every conflict and War motion I could counter model like I'm going to make all the weapons in the world disappear yes World Peace like how does this happen right there's compliance cost so even if we bought this this was

true the cost to do this to convince countries to do this internationally the sanctions and embargos and negotiations you would have to undertake are surely better used on our side of the house and we weigh that comparative efficacy but second there's probably really large Economic costs which is why we weigh why these costs are better on our side of the house spent on other kinds of things they also just don't respond to half of the rebuttal they get about why they have less control why ethnic violence exists with places that are only armed with guns

why there's very cheap guns that can also exist why you don't get massive losses of legitimacy when the UN is working with things like I don't know like Russia and China very very unclear To me and at the point where their case hinges on a counter model and ours just exists in real life I think we can very cleanly take this debate [Applause] one more round of applause for our semifinalist [Applause]