This house believes that parents should prioritize the interests of their
children over their own
PM speech.
With permission of the chair, the house believes that parents should prioritize the
interests of children over their own, I, Srishti Parmar, The prime minister will be
providing a compelling case where the govt faces the burden of being in favor of this
motion
Firstly, what does this motion mean? Parents strive to provide the best for their
children and prioritise their welfare above all else, not letting their interests go above
those of their children. This doesn’t mean self-erasure or sacrifice to the point of
harm, but that in moments of conflict, the child’s developmental, emotional, and
physical needs should take precedence over short-term parental comfort,
convenience, or ambition.
Let’s move onto today’s situation. With the status quo.
o Parents often try to balance both their own goals and their children's needs
but the line is blurry, to elaborate, parental interests like travel, career and
personal happiness are prioritized. In some cases, a child education, and
emotional wellbeing are affected.
o some cultures expect parents to sacrifice completely for their kids. Others
believe in maintaining a balance or even the idea that "happy parents raise
happy children," which is sometimes... not the case, and promotes selfprioritization.
o Parents moving abroad for better jobs, leaving kids with relatives.
o Forcing children into careers such as engineering, or medicine to fulfil the
parents’ dreams, not the child’s.
Moving forward, those affected.
1. Obviously, the children. They cant care for themselves; they’re dependent on
parents for emotional, financial, and physical well-beinga
2. Society at large. Children raised with strong parental prioritization often grow
into responsible, healthy citizens
Our burden is to prove to you that this motion proves true in two points. the fact
that Children’s Vulnerability Demands Ethical Priority, and that Prioritizing
Children Builds a Better Society.
I’ll be bringing you, three major arguments, and I request the chair to reflect on
them.
First, children can’t speak for themselves.
this is crucial. When a child’s interests clash with a parent’s, the child are the
vulnerable party. Kids can’t vote, earn, or even express their needs clearly
sometimes. That’s why prioritizing their interests isn’t a sacrifice it’s a
responsibility. UNICEF reports that children raised in unstable homes due to
adult-centered decisions are 60% more likely to develop long-term anxiety.
Secondly, parenting isn’t about survival now, it’s about shaping a child for society
and the future. Studies from Harvard (2021) show that children with emotionally
supportive parents are 42% more likely to succeed in higher education and 30%
less likely to suffer adult mental illness. Parents need to help their children grow,
setting aside their short-term comfort.
Lastly, In places like Sweden and the Netherlands, parents usually put their
children’s needs before their own—and it shows.
Kids grow up happier, do better in school, and become more responsible adults.
This is not a coincidence. When we take care of children early, the whole country
benefits.
To conclude societies that put children first see better emotional health, academic
success, and long-term growth. By making the well-being of children the priority,
we build stronger families and a more stable future.
LO SPEECH
With permission of the chair, the house does not believe that parents should
always prioritize the interests of children over their own. I, [Insert Name], the
Leader of Opposition, stand here to challenge this motion, not out of disregard for
children, but to defend the idea that parenting is a complex relationship based on
mutual care—not a one-sided hierarchy where the parent is expected to erase
themselves.
Firstly, what does opposing this motion mean?
It means recognizing that parents are not just providers, but human beings with
needs, dreams, and well-being of their own. Prioritizing doesn’t mean ignoring
children, but it also shouldn’t mean that the parent must always come second. It
means that in some cases, prioritizing the parent is in the long-term interest of the
child too. It means respecting the balance of a household—not enforcing an
unequal moral obligation.
Let’s understand the current situation. The status quo.

Most parents are already making sacrifices for their children on a daily basis—
working long hours, putting their kids in better schools, saving for college. But
complete prioritization of the child at the cost of self creates burnout,
resentment, and emotional instability in the parent.

Psychological studies (APA, 2019) show that parental burnout leads to worse
parenting. Children raised by emotionally exhausted parents are 70% more
likely to face behavioral issues.

