The speech that won me the Leinster final

Editor’s note: this is the speech that won me the Leinster Schools Senior Final when I was in 6th year. I couldn’t have done it without my inimitable partner Athena, so shout out to her. Also, I told some inside jokes in the final so disregard the parts that seem nonsensical.

Motion: THW stop the development of virtual reality technologies until governments can investigate its effects

(6:20)

Team line: Toppling big techs tyranny

Our case consists of 2 independent prongs of Hume’s fork:

Point 1: The discovery and mitigation of risk in VR

Point 2: We increase adoption and development of VR

Rebuttal (25)

We get this idea from first, that they want to continue developing VR while investigating it.

This is a silly strategy

Why?

Note that this strategy generates more backlash on their side.

Idea:

VR is good

Panel, we think that even if VR is good, the context given how big and prolific it will be on changing the cultural zeitgeist means we should err on the side of caution.

We accept that there is a plethora of beneficial VR technology out there - e.g. doctors can virtually practice surgeries. 3 things to note.

First, These have already been developed, the government cannot wave a magic want and stop them from existing.

Third, even if we are forced to halt development, if these technologies are so great, they will probably be authorised for use quickly

VR is unfinished

People are best positioned to know what things are good for them. We should empower them to use VR if they think it is the right idea

Oligopoly

VR good

Locks out benefits of VR

P1 (3:35)

On our frame:

The crucial context that first prop missed in this debate is that we’re at a tipping point, where the next stage of VR is one where it’s widespread, controlled by a few exploitative tech companies.

Differentiating:

As opposed to opening, we’re going to explain why these harms, even short term, are often irreversible, so we must stop development now.

We will also be the team that proves why it doesn’t matter whether we prove specific harms, the capacity for abuse alone is reason for governments to intervene.

Why is potential for abuse massive?

Neither side can predict the harms of virtual reality. What we do know for certain are a couple of things:

Given the kinds of companies that are investing in virtual reality, the harms associated with VR are likely going to be an extension of the abuses they already engage in.

But on top of this, we are already aware of several concrete harms associated with VR:

The most important thing to note in this debate is that these are irreversible harms.

What happens after these investigations?

Note panel: we don’t have to ban these technologies

We support regulation like:

At the very least, people can now meaningfully consent to these harms, which in itself is a unique benefit.

How should you weigh this point:

Clearly, virtual reality will have massive impacts on the cultural zeitgeist and on the balance of probability, there will be significant harms. We are the side that prevents those harms.

P2: Increasing adoption and Development of VR (2,35)

Even if you don’t buy our first argument on prevention of harm, let’s assume VR has no harms - it’s a perfect technology. We think getting as many people to use it as possible is the largest benefit.

How are we different to opening?

What opening misses is that there are clearly benefits to VR and especially of the social aspects.

What that means is that

The problem is that people are reluctant to engage with that kind of technology:

Note: this is not tense with our first point, because while there are some people that really want to use VR, this argument is about appealing to people who otherwise wouldn’t use it.

What is the reason for this?

First, People no longer trust Big Tech.

Second, the prospect of a virtual world is very foreign to most people - there is a lot of unknown that people are afraid of.

How do we solve this problem on our side?

Government authorised studies assuage concerns people have about safety and regulation removes the perception of these tech companies as being out of control, which is the largest fear people have.

Why is this the most important thing in the debate?

Even in Opp’s best case scenario where the benefits are massive we are the side that ensures that we integrate this technology into as many spheres of life as possible.

How?

We get more development. 2 mechanisms here

So even if we lose out on VR development in the time it takes to investigate, how should you weigh this?

In the world in which VR is dangerous, we mitigate those harms in point one, and the world in which it is safe, we increase adoption and development.

Side proposition

POI:

We are happy to do this again in the future

No one is claiming GDPR is perfect

The electorate are scared