This House Would...
This House Would...
EP1: Should the Tokyo Olympics have been cancelled? (Part 1)
In this new format here at THW, Noah, Heather, and Eric sit down on a Saturday morning to talk about a variety of debate topics. For the next few episodes, we prepare and discuss motions on the Olympics, Olympic athletes, and their relations to common problems in today's world.
Credits:
Hosts: Noah Pinno, Heather Yuan, Eric Jiang
Editor: Eric Jiang
Cover Art: @onlyooh_
Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @thwdebatepodcast
Do you have a suggestion for a topic you would like to hear about? Feedback on how we can improve? Let us know by emailing us at thwdebatepodcast@gmail.com
Hi everyone, its Heather here. Welcome back to th w debate podcast, we are so excited to welcome you guys back and also to introduce to you guys our new episode formats. So in the following episode that you'll hear we are talking about a debate motion, we are going to be in the future breaking down different debate motions, by their contents by their themes, and then going into a deep dive of how we would actually target or tackle the up and Gov of each motion. In general per month, we'll have a different theme or a different category of the motions. So we'll aim to break down three to four topics around that category. We hope you guys like our new format and like our new content, as always, we welcome any feedback. Our email is in the description below. So feel free to send us any of your comments. Take a listen. Alright, so to no one's surprise, our category for our first month is the Olympics. And our topic for today is this House believes that the Tokyo Olympics should have been canceled.
Eric Jiang:Yeah, that's a really controversial topic, to be honest. And we wanted to cover this for our first one, mainly because it's currently in the news and especially because the Paralympics are still underway, actually, as of the time recording today, September 5. So a little bit of background about the Tokyo 2020. You guys probably already know this. But it's been delayed for a year because of COVID. And actually a large part that we'll cover today is actually about COVID. And how the Japanese government responded to COVID. And various stakeholders are involved with planning or postponing or even potentially cancelling of this Tokyo 20 Olympics. As with a large chunk of international sporting events, this Olympics in particular was not without controversy, especially with the delay, the core values and the benefits of the Olympics are even being brought into question like the cultural aspects, the financial exploits the economical investment that the government will have to put in and also reap as well. With the aftermath of the Rio Olympics in 2016. being examined, even five years later, with the hindsight that we have now, from the 2016 Rio Olympics, what can we see from the Tokyo 2020? That is a difference or that has been affected by COVID-19.
Noah Pinno:So I think that it's it's certainly true that the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, just like any other Olympics, any other sporting event, especially international sporting events, will have controversy, they'll have controversies related to sports related to diplomacy related to travel, anything else like that. But I think what makes the controversy really distinct, I guess it's kind of the elephant in the room is COVID. But I think at a more subconscious level, what makes it different is that this is the first time at least in the memory of people like our age, our generation, where the Olympics was not taken for granted anymore. So the fact that the Olympics would happen, that they'd pretty much go off without a hitch, that they were a thing that happens every year. They're just a natural part of how we run our international community and our culture and our diplomacy. That was no longer something that was certain. And I think that's really important to note, too, because the lack of certainty that people felt all over the world. You know, in Japan, specifically in the political scene, in the International Olympic Committee, that uncertainty really shaped how a lot of decisions were made. They shaped a lot of how people felt pressured to make decisions without full information with how they would respond to people who demanded the certainty. And that is something that we have the benefit with hindsight now to look back and know what was not known at that time to see the consequences that were not certain at that time. But in order to really understand the controversy behind the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, regardless of if you're using hindsight or not, you have to take into account the uncertainty that people faced. So for that reason, I think that the best place to go back to understanding this controversy is at the start of COVID. As I'm sure all of you remember experiencing like in your personal lives, and also even hearing about the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, there was a lot of uncertainty over what would happen at the Olympics, or what would happen to make the Olympics work or even if there would be an Olympics. So around that time, I would say maybe in the spring, when people were really starting to realize how bad this was getting governments were starting to be less and less, I guess, ambiguous about what their policy was or what their outlook was. There was a lot of questions about what will happen with the Tokyo Olympics. At this time. The rough three camps were people who wanted to continue, people who wanted it to be cancelled and people who wanted it to be postponed. So eventually the you know, hosting the Olympics became very unrealistic. So between postponing it and canceling it postponing one out, and that was an answer that was decided because there was a public demand for more certainty to know what was going on. But because of that, that was going to be one option that you had to reschedule things, and to put a later date on the Olympics. So in general, there's so many logistical concerns that goes into planning the Olympics, there's everything ranging from securing infrastructure, you know, building new things, having people who are expecting employment for temporary work in the service economy, who now had that delayed by a year, athletes who have to decide between dedicating an extra year of training or retiring if they're already at the peak of their careers. And these are all things that you could only delay so many times, right. And in the case of the Olympics, I'm major international events, that number of times pretty much becomes once so by the time you already reach the point of postponing the Olympics to answer people's initial uncertainty, and you know, to literally deal with the fact that the Olympics is months away from supposedly happening, that comes to a position where people are expecting answers, and where uncertainty or further delays are no longer an option. So postponing was unrealistic past 2020 postponing it to the summer of 2022 was, you know, briefly talked about it appeared in some media spheres, but it never gained traction for exactly this reason, because you can't postpone people and tell them just wait another year. Again, you can only do that so many times. And for the Olympics, you really don't have the option to postpone it again.