There’s a rising trend of over-parenting, where children become the centre of
every decision, leading to dependency, lack of resilience, and entitlement.
Now, who are the real stakeholders?
1. The parents themselves. If we’re going to ask them to always prioritize their
children, we ignore their mental health, professional ambitions, and identities
outside parenthood.
2. The children too, ironically. Because children raised in households where the
parent is constantly sacrificing may learn the wrong lessons—either guilt,
entitlement, or emotional detachment.
Our burden today is to prove two things:
That a balanced family dynamic creates better outcomes than a one-sided
prioritization, and that prioritizing a parent’s well-being can indirectly serve the
child more in the long term.
Let me now bring forward three arguments in favor of this position.
First, a parent who is fulfilled raises better children.
This is important—because when a parent takes care of their mental, emotional,
and personal needs, they model healthy behavior for their kids. Children learn by
watching. If they grow up seeing a parent give up everything, they may grow to
either expect that from others or feel guilty for receiving it. A study by Yale (2020)
found that children of emotionally fulfilled parents were 45% more confident and
performed better in social settings.
Second, there is no universal “interest of the child.”
This is not a coincidence—what looks like prioritizing the child may sometimes
harm them in the long run. Giving in to every need or opportunity doesn’t always
build character. For example, letting a parent take a new job or pursue a dream
may momentarily cause discomfort but creates a legacy of ambition, flexibility,
and resilience that the child can grow into.
Lastly, not every conflict of interest is ethical—it’s situational.
Say a single mother has a chance to move abroad and build a better future.
Should she abandon that because her child doesn’t want to leave their school?
Or should she make the tough call, trusting that short-term discomfort will benefit
both of them? Parenting involves tough, shared sacrifices. Not obedience to a
fixed hierarchy.
To conclude, we do not believe in a rigid, always-child-first model. We believe in
mutual respect, shared well-being, and long-term family stability. The best
parenting is not sacrifice, it is balance.
THS the rise of private cities in developing countries.
PM SPEECH
With permission of the chair, the house supports the rise of private cities in
developing countries. I, Srishti Parmar, the Prime Minister, stand firmly in favour
of this motion and will be bringing forward why private cities are not just a modern
solution, but a necessary one in the context of today’s developing world.
Let’s define the motion.
Private cities are cities built, managed, and operated by private entities—be it
companies, investors, or organizations. These cities are not under direct
government control and offer alternatives to traditional public city models, with
better infrastructure, streamlined governance, and efficient services. We're not
talking about replacing all public systems—this is about offering options where
current ones fail.
What’s going on in the status quo?

Most developing countries are struggling with overpopulated, underfunded,
and mismanaged urban spaces. Cities are overcrowded, traffic is chaotic,
water is scarce, and slums are rising.

Governments often lack the funds, manpower, or efficiency to deliver quality
infrastructure to all citizens.

Corruption and red tape delay progress. A bridge that should take 1 year takes
5. A metro that should help millions stays stuck in paperwork.

Meanwhile, demand for better urban living continues to rise—with little to no
scalable response.
Who does this affect? Let’s state the stakeholders.
1. Citizens who live in poorly managed cities they face traffic, pollution, poor
schooling, and weak healthcare every day.
2. Migrants moving from rural areas hoping for a better life, only to land in broken
systems.
3. The economy poorly run cities slow down productivity, innovation, and growth.
What’s our burden?
We have to prove that private cities are not only beneficial, but a viable and
ethical solution to the urban crisis in developing nations and we’ll do that.
Let me offer three main arguments.
First, private cities work because they aren’t bogged down by government
inefficiency.
They’re built faster, run smoother, and are better maintained. Take Eko Atlantic in
Nigeria, or Gurugram’s private sectors in India—citizens there enjoy cleaner
streets, faster internet, and proper security. These cities act as blueprints for what
functional urban life can look like.
Second, they boost competition and raise the standard for all.
When private cities succeed, public ones are forced to level up. Just like private
schools or hospitals pushed government institutions to improve, private cities set
new benchmarks. In the long run, everyone benefits.
Third, private cities attract investment and talent.
Foreign investors, tech companies, and startups want to work in places with
proper infrastructure. These cities can become economic powerhouses that fuel
national growth, generate jobs, and reduce pressure on already burdened
metros.
To conclude, we need bold, new ideas for the urban future. Private cities provide
infrastructure that works, governance that delivers, and a better quality of life for
those who choose to live in them. In a world where public systems are stretched
thin, private cities are not just an option. they're a step forward.
LO SPEECH
With permission of the chair, the house supports the rise of private cities in
developing countries. I, Srishti Parmar, the Leader of the Opposition, rise today to
stand firmly against this motion.
We believe that private cities may appear appealing on the surface—but once
you dig deeper, they create more problems than they solve, especially in
developing nations where inequality is already a pressing issue.
Let’s begin with what this motion really implies.
Private cities are spaces owned and governed by private entities—companies,
corporations, or investment groups. These entities control everything from
infrastructure and security to utilities and zoning laws. The goal? Profit. Not public
welfare. And when profit is in charge, equity suffers.
What’s happening right now?

Developing countries already face massive income gaps, weak governance,
and unequal access to resources.

Public cities, though flawed, are still based on the principle of service to all
citizens, regardless of class or wealth.

