This House Would...
This House Would...
EP1: Should the Tokyo Olympics have been cancelled? (Part 2)
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 this month's 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 contact@thwdebatepodcast.com
Hello, we are back with the second part of the topic, this House believes that the Tokyo Olympics should have been canceled. Please enjoy. So if we were to take what was just said about hindsight, and we were to apply this, let's start off with government side government for context stands for proposition which means yes, we agree. We believe that the Olympics or the Tokyo 2020 Olympics To be more exact, should have been canceled. If we were if I were to approach this now with out hindsight. So without hindsight, I'm putting myself into the position and trying to think that should have been canceled. I think the biggest arguments I would have leveraged is safety. Because at that time, people were just really concerned about COVID. Like we talked about earlier, athlete's health, the Japanese people's health, we talk about slow vaccine rollouts, all of those three factors could contribute to not only just a widespread, like outbreak within the Olympic Village, but that could spread and although I heard on as the Olympics was going on, I would hear on the radio announcer saying, okay, you know, there's been a rise in cases in Japan. But authorities are saying this was not due to COVID. A part of me is like wondering, like, how could it not have been contributed to the fact that you had more foreigners within your country, you had a big sporting event, you had media people, they're like, yes, people were doing rapid testing. But still, to an extent, without, with or without hindsight, I think COVID is the biggest issue and the biggest point that you can leverage on Gov.
Noah Pinno:I completely agree. I think that the obvious government case is the health risk, it obviously puts athletes at risk, it puts the public at risk, as we've talked about, it particularly puts service workers at risk, who are working in the Olympic Village or in the immediate area around. But honestly, as was evidenced, it was not good for the Japanese government, at least for the Prime Minister, it was not in his interest, because he's now resigned. So it looks at a surface level, like quite a failure, it looks at a surface level, to have been something that you know, caused some demonstrated health risk. At the time, it was reasonable to expect that there, this was still a significant risk based on like the types of data and research publications that we had at the time. I think that the Gov here is honestly about as cookie cutter as you can get. But what really changes is how different groups are impacted. So health takes the forefront of a lot of how, how the impacts arrive with how people were affected. But the ways that people are affected is different. So for athletes, this could potentially jeopardize, if they have long term symptoms, a future career, this could wipe them out from being able to compete in the moment, it could Pressure Athletes into going to a competition when it's not safe for them to do so. But for the Japanese public, of course, it could lead to things such as an increasing wealth gap in Health Access, it could lead to continuing overburdening of the healthcare system, it could lead to further strains on the already strained eldercare. In Japan, there's all sorts of ways that health will have social consequences that are faced by a population very differently than they're faced by, you know, a small group of athletes, people who are foreigners. And that I think, is reflected in the discussion too, because people were concerned in the West primarily about athlete safety. But in Japan, obviously there's concern about, like, how are we going to be able to handle more cases? How are we going to be able to ensure that we don't have further spread? Well, since
Eric Jiang:we're talking about hindsight, I think the data here that we're presenting Oh, COVID is obviously unsafe. COVID is obviously such a big deal is a little unfair, given at the time, February to March 2020. At that time, there was not a lot of data on COVID. And if it was anything similar to the source 22,003 spread, or the Ebola epidemic in Africa, it's only limited to a couple of countries, or it would have been only limited to 10s of 1000s of cases rather than the 10s of millions of cases that we see today. Right? So the severity of today, we see Oh, obviously COVID is so severe, obviously COVID is going to kill so many people. But at that time, COVID was only limited to four or five digit cases, case numbers, and the severity wasn't as severe as it was. Now, so even that has hindsight,
Noah Pinno:that is true, although I think that it depends on if you're talking about the original cancellation, or the UN or I guess the original postponement, and then the eventual re hosting of the Olympics because what we knew, even like right at the opening ceremonies day is not drastically different from what we know right now recording this episode. So that the difference in information for that period is really small. And again like this is this is a case of how you have to really define the scope of what you're talking about in actual debates. Because if you're talking about right from the get go, they should have committed to canceling reverses after postponing, they should have decided to cancel again, then that becomes two different discussions. Right? So, Eric, you're right, like, we had very little information. And our information was much more optimistic based on comparisons, if we're talking about the original postponement, but that again, changes based on which cancellation talking about how far back you go.