Heather Yuan:And these are athletes that we're talking about so athletes who've trained their entire lives in like plan literally plan their draining schedules around attending the Olympics, and as we all know, Olympics come around every four years, varying between winter and summer, or Yeah, winter, summer. So it's like every two years, but like four year cycles, where each we're really getting ourselves caught up You're so so it's like when you have athletes who are at the top of their game, and they're, you know, 24 years old, right? You're you have a gymnast, their, their bodies are breaking down as they get older. And so even waiting an additional year could mean potentially more injuries or more prone, being more prone to injuries. So I would assume from an athletes perspective, that's the first thing they're thinking about. You know, from an audience perspective, I don't think it doesn't, it doesn't really matter to us whether or not we've watched the Olympics now or a year later. But, you know, I think the people who are really putting their bodies at risk here are the athletes who are attending, but obviously, also the host nation, with COVID going on.
Eric Jiang:Yeah, and to bring just a tangent a little bit, something on a more personal note, I follow badminton quite religiously. And so one of the consequences of this delay has been the retirements of one of the legends of badminton in China Linden, because of this delay, he actually retired early, and he decided to not attend the 2021 postponement of the Tokyo Olympics. And so that was a quite a big shocker for people in China. But also, personally, me as well. You know, that's one of the consequences of having a delayed right, not just that, it costs a lot more money for the Japanese government, but also for the athletes themselves, right.
Noah Pinno:And lots of athletes can be put in that position, for multiple reasons, right? The first most obvious reason they could be put in that position is because they, you know, plans to compete at the Olympics, and then pretty much retire right after and an extra year of delay, they already know that's not feasible. But there's also people who are in the camp of not knowing, will it actually happen in a year now? Will it just be canceled? instead? Will it be delayed further? It and before it was even decided that the Olympics would be moved back a year? When will they even happen? So not knowing what the training cycle looks like anymore, how to cycle between different types of activities, how to ensure that you keep like, your finances in order for different periods of time. So that uncertainty affects athletes and how they plan their lives as well. And I think that uncertainty explains a lot of political pressure that existed inside Japan, there was a notable transition of power. That actually I think complicates a lot of how we look at this decision complicates it, because it leads to increased uncertainty leads to an increased focus or scrutiny on the handling of COVID overall, but also pressure to decide on the Olympics, which is the hot issue on everybody's mind.
Heather Yuan:And I think with the direction that we're going right now, it might actually be good to just go into some analysis straight into government. We've just covered our big stakeholder in terms of athletes, right? We talked about the risks. to their health, not just with COVID, but also with their bodies and their capabilities. So next on our list are a second stakeholders, a Japanese public. And this was one where I've just seen floating around my timeline. And this was mentioned before we started recording to 70% of the Japanese public was opposed to the Olympics happening towards the end towards the end. Oh, but I thought I felt like in the beginning, two people would have been opposed to it right?
Eric Jiang:Well, because it was a lot more uncertain, and they weren't very sure of the measures that the government would take to a prevent, like COVID getting out of the Olympic villages, or the health and safety of the community itself.