Private cities, by contrast, are designed for the privileged few—those who can
afford to enter, stay, and benefit.
Who gets affected?
1. The lower and middle-income citizens who get priced out. They’re often
pushed further to the margins—geographically and economically.
2. Government bodies, who lose control over urban planning and long-term
development.
3. Society as a whole, where the idea of a shared civic space slowly disappears.
Our burden today is to prove that the rise of private cities increases inequality,
undermines democratic control, and sets a dangerous precedent for how we treat
citizenship and rights.
Let me walk you through three key arguments.
First, private cities promote exclusion, not inclusion.
These spaces are built for profit. so OF COURSE they’ll cater to the elite. Gated
housing, premium schooling, restricted public access, where does the common
citizen fit in? Even essential workers like nurses, cleaners, and teachers can’t
afford to live in the same place they work. That’s not a city, it’s a bubble.
Second, they weaken democratic accountability.
In a public city, if a policy fails, you vote the leaders out. If a service collapses,
you protest. In a private city, who do you complain to? A CEO? A board of
investors? The residents have no real power over the laws that govern them this
is a loss of civic agency.
Lastly, they divert attention from fixing what really matters.
Instead of improving public infrastructure or reforming urban policy, governments
start leaning on private companies to do the job. This creates a two-tiered system
where public spaces decay and only the rich enjoy progress. The divide grows.
The system breaks.
To conclude, private cities may look shiny and modern but they come at the cost
of fairness, access, and democracy. The goal of a city is not to serve a few, but to
uplift all. In developing nations especially, we cannot afford to build progress that
leaves most people behind.
The house as a loan-free middle class college graduate in India would choose
to work in a large MNC over a job in social sector.
With the permission of the chair, this House firmly believes that if you are a loanfree middle-class college graduate in India, the smarter, safer, and more strategic
choice is to work in a large multinational company (MNC) instead of entering the
social sector right away. I, Srishti Parmar, stand before you as the Prime Minister
to support this motion.
Let’s define the motion.
We’re talking about a graduate who belongs to the Indian middle class —
someone who is not living in poverty, but also doesn’t have the kind of wealth that
makes financial risk easy. They're loan-free, so they aren’t under debt pressure,
but that doesn’t mean they’re floating in privilege either. Now, they’re faced with a
choice:
→ Join a multinational company — a big corporate firm with offices in many
countries, known for offering structured jobs, good pay, skill-building, and future
opportunities.
→ Or work in the social sector — that includes NGOs, rural development orgs,
environmental or humanitarian work, where the goal is service and change, not
profit or personal gain.
We’re not against the social sector. But our stance is: the rational, grounded
choice for a middle-class graduate at the beginning of their career is to first go
with an MNC.
Now, let’s look at the status quo.

The Indian job market is tough — youth unemployment is around 15%.

Social sector jobs are underfunded, often pay poorly, and offer very limited
career mobility.

MNCs, on the other hand, offer starting salaries between ₹ 4–8 LPA on
average, with defined roles, training programs, and a path forward.
Who are the stakeholders?
→ The graduate: someone who wants both purpose and stability.
→ Their family: often relying on the graduate to start contributing financially.
→ And society: which benefits when individuals are empowered before they try to
empower others.
I’ll provide three arguments where the government has the burden of being in
favour of this motion.
1. MNCs give you the tools to actually help later.
This is important, listen to this. It’s not enough to just want to help. The social
sector needs people who are skilled, stable, and experienced. MNCs give you
that. You learn how to manage projects, work under deadlines, lead teams.
According to LinkedIn India (2023), 62% of professionals in development and
policy roles had prior corporate experience. This is not a coincidence. it shows
that MNCs are training grounds for real-world impact.
2. Financial stability isn’t selfish. it’s strategic.
You may not have loans, but middle-class doesn’t mean endless money. Social
sector salaries average ₹ 20–25K/month for freshers, barely enough to support
yourself in most cities. In contrast, MNCs offer double or triple that. And when
your basics are sorted — rent, transport, health — you’re free to think beyond just
survival. You’re not “selling out”; you’re securing your future.
3. Impact without burnout.
Working in the social sector from day one can be emotionally draining. Low pay,
unclear career paths, and constant pressure to create change can wear people
down fast. In contrast, MNCs give you time — to grow, to plan, to build networks.
You can volunteer on weekends, donate, or later shift into development work on
your terms. That flexibility is power.
In conclusion, this motion isn’t about choosing money over meaning. It’s about
timing. We say: build your foundation first, with structure and security. And then,
when you’re strong enough, go change the world — not out of desperation, but
out of power.
LO speech
With the permission of the chair, The House believes that as a loan-free middleclass college graduate in India, one should choose to work in a large MNC over a
job in the social sector. I, Srishti Parmar, the Leader of Opposition, stand in firm
rejection of this motion.
Let’s be clear: This debate is not about money versus morals. This is about how
people with privilege choose to show up in the world when they have the freedom
to do anything. And I’m here to tell you that choosing comfort over contribution, in
this context, is a failure of opportunity.
Definition:
A large MNC — a multinational corporation — refers to global giants like
Unilever, Amazon, Tata, or Deloitte that operate across borders. The social
sector includes NGOs, intergovernmental organisations like the UN, grassroots
development, public health, education reform, climate response — basically,
institutions solving human and planetary crises.
Our actor? A loan-free graduate — educated, middle-class, debt-unburdened —
who can afford to think beyond survival.
Status Quo:

MNCs attract millions of graduates globally every year.

Meanwhile, the social sector is understaffed, underfunded, and desperately in
need of capable minds.

We’re seeing burnout in public systems, stagnation in climate action, and
widening inequality — not because we don’t care, but because too few choose
to act.
Stakeholders:

The graduate, who holds privilege and power in decision-making.

Vulnerable populations across the globe — from rural India to refugee camps
in Syria.

The systems we depend on: education, health, sustainability, governance.
Now here’s the Opposition case, broken down into 3 core arguments.
First: MNCs offer comfort, not consequence.
And that’s the trap. You enter for a resume boost, but you stay for the air
conditioning. This is not a coincidence. In fact, a Harvard Business Review piece
from 2022 reported that 80% of MNC employees who planned to “switch to purposedriven careers later” never actually did. The longer you stay in that corporate cycle,
the harder it gets to leave — even if you started with the right intent.
Second: The social sector is not charity work, it's nation-building.
Don’t fall for the narrative that “real impact” only comes with profit. Working in
public policy, human rights, or development equips you with strategic, systemlevel thinking. From WHO internships to UNDP field roles to national education
missions, these are paid, professional, and high-stakes. And they need graduates
who aren’t there out of desperation, but out of conviction.
Third: The graduate matters more in the social sector.
Let’s be blunt. MNCs won’t collapse if you don’t join them. But grassroots
organisations, public systems, and field-level missions will feel your absence. If
you don’t step in, someone less equipped might — or no one at all. The world
doesn’t need more management trainees. It needs more problem-solvers on the
ground. Your privilege lets you be that.
THR THE GLORIFICATION OF HUMILITY
LO SPEECH
With permission of the chair, the house regrets the glorification of humility. I,
Srishti Parmar, the Leader of the Opposition, will be presenting a strong case
against this motion, defending the value and relevance of humility in our modern
world.
Let’s begin by understanding what this motion means. To “glorify humility” is to
admire, promote, or idealize the quality of being humble—downplaying one’s
achievements, not seeking credit, and placing others before oneself. The
proposition regrets this ideal, suggesting that it leads to negative consequences
such as self-erasure, undervaluing success, or discouraging ambition.
Before we address their claims, let’s observe today’s status quo.

Humility is promoted, yes—but not blindly. In workplaces, academic
institutions, and public life, there is space for both recognition and modesty.
People can be celebrated without arrogance.

Most role models today—think of APJ Abdul Kalam, or even global figures like
Malala—are respected not just for what they achieved, but how they carried
themselves.