Heather Yuan:So I think we've kind of established where audiences coming from a health perspective and breaking it down by stakeholders is a really effective way to build a really strong case, as you guys were talking, I was thinking, and this, and this is probably a much stronger off point. But I was wondering if there's a way we can leverage this on government, which is the idea of the significance of the Olympics and what it means for the international community. Obviously, the Olympics is, you know, a global event that's supposed to bring everyone together, it is supposed to break the boundaries of whatever global hardship was going on whether that was war, an epidemic in the case, or was divide division within certain nations. So could there be thinking off the top of my head? Could there be a point for that on government, that we could say like, we should cancel it, because this would no longer unite people are dis would not send a united message that, you know, health is so important that we should?
Noah Pinno:Honestly, I think the closest you could get to using this idea on government is by kind of predicting the opposition, and then putting it back, you would say, it's precisely because people value the symbolism of international unity, that people understated or did not fully appreciate the risks that existed. So you would use it not even as its own arguments, but rather to accent what you already have, which is a strong foundation in the health risks for different stakeholders, and how the value of the Olympics and the idea of unity can sometimes lead us to, By comparison, undervalue something that's very hard for people to understand people have a hard time understanding serious but small risks. And this is COVID is definitely a case of that people have trouble understanding just how at risk they are. Because it's so hard to know exactly how it spreads at a personal level to see what risk you're putting yourself at.
Eric Jiang:So there was one point, I not sure if this is relevant to either side, because I'm not sure if this point argues for either side, but the 1936 Summer Olympics were actually held in Nazi Germany.
Noah Pinno:They were that's why I said like, the first time we tried to record this, everybody there was cackling when I said, you know, my generation plus or minus 10 years, as if I was like some ancient hermit. But no, it's true. There have been huge controversies over the Olympics even being given or being taken for granted, or like the possibility for certain people, large groups of people, or countries to attend, right. So there's been some events that are a lot more controversial, some Olympics that have had very significant issues with access or issues with hosting, I think they're very different in many ways to the Tokyo Olympics. But the similarity that they share is, you know, there's huge concerns about even hosting that Olympics. There's huge concerns about the idea that like the symbolism of that Olympics has some kind of net harm. In the case of Tokyo Olympics, that would be the net harm is that people undervalue COVID for Nazi Germany it would be it empowers Nazi Germany, obviously very different impacts, but the symbolism is the thing that's doing the work.
Heather Yuan:Okay, do I think we're going to move on to ob, because we've delve into a lot of what's got what's on Gov. And maybe Eric, you this will be an interesting point for you to start off on with we
Eric Jiang:just talked about the cultural ramifications of canceling Olympics, right. And so I would
Noah Pinno:love to hear the case for like, why that cultural value is actually important.
Heather Yuan:Yeah, like more So then, I was talking
Eric Jiang:about this yesterday with somebody too. And the fact that the Olympics growing up the Olympics is the only major international sporting event that exposes you to multiple sports, not even just multiple sports, but like a like a huge plethora of sports that as a kid that you'll get knowledge of, right what other international sport what other international event is a sporting event Not much, literally like it is probably the biggest, if not the only major international event, bigger than any Expo any like major conference, any summit, like
Noah Pinno:international other other Continentals are always just ones You're exactly right, the World Cup, right?
Eric Jiang:They're all just one sport, or like some Asia pan, Pan Asian Games, right? Or Pan American Games. They're all just like region locked. But the Olympics is the only internet like truly international event that showcases multiple cultures, multiple countries, multiple sports, right? So it is by far the largest like symbol of unity that we have.
Noah Pinno:And that's a hard, that's a hard thing to value. And that doesn't mean it's hard to value because it doesn't have value. It's hard to value because how do you even go about identifying what that value gives you? Where you see that value? How that value differs from not having that value? Right? It's really hard to conceptualize how valuable that is. If you go back to the origins of the Olympics. It was an extension of, you know, international diplomacy, growing cooperation between countries with the idea of having some sort of unity to avoid war. But does the Olympics really do that value anymore? Does it really like is it our anti war tool for the international community? Like maybe I guess, once to every, like, four years, for summer and for years for winter, but there's still a value that got attached to this conception, like a founding value behind the Olympics, when it had this purpose that continued after that purpose left? And without that purpose? It's really hard to value that right. It's hard to understand, what is the value of natural or national international unity? When, yeah, what's the value of this diplomacy, this cross cultural competition, what it no longer is directly in service of stopping war, something that at one time was very tangible to people. For now, it's not really tangible to us. And we are we'd be pretty cynic. I think most people are pretty cynical that the Olympics like meaningfully prevents wars,
Eric Jiang:or, or on a on a very similar topic to we were talking about this during the preparation of Olympic style topics to whether we can use Olympics as a bargaining chip for human rights abuses, or to prevent countries from participating or hosting the Olympics based on their human rights record. And now we can mention how effective the Olympics is at actually being significant for a country to participate in or to host
Noah Pinno:there's a lot that can be said about the topic, we're probably exploring motions similar to that. But I think what's really important as a takeaway, for you know, opposition is the reason that it's a good bargaining chip is because it matters to countries when they host the Olympics and matters when they get to participate. And why does it matter to countries? Well, we've cycled back to the same sort of problem, which is it's really hard to quantify this. But it's valuable because it shows national pride, it's valuable because it shows international unity. Think of even back in COVID, how people had all these, like pictures that are being shared of like, oh, my goodness, there's dolphins swimming, and like the Venice canals, which I think were photoshopped, but people crave ideas and symbols of stability in the international community, especially in COVID, you can make the argument that now more than ever, it's essential to keep the Olympics it's a symbol to the international community.