Noah Pinno:So the Japanese public is directly interfacing with a lot of the on the ground consequences or logistics to set up the Olympics, right? We often think of the Olympics planning or governments or international events as their own kind of like up their thing. But really, it's people who are doing construction. It's people who are running hotels, or making food or cleaning. And these are people who had planned to be hired for the first year around who got delayed in additional year, some of them may not have returned, some different people might have been rehired. Lots of jobs are already lost, especially when they revealed that there would be no in person audiences, even though the Olympics would proceed. So that was a huge blow, especially to hotel staff. So not to mention the wider consequences to the Japanese public. So as we already mentioned, the risk of COVID even with vaccinations of COVID spreading outside of the Olympic Village, or for that matter, becoming a mini hotspot in the Olympic Village. And this all intersects with sort of separate but really not that separate debate in the Japanese public and criticism of the government over handling vaccinations. So vaccination distribution was very slow. In Japan, I think many people still have their second dose. They were slow to acquire vaccines, they were slow to distribute vaccines. And there's a lot we could say about the subject at all ends of the distribution. We had quite a heated era like this is
Heather Yuan:this Canada's fault to look into later. But
Noah Pinno:yeah, there's there's a huge in access to, you know, COVID protections, there's a huge and access to things like vaccinations that all of a sudden people in other countries are coming in, to potentially expose a vulnerable population, while at the same time themselves having the privilege of having expedited vaccination rates in pretty much any country they come from. And creating a system of inequality where they get to access resources use things without concern, and they will not face the consequences for COVID spread as athletes, in all likelihood, of course, it's not certain. But you know, in all likelihood, we're not going to have face health consequences. Meanwhile, the Japanese public that has not had access to any vaccinations is at risk, including most notably the service economy that built around the Olympic Village. The labor that was already told to wait a year to put things on hold, who is now in service of Olympic athletes for international display. And they themselves are not adequately protected.
Eric Jiang:And so one thing I just want to go back real quick to the point that you made about the contracts and the delaying of the service industry. A lot of I feel like a lot of people don't realize this, too, is that it's not that the Olympics hires people like individual hotel chains or individual mom and pop businesses prepared to hire people on their own dime, expecting there to be an influx of tourists are expecting there to be an influx of external visitors to that region. And then for the Olympic Committee to suddenly decide that there will be no or the Tokyo government to suddenly decide that there will be no visitors or spectators to the Olympics. Like that doesn't hurt the Olympics themselves. That doesn't hurt the government. It hurts the individual businesses that invested preemptively.
Noah Pinno:The Japanese government invested huge amounts of money into hosting the Olympics. I think it was Oh, I'm not going to have the right finger. The 15 billion,
Heather Yuan:I think 14 point 4 billion Yeah,
Noah Pinno:I think it's the the most expensive summer games ever. And those costs are huge already. and Japan is expecting some returns on them through things like tourism, spending money back in the economy. But at the same time, they are like the Japanese government is not the one as Eric said, paying the bills for people who work in these chains. So in a way the losses are not actually losses incurred. So far by having no in person audiences. Those losses are not incurred by the Japanese government in the same way that they're most directly incurred by business. businesses who were encouraged financially to take risks are encouraged to set up in that area. And I think it's also important to note that the cancellation of the Olympics versus no in prison audiences would have equally low amount of tourism. So by that point, the loss was pretty much incurred. But these were decisions that had to be made in the early stages of the Olympics. And these were the uncertainties that had to be managed as early as September when suga yoshihide is entering office to replace Shinzo Abe a, and is going to be in charge of managing the evolving controversy and uncertainty of COVID and the Tokyo Olympics.
Eric Jiang:And the holdup pod you just you just said postponing, essentially the losses incurred postponing versus canceling would essentially be the same. So in essence, they might as well just cancel it because the only reason? Well, one of the main reasons that they held it in the first place. Was it not for cultural and for cultural reasons?
Noah Pinno:Well, in a way, yes. But I want to I should probably add some nuance to the thing I said about the losses being the same, because if the losses are the same in hotel service, whether they cancel it or not, that's different from are the losses the same for all service workers, because there's also people involved in like cooking or custodian work. I think it's also worth noting that there's lots of gender disparities between different types of labor and hotel labor among the service labor, which is already predominantly women, hotel labor is disproportionately employing women. hospitality. Yeah. So hospitality is employing mainly women. So this cost that was incurred on either way, the first cost that went to the wayside was women's labor. I think that there's probably some significance to that, and why that was a loss they were willing to take, but not other types of losses. But at the same time, there was some job opportunities that were still on the table, because the Olympic Village still needs janitor work, it still needs cooking for the athletes, it still needs people to operate the buildings. So those are all jobs that still were up in the air, and they were up in the air even like, up to the point where I don't know how long we'd say they could have last been canceled. But up until when they could have last been canceled, that labor could have still existed.