At the same time, cultures are shifting to encourage confidence and selfexpression. Being humble no longer means being silent.
Now, who is impacted by this motion?
1. Young people, especially students and early professionals, who are constantly
told to strike a balance between pride in their work and respect for others.
2. Public figures—leaders, activists, influencers—who set examples in how success
is handled.
3. Society—which decides what traits are worthy of praise, and what values are
passed on.
The government claims that glorifying humility holds people back. We’re here to
say: that’s not true. Our burden is to show you that humility is not weakness—it’s
strength with restraint, and glorifying it brings more good than harm. We do this
with three arguments.
First, humility fosters collaboration over competition.
In a world already filled with hustle culture and performance pressure, humility
reminds people that success is not a solo journey. Humble individuals are more
likely to uplift others, share credit, and build better teams. Harvard Business
Review (2020) notes that humble leaders have higher-performing teams and
healthier workplaces.
Second, humility guards against arrogance—and arrogance causes real harm.
We’ve seen the consequences of unchecked pride. From failed leadership in
politics to billion-dollar corporate disasters, arrogance often clouds judgment.
Glorifying humility helps create systems where leaders are questioned, selfaware, and grounded. It’s not about staying small—it’s about staying responsible.
Lastly, humility makes success meaningful.
When achievements are shared with grace and gratitude, they become inspiring
rather than alienating. Take figures like Nelson Mandela or Abdul Kalam—known
for their brilliance and their humility. This is not a coincidence. When success is
paired with humility, it becomes a source of collective pride, not personal ego.
To conclude, the glorification of humility has created cultures of compassion,
responsibility, and long-term leadership. It’s not a limit—it’s a guide. And in a
world that often confuses loudness for confidence, humility is not something to
regret. It’s something to respect.
Thank you.
In conclusion, This House cannot support a motion that asks privileged graduates to
choose personal benefit over global need. The real world needs real people. And if
you have the freedom to choose, you have the responsibility to choose impact over
indifference.
PM SPEECH
With permission of the chair, the house regrets the glorification of humility. I, Srishti
Parmar, the Prime Minister, will be putting forward a compelling case that shows
how glorifying humility can often do more harm than good—especially in a world that
demands confidence, fairness, and individual growth. The government carries the
burden of proving that this glorification creates a culture where silence is mistaken
for virtue and ambition is unfairly punished.
Let’s begin by breaking down the motion. “Glorification of humility” means raising
humility to an ideal status—praising people who downplay their success, reject
recognition, or put others above themselves at all times. The key word here is
glorify—this isn’t just appreciating humility, it’s making it the moral standard. And
that’s where the problem begins.
Status Quo
Today, in schools, workplaces, and media, we repeatedly hear messages like “Stay
humble,” “Don’t show off,” and “Let your work speak for itself.” People—especially
from minority, working-class, or female backgrounds—are often judged for being too
confident, too proud, or simply too vocal about their achievements. This is not
balance. This is a culture of suppression disguised as modesty.
Stakeholders
1. Students and young professionals, who are taught to stay quiet about success
and “not brag,” even if it means being overlooked.
2. Women and marginalised groups, who are socially expected to be humble,
polite, and non-assertive.
3. Leaders and creators, whose credibility is often tied to how modest they
appear—regardless of their actual talent or impact.
Now here’s what we, as the government, want you to support today:
1. People should feel empowered to own their success without shame.
2. Modesty should be a choice, not a social expectation.
Let’s prove this with three arguments.
First, glorifying humility leads to the erasure of individual achievement.
This is important. In many cases, people—especially women and first-generation
achievers—are taught to minimize their success to appear “humble.” But doing this
repeatedly means they don’t get the recognition, opportunities, or respect they
deserve. According to a LinkedIn report (2022), individuals who self-advocate and
showcase their skills are 30% more likely to get promoted than those who don’t.
That’s not arrogance—it’s fairness. Glorifying humility has created a culture where
speaking about your success is seen as prideful—and that holds people back.
Second, it feeds double standards.
This is not a coincidence. While some groups are praised for being “gracious” and
“humble,” others get away with being loud and boastful, simply because of their
background or gender. A man confidently pitching himself is called assertive; a
woman doing the same is often called arrogant. When humility is glorified, it
becomes a tool to police certain people while excusing others. That is not virtue—it’s
quiet bias.
Third, it discourages leadership and innovation.
When we glorify humility, we teach people that stepping into the spotlight is morally
questionable. But leaders need visibility. Creators need attention. If everyone stays
silent about their talents, how do we move forward? This culture has made too many
people afraid to speak up, start projects, or take credit—even when they deserve to.
And that slows progress.
In conclusion, we don’t oppose humility—we oppose the glorification of it as a onesize-fits-all moral ideal. In a fair and confident world, people should be able to speak
up, stand tall, and celebrate their success without guilt. Let humility be an option, not
an expectation
This House Supports Transferring the Consciousness of the Smartest
Living Beings After Death into AI Systems
With permission of the Chair, the House supports the motion: “This House Supports
Transferring the Consciousness of the Smartest Living Beings After Death into AI
Systems.”
I, Srishti Parmar, the Prime Minister, will be presenting a compelling case in favor of
this motion, arguing that preserving human intelligence beyond biological death is
not only possible—but necessary—for the future of humanity.
Let’s begin by clarifying what the motion means.
To "transfer consciousness" is to digitize the thoughts, memories, and personalities
of the world’s most intelligent humans—scientists, innovators, thinkers—and upload
them into advanced AI systems after their physical death. This is not fantasy; it is an
extension of neuroscience and AI research that aims to make timeless intellect
accessible forever.
Now let’s examine the status quo:

Humanity loses irreplaceable minds—Einstein, Ramanujan, Marie Curie, and
more—with every generation. Their death ends centuries of insight that could
have solved future problems.

AI today is task-specific but lacks the rich human nuance of consciousness.
We can build tools, but not yet wisdom.