Heather Yuan:And I'm fine. Yeah, it's together
Noah Pinno:of optimism of countries coming together to stop it of bringing attention to countries that refuse to cooperate to stop it, for that matter. And maybe now the symbolism is more than ever, maybe this is the practical attachment we've been looking for. For these more subjective, softer values of no international unity, national pride. Especially as Western audiences, we have really underestimated that value in understanding foreign cultures. Just think, for example, how you have probably seen stuff on social media about boycotting of the Imperial Japanese flag. And because it's like not a major conflict that affects us in the West, we like a lot of people just brush it off, because they don't understand the history or the meaning behind it.
Heather Yuan:I remember this issue was extended for a long time, like the final decision didn't come out until very recently until the you know, until the Olympics,
Noah Pinno:there was a lot of threats of boycotts, which is, first of all, an illustration that the Olympics serve this diplomacy function still, but secondly, I think is a self reflective moment for us as debaters. And the West, like, many people didn't really understand, like what the rising sun flag represented. And similarly, on a more positive note, we might undervalue or not really understand the importance of Japan or to the Japanese public for the section that still wanted the Olympics to be hosted. Why that is something that is valuable to them.
Heather Yuan:And I think from an international perspective, other nations as well to a lot of the athletes and a lot of the public. The Olympic is the pinnacle of athletic ability and athletic success. too, and bring this out of the context of if the topic were like, if we were to just cancel the Olympics, you know that really, we can't, we can't go about trying to envision what the effects are, if we were to straight up, just cancel the Olympics, because once again, while from a Western perspective, the Olympics is just another competition we send athletes to, it's obviously great that our athletes get or receive medals and able to come back home and receive sponsorships. But for a lot of other non Western nations, the Olympics is a way for them to demonstrate their capabilities. And the athletes go back home and you know, they they are treated very, very well. So there are different reasons as to why athletes compete. But for athletes as well, this sort of honor and within those for those in the nation who admire those athletes, that represents a sort of hope for, especially for poor nations, or when we talk about, you know, in the case of China, where Olympic Training and trials are a national effort, which means it's publicized and you know, athletes are selected, they don't have to pay for the training, all of that comes down to how that that reflects within the athletes themselves, but also within the public, how they perceive Olympics assess and how they perceive the athletes. So that's an aspect that it's hard for a lot of debaters to come about it is
Noah Pinno:and these kind of subjective arguments become especially when they're clashing against more concrete ideas like increased COVID spread or health risk, it becomes a bit of a, like, I want to say double edged sword, but I don't think that's quite right. Yeah, it is a hard sell. But it causes issues for both government and opposition, right? So in opposition, it's obviously like, if you're arguing for this, as a value, this is something that should be considered around. Well, that's a pretty difficult thing to convincingly explain, because you can't rely on just brute force, cause and effect, you have to be able to explain to something, or sorry, explain to somebody, a feeling that people have, that the audience doesn't have, maybe you yourself don't even have, right,
Heather Yuan:and as you guys can tell, I like stumbled through that explanation. Because I literally wasn't sure how to describe, it's necessarily a feeling of patriotism as much, maybe it is, but it's also a feeling of just like, like, wow, like that, like they reach that pinnacle of success. And that's something that I want to do in the future for young for young girls, young boys, young non binaries, the girls in the gays, trying to literally cover all spectrum, but it's just, it's it's an inspiration for everyone.