Heather Yuan:So if we were to summarize all the economic impacts that we just talked about, from a large scale perspective, overall, we could argue that the Olympics still brought in money and there was still employment that existed. However, when we looked at it in terms of a town level, or like a smaller scaled economics, like analysis wise, we're seeing that the impacts are towards smaller businesses and those, like you said, Eric, earlier, mom and pop shops, right. And they feel the economic impacts more than the government would, the government loses couple billion dollars here and there. It's like, whatever. She says, like, she has a lot of money. I know what it's like, you know, from a governance perspective, it's like that's its money, but it was like, costs that they probably budgeted,
Noah Pinno:sunk.
Heather Yuan:sunk cost. But for a lot of these smaller businesses where their livelihoods depend on running this one restaurant or running this one tourist destination, that's where they're hit the most. And in, in the context of a debate, the impact then comes from, okay, the population then are losing their livelihoods. That's the biggest impact that you can get.
Noah Pinno:So I want to move us into taking all of this context and backgrounds that I think has been pretty neutrally useful. And I want to translate that into an actual debate. So the topic that we're discussing today, the exact wording is this us believes that the Tokyo Olympics should have been canceled. Now, right away, I just want to give a little technical pointer for if you were ever debating something like this, if you were writing like a paper or essay for school about this, is that there's two very different interpretations of this discussion in the first place. So that is because this topic doesn't really presume that we have hindsight, or don't have hindsight, right. So if we think that the Olympics should have been canceled, your answer could be drastically different if you're saying with what we knew then or with what we knew now. And that makes a big difference in how the arguments would be built on either side. If you were in a real debate, you would want to clarify this as soon as possible to ensure that things stay organized. If you are writing an academic paper, it is essential to make sure that your arguments stay consistent with one interpretation and not the other, right. So don't make an argument that it was the best given what you had at the time, and also best At the time, like in the present day, unless that was the explicit goal of your paper, right, which is approved that at all different interpretations, it was the right decision. In a debate, you don't have that kind of time. So you want to define the scope yourself, and talk about what you think that scope should be, as an example, brief example of an arguments that would be affected by this. So the current Prime Minister of Japan, just resigned like two days ago, because of his mishandling of COVID and the Olympics pita saga, I think it's obvious to say that the current Japanese public heavily disapproves of his handling of this issue. But he is the prime minister at or was I guess, at the time when he was inaugurated in September, this was after the postponement of the Tokyo Olympics, before we knew what was happening, right? So people were demanding an answer for what's going to happen with the Olympics doesn't matter. Like what kind of does matter, like host them or not, obviously, but what people most want is certainty. They want direction, and they want a new leader to show confidence and to show control and direction, right? So for usually to sue guy, he has to make a decision at that moment. And he doesn't have the benefit of hindsight, right? So did he make the right decision by picking the optimistic route, and you know, powering through even if things didn't go as planned, that could be totally different than now, us looking back where he's wildly unpopular, where he's viewed unfavorably by the international community. And many people consider the Olympics to be a failure. So that's just one example of how the scope can really matter for outlining which arguments are more valuable or which arguments apply.
Eric Jiang:And so essentially, what you're saying is that, whether you argue with hindsight or argue, without hindsight, it would make one argument more valuable than the other, and it would potentially even lead the argument to win in the debate round.
Noah Pinno:Absolutely. Another way to think about it in more general terms is with hindsight, you have factual knowledge that something happened, right. You have factual evidence that there was a consequence for an action. But at the moment, you don't know for sure whether that action has consequences or which consequence that action has. So it's the difference between making the best with limited information with uncertainty, as many athletes did, not knowing about the Olympics and whether they be hosted versus us thinking, well, in the end, was that better than what we could have chosen?
Eric Jiang:I mean, isn't that like, with all debate rounds, though, like we're going to make a conclusion about something. Right? You have no hindsight, every single government policy, almost every single government policy is like this.
Noah Pinno:Yes, that's, that's very true. And in most of our topics, you'll see that reflected, but the thing that makes this topic different is that it is looking back at something that has happened rather than proposing a change. And often debates will propose a change, but sometimes they'll evaluate a past change. Often academic papers are more likely actually, especially in early level university courses or in high school to evaluate the past. It's much rarer for papers of this kind to instead, propose the policy and have you argue in favor of a change. So it definitely depends on what you're writing for. But it's always worth taking a look at your motion at your prompt to see if one reading or the other is kind of implied, or if one reading or the other is the right reading. So in this case, it is kind of ambiguous. There's different ways that this could have been worded to be clearer on purpose, but we left it vague to show you guys as illustration. There's lots of ways to take this debate.
Heather Yuan:So I think here's a good place to end off this part of the conversation. And the next part of this episode will break down the government and opposition for this topic.