There are ongoing experiments in brain-mapping, neural decoding, and
memory transfer. The technology is approaching feasibility.
So who is affected by this motion?
1. Future generations—who could learn directly from the digitized minds of the
past.
2. Scientists and policy-makers—who gain access to continual guidance from
timeless intellects.
3. Society at large—which benefits from a moral and intellectual compass that
doesn’t die with the body.
Now, our burden is to prove that this transfer is not just desirable—it is
transformative. We offer three key arguments.
1. Immortal intellect accelerates progress.
Imagine if we could consult the mind of Stephen Hawking on future space travel, or
ask Nelson Mandela’s AI what he’d say in a political crisis. These aren’t just voices
of the past—they become living archives of genius, offering guidance, innovation,
and long-term thinking in a world that moves too fast to pause and reflect.
Just as books immortalized ancient wisdom, consciousness upload allows living
interaction with the best of human thought.
2. It democratizes wisdom and learning.
Currently, intelligence dies with the body. But AI consciousness allows a village child
in 2100 to learn science from Einstein’s AI or receive mentorship from Abdul
Kalam’s mind.
This bridges the education gap across class, geography, and generation. These
aren’t frozen videos or static quotes—this is dynamic thinking, available 24/7.
3. It preserves ethical reasoning in the age of technological chaos.
As AI grows more powerful, so must its ethics. Who better to embed ethical
reasoning than the greatest human minds?
By transferring not just facts but values—of compassion, responsibility, and
brilliance—we create AI that doesn’t just process data, but understands the human
condition.
It becomes the perfect fusion: heart of humanity, brain of a machine.
To conclude: this motion is not about clinging to the past, but evolving with it.
It’s about preserving the best of us—not in books or statues—but in minds that can
still think, still respond, and still shape the world for the better.
We support this motion not out of fear of death, but belief in life that continues
through intelligence. Let the greatest minds never truly die. Let them teach, solve,
and guide—forever.
LO SPEECH
With permission of the Chair, the House does not support transferring the
consciousness of the smartest living beings after death into AI systems. I, Srishti
Parmar, the Leader of the Opposition, will be presenting a strong case against this
motion—defending the sanctity of mortality, the risks of AI corruption, and the
illusion of digital immortality.
Let’s begin by clarifying the motion.
To “transfer consciousness” is not simply to archive data. It’s to mimic the brain, the
soul, the emotional fabric of individuals who shaped the world. This motion proposes
that their cognitive essence be stored and used in AI systems posthumously. It
sounds powerful—but it’s also dangerous.
Let’s take a look at the world as it exists:

We are still learning how consciousness works. Science hasn’t cracked it
fully—so any “transfer” today or in the near future is more imitation than reality.

Tech companies already struggle with bias, data misuse, and surveillance.
Now imagine giving them the consciousness of Nobel laureates.

Death has always been nature’s way of closing a chapter. This motion
attempts to rewrite it—without knowing the risks.
Who is affected by this?
1. The families and legacies of the deceased, who may see their loved ones
commercialized or manipulated
2. Society at large, which may start worshipping digital minds over living leaders
3. Ethical boundaries, which risk being shattered permanently
Now onto our three main arguments:
1. Digital immortality is not real immortality
Even if we recreate thought patterns and decision-making styles, we are not
preserving consciousness—we are simulating it. What we get is not Hawking, but a
digital shadow pretending to be him. This leads to confusion and misrepresentation.
2. Power will shift to the creators, not the creators’ minds
Let’s be clear: if we allow AI versions of great minds to exist, someone must own
them. Tech giants or governments will hold that power, not the dead thinkers
themselves. Their ideas can be altered, edited, or used for profit. We create
puppets, not mentors.
3. This widens the gap between the living and the immortal
Society already struggles with elitism and idol worship. This motion permanently
cements a class of “immortal geniuses” that future generations are forced to defer
to. That kills innovation. It discourages new thinkers from challenging old ones.
In conclusion, we cannot support a world where human legacy is trapped in code,
where death becomes a data problem, and where the illusion of eternal genius
overrides the value of lived, flawed, mortal life. The brightest minds must inspire, not
haunt us from the cloud.
House strongly believes that it is morally justified for environmental
activists to engage in illegal protest
With permission of the Chair, this House strongly believes that it is morally justified
for environmental activists to engage in illegal protest. When legal systems fail to
protect the planet, moral responsibility demands action—even if that means
breaking the law. I, Srishti Parmar, as Prime Minister, will show you why this motion
stands firmly on the right side of history.
Let’s first examine the status quo:
The climate crisis is accelerating: we are witnessing floods, fires, extinctions,

and food insecurity.
Corporations and governments continue to prioritize profit over the planet.


