VERBAL

ADJUDICATION
G I TA – A D F I K R I – S YA G U N G
MOTION

THBT countries whose main language is not English should adopt

English as the main language of politics, academia, and commerce.
RANKS

1st : OG
2nd : CG
3rd : OO
4th : CO
WHY CO GOT 4 ?
TH

1. CO newly introduced 2 things : a.) morally abhorrent to adopt oppressor’s language, b.) people
feel excluded and arm themselves to reject English language. We felt the argument regarding
adopting colonial language was better substantiated in OO when they talked about the harms of
western imperialism dominating the academic, inaccessibility issues as well as bad political
discourse. At best CO’s extended harms was talking about people arming themselves but there
was no sufficient elaboration as to why that’s more likely to be the singular response of the
society, especially when the entire government bench has continuously explain that people are
pragmatic.
2. If we compare with CG we also feel there was lack of attempt to respond to the new matter
brought by CG about the exclusivity of English language. Then CG turned the harms of adopting
colonial language into a benefit which is the ability to communicate with your colonizers. We
appreciate the attempt coming from Opp Whip to also deconstruct the benefit CG brought
about relatability but that didn’t negate the fact that English can attract people to relate too.
WHY CO GOT 4 ?
TH

3. If we compare with OG, CO was unable to debunk a lot of the benefit that comes from
adopting English claimed by OG in terms of academic, politics, commerce, at best their response
was similar to OG that talked about the people wanted to preserve their own language and
culture but there was no extended explanation that is distinct from OO. CO however was able
to address OG’s point by claiming that it’s unfair to impose the least privilege the burden to
accommodate the privilege interests, but failed to prove why the incentive will exist on theirs as
OG explained that the benefit of accommodating each other interests can only exist if we unite
the language.
WHY OO GOT 3 ?
RD

1. OO’s arguments were about : a.) inaccessibility; b.) preservation of local culture c.) elitism in
politics. If we compare with government bench, we felt that the harms that OO talked about was
neutralized already and the benefit that government provided was fully destroyed. The first is that
OG was able to explain that preservation of culture can still exist because they are not banning
people from speaking their own language daily or for cultural purposes but this only exist in
education, commerce and politics. CG also explained that if you want to preserve it you have to
make people understand that first. We did not get any explanation as to how the protection is
important and likely to exist on their side. CG also explain it’s reasonable to impose English
because of its nature that is not so difficult as well as the democratization of access.
2. Moreover the protection of local culture lacks of importance analysis as claimed by OG that it’s a
social construction, in status quo all of them are not purely protected due to national language.
Particularly when CG came up with explaining why English can co-exist with local language due
to its nature that are dynamic and can suit with local accent (i.e. Singlish).
WHY OO GOT 3 ?
RD

3. We appreciate the attempt coming from OO to neutralize the benefit coming from
government bench about economy by saying that the basis of language should not be based on
utility but even if that’s the case there’s success case like Japan that can be economically stable
though not using English. However there was lack of elaboration as to most states will be like
Japan given the characterization provided by OG that majority of the cases state will be left
behind if they don’t adopt English. OG also provide strong characterization as to how the harms
that OO talked about elitism will further entrenched if we don’t make English accessible because
English will remain to be the dominant and only those who know English that will survive.
4. Moreover we felt that CG was also able to triumph OO’s analysis about empowering colonial
power by saying hat exactly in ours we make English as no longer tool of oppressors.
OG OVER CG

1. OG was able to sufficiently establish the benefit of having English in terms of politics, education as
well as commerce, we don’t have any extensive explanation coming from CG regarding the
benefit of adopting English. Moreover OG was able to provide a reasonable comparative as to
why local language was equally unfair but English is comparatively better. In this point we felt CG
falls into same conclusion with OG and even though have some different analysis but failed to
explain why theirs is more important than the already established. (i.e. Economic benefit, but OG
details the analysis i.e. brain-drain and capital flight)
2. CG however provided the reason as to why English has to be the language because of its
inherent flexible nature which tackles the entire opposition’s argument, however was not able to
triumph over OG because there was no explanation as to why it’s more important than OG’s
practical analysis.
SCORE

PM - 80 LO – 78
DPM – 82 DLO – 79-80
GM – 80 OM – 77
GW – 79-80 OW – 78