Noah Pinno:That's why so many people say the thing they love the most about the Olympics is the like, athletic excellence that they see who themselves are not even watchers of sports or athletes themselves. So it's definitely true that we all intuitively have some understanding of this. But it's really hard to weigh in a debate round really hard to sell, or to comparatively sell something more concrete. But for government, I think there's also a big risk. And that is disregarding these arguments or saying that they don't matter, dismissing them. I think that has a lot of potential issues as debater or writer, but also actually, as a judge, I think one of the biggest risks that you can run into is that you are disregarding something that you don't identify with because it hasn't affected you or doesn't have relevance to your demographic, right. So like if you're dismissing how foreign countries attach value to something that you don't subjectively feel yourself, and you're dismissing it, because you don't see that yourself, that's in a way, just disregarding people because they don't align with your existing views, that's disregarding people, because you come from a position of not even necessarily privilege just difference from other countries at minimum. And as a judge, that's super risky, that you run the risk of disregarding arguments by you know, talented speakers who are trying to sell you something that they might even genuinely feel. And because it didn't directly connect with you emotionally, you don't assign a weight. So that's a big risk to side with Bob on that basis, or to run that on Gov. But the other obvious risk for on government is, I think something is kind of fun, which is, if you don't think that those things in the Olympics are important, then why even host the Olympics period, right? Isn't the logical conclusion of the government if you don't find those things valuable, or something to trade off with, to just not have them period. And I think that that's not necessarily a bad or wrong or unwinnable stance on government. In fact, it's been a world's motion before. But as opposition if you hear as any team, if you hear somebody completely disregard your principle, look, to push it, look to push it to the logical conclusion. If you really don't hold this principle, what do you actually support fundamentally, and if you don't think that these arguments are important on governments, then you're opening yourself up to not thinking the Olympics are important because at that point, the Only thing that you're left with that the opposite that you're acknowledging has some value from the opposition side is like the athletes personal careers. And again, I think there's room for a fair debate around that. I think that's a hugely important opposition point that we didn't even get to fully cover. But as a government team, if you refuse to acknowledge the value of something more subjective like that, then you have to ask yourself, like, why do we even have the Olympics period? Isn't there always the health risk that people could in theory, like, is there always like some other like, controversy over like people almost getting to like boycott stage of the Olympics, as we said, there's controversy at literally every single Olympics. So at the end of the day, if they're so controversial, they cause so many problems. And you don't think that they have the value of national unity, or you don't think it's important that we have them at all. So sometimes it can help as a government team to accept an extremely high burden for the sake of removing a principle like that, as long as you do it on purpose. But be aware that when you disregard really subject points, especially, you can really run the risk of opening yourself up way too wide. Because you're basically opening yourself up to the more extreme version of what you're proposing, in this case, not just canceling Tokyo Olympics, but all of them Beck's. And that is kind of the risk of I think that's the more tangible, like competitive risk for yourself to not consider the principle or to not engage with it to just dismiss it as unimportant.
Heather Yuan:I mean, from my perspective, the way I can see it is you don't have to outrightly denounce the principle like, you don't have to say, this doesn't exist, or this isn't true, the way you can say it is, okay, we accept that this is true. And we and we don't want to be as extreme as to say like, the Olympics is useless. But we do want to highlight the fact and given the context of our topic, it is Tokyo 2020. It is, you know, COVID season, it's been that for a year and a half. It's, it's more like, yeah, so it's like, you have to prove that within this context, health and well being matters or ways more than this sort of hope. And this and this belief,
Noah Pinno:there's also kind of, I think there's two ways of writing or argumentation that I think are pretty, they're very common in academia as well. So if you have like taken social science courses, you might have heard of them. But the general idea that like, theories that are more generally applicable will be less useful in specific situations, any given situation, because it doesn't have the specificity of more mid level or specific theory will be true only in one situation or handful. But it's not as general useful. And you could actually use the same when you build your case, the more your case is like bulletproof because it takes no risks with a principal stance, I just refuses to accept it. Your case is not going to be specific. And having a case that is not specific to the burdens of the motion can bring you into trouble to think of this in the extreme. What if your reason for governments that the Tokyo Olympics should be canceled is because you think all international gatherings are bad? Like what a weird stance, that would be first of all, but like, if you're arguing that stands, you're not even arguing the motion anymore, because you've gotten so General, that it's like some like, background line of defense that doesn't actually directly specifically engage with the topic. So if you run into situations like that, it might just be that people are like arguing a truism, or that people have lost touch with the actual burdens in the motion that they've strayed too far, because they're too afraid to take a risk.
Heather Yuan:And I think that gives us a really good close to this episode. I think we covered a lot of ground. In terms of the topic that was presented to us today. This House of Blues at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics should be canceled. Thank you everyone for joining us today and we are looking forward to recording something like this again.