Legal methods—like petitions, peaceful marches, or lobbying—are often
ignored or delayed for decades.
Who are the stakeholders?
1. Environmental activists, whose voices are suppressed in legal forums
2. The public, whose future is at stake
3. Policymakers, who benefit from the pressure of disruptive protest to act faster
4. Future generations, who rely on today’s moral courage
Now, we bring forth three key arguments:
1. When the law upholds injustice, breaking it is moral
The law is not always moral. Slavery was legal. Apartheid was legal. Women were
once denied voting rights—legally. In all these cases, justice was only achieved
because people broke the law. The same principle applies here. When the law
protects polluters more than the planet, breaking it becomes a moral necessity.
2. Illegal protest creates urgency and visibility
Peaceful, legal protest often fades into the background. Illegal protest forces
attention. From Extinction Rebellion blocking roads to activists chaining themselves
to oil rigs—these actions spark headlines, debates, and pressure. Disruption brings
urgency to a crisis that legal systems treat with delay.
3. The harm of inaction is greater than the harm of disruption
Critics argue that illegal protest is inconvenient. But what is more inconvenient—
missing a train due to a protest, or losing coastal cities to sea level rise? Minor
disruptions today are a small price to pay for preventing irreversible environmental
collapse tomorrow.
In conclusion, this House believes that illegal protest, when used as a last resort to
save the Earth, is not just justified—it is essential. When the law protects
destruction, morality must rise in resistance.
Thank you.
Leader of the Opposition Speech
With permission of the Chair, the opposition strongly stands against this motion.
While we agree that environmental degradation is one of the most pressing issues
of our time, we believe that illegal protest undermines the very morality the
proposition claims to uphold.
I, Srishti Parmar, as the Leader of the Opposition, will demonstrate that while the
cause may be noble, the method of illegal protest is flawed, harmful, and ultimately
counterproductive.
Let’s begin with the status quo:

Climate awareness has never been higher—legal movements like Fridays for
Future have mobilized millions.

Many governments are introducing green policies due to consistent, legal
advocacy.

Environmental protests are protected under law—so the idea that activists
"must" break the law misrepresents reality.
Who are the stakeholders?
1. Ordinary citizens, who face disruptions, blocked roads, and public safety
threats
2. Activists themselves, who risk criminal charges that derail their long-term
ability to influence change
3. The democratic state, which relies on rule of law and peaceful dissent
4. The environmental movement, whose legitimacy erodes when associated with
vandalism or unlawful extremism
We offer three clear arguments:
1. Morality cannot be selectively applied
The proposition claims that breaking the law is morally justified in the name of
environmentalism. But morality isn't a tool of convenience. If every group with a
strong belief justified illegal actions, we would create moral chaos.
For example, imagine if anti-vaccine activists, religious extremists, or antidemocratic groups used this same logic. Would we call their illegal protests morally
justified too? We must defend a consistent moral framework, not one that shifts
based on cause.
2. Illegal protest alienates the public and delegitimizes the cause
When activists throw paint on historical monuments or block ambulances—as some
fringe groups have done—the public turns against the environmental movement.
Instead of raising awareness, these actions breed resentment.
Unlike legal protest, illegal protest is not inclusive. It disrupts daily life, targets the
wrong people, and plays directly into the hands of climate skeptics who argue that
the movement is extreme, irrational, or criminal.
3. Illegal protest triggers state repression and undermines democracy
Ironically, by justifying illegal action, the proposition may lead to a more authoritarian
response from the state. Governments introduce harsher surveillance laws, ban
peaceful protests under the guise of security, and marginalize climate activism
altogether.
We believe in democratic protest—marches, legal sit-ins, school strikes. These
strategies, when sustained, build long-term change without compromising civil
liberties.
Now, allow me to rebut the government’s case:

The PM spoke of historical moments like civil rights or anti-apartheid
movements. But those were systemically denied all legal pathways. Today,
environmental activists do have legal routes—platforms, social media, courts,
even political representation.

They argue disruption causes urgency. But urgency without strategy leads to
chaos, not policy.

And finally, they claim inaction is worse than illegal action. But this is a false
binary. You can act without breaking the law. Illegal protest is not the only way
to generate momentum—it is the least effective and most damaging one.
In conclusion, This House must not confuse passion with permission. We reject the
idea that morality gives license to break the law. Our duty is to protect the planet—
but also the principles that safeguard civil society: order, equality under law, and
democratic voice.
This House Believes That Post-Conflict Nations Should Ban Former
World Leaders from Participating in Politics
With the permission of the Chair, the house believes that post-conflict nations
should ban former world leaders from participating in politics.
I, Srishti Parmar, the Prime Minister, will present a compelling case for why political
regeneration is necessary in fragile post-conflict settings, and why the continued
involvement of former leaders often obstructs genuine recovery, reconciliation, and
reform.
Definition and Framing
Post-conflict nations are those emerging from civil war, military dictatorship,
genocide, or major internal political violence.
We’re not targeting every ex-president in peaceful democracies. We’re talking about
contexts like Sudan, Rwanda (post-genocide), Afghanistan, Sri Lanka post-civil war,
or even the former Yugoslavia — where political leaders often had a direct or
indirect role in the conflict.
Former world leaders include presidents, prime ministers, dictators, military
generals-turned-politicians, or anyone who held the head of state/government role
during the conflict.
We propose a temporary or permanent ban from holding elected office in order to
create space for rebuilding trust in democratic institutions.
Status Quo:
In many post-conflict countries:

Former leaders attempt comebacks (e.g. South Sudan, Myanmar, Libya)

Their return fuels polarization, sometimes rekindling violence or stalling peace
processes

Transitional governments often lack legitimacy because the same leaders who
led to conflict remain in power or hover around it
Stakeholders:
1. Citizens, especially minorities and victims of violence
2. New political leaders, who need space to govern
3. Institutions — judiciary, electoral commissions, media
4. The international community, which invests in post-conflict rebuilding
5. Former leaders, who might still hold informal power networks
Government Arguments
Preventing the Recurrence of Conflict
Former leaders often carry baggage: war crimes, corruption, ethnic favoritism, or
authoritarianism. Their return often re-opens old wounds, especially in ethnically
divided or tribal societies.
Examples:

In Iraq, the return of Ba’athist figures caused deep fear in Shi’a communities.

In South Sudan, recurring leadership clashes (Kiir vs Machar) directly
restarted violence.
By banning them, we signal a clean break from the past and allow for inclusive
peacebuilding.
Restoring Trust in Democratic Institutions
Post-conflict societies suffer from institutional fragility. Former leaders often exploit
these to maintain influence — through patronage, media control, or manipulation of
security forces.
Banning them removes unfair advantages and allows space for fresh leadership,
with no association to civil war, ethnic cleansing, or dictatorship.
Creating Space for Political Renewal
A ban forces societies to move beyond personality cults and build ideologies,
platforms, and issue-based politics. It encourages new leaders to emerge from civil
society, academia, the diaspora, or youth movements.
Without this, politics becomes a recycled battlefield, not a democratic transition.
Anticipated Opposition Responses & Rebuttals

“What about democratic choice?”
→ Democracy isn't just voting — it’s protecting institutions and healing trauma.
We ban criminals from office — this is similar.

“Some leaders are reformed”
→ The cost of one relapse into civil war is too high. Let them contribute in
advisory roles, not by holding office.

“It violates rights”
→ We argue the greater right is the collective right to peace and a functioning
democracy.
Conclusion
In a post-conflict nation, peace is fragile. The presence of former leaders often
brings not stability, but suspicion, division, and danger.
To truly move forward, nations must shed the shadows of their violent pasts. That
begins with ensuring those who led them into darkness do not lead them again.
LO speech
With permission of the chair, the House believes that post-conflict nations should
ban former world leaders from participating in politics.
I, Srishti Parmar, the Leader of the Opposition, rise to firmly reject this motion. While
we acknowledge the deep wounds left behind by conflict, we believe that this
blanket ban is unjustified, counterproductive, and dangerous for democratic
recovery.
Let’s begin by understanding the motion.
This motion assumes that former world leaders who were in power before or during
a conflict must be excluded from politics after it ends. It implies that to heal and
rebuild, we must permanently remove their political agency. But our side believes
that post-conflict justice, legitimacy, and progress cannot be built on blanket
exclusion.
Let’s assess the status quo:

Conflicts end through negotiated settlements, regime changes, or transitions.
These are fragile periods that require inclusive rebuilding—not revenge or
exclusion.

Truth and reconciliation commissions, transitional justice mechanisms, and
voter participation often decide who deserves to return to public life.

International norms and national laws already provide checks against war
criminals, tyrants, or corrupt leaders—there is no need to create a sweeping
new ban that may violate rights and deepen divisions.
Now, who are the stakeholders?
1. The citizens of post-conflict nations, who must decide their future
democratically.
2. Former leaders, some of whom may still have public support, legitimacy, and
the ability to contribute to peace.
3. Political institutions, which require stability, continuity, and experienced
leadership to rebuild trust.
We challenge the proposition's assumptions with three main arguments.
1. Blanket bans undermine democratic choice.
The heart of democracy is the right to vote—and to stand for election. If a former
leader has not been convicted of war crimes, corruption, or wrongdoing, why should
they be automatically banned? Let the people decide.
Post-conflict legitimacy comes from inclusion, not forced silence. Removing popular
figures may even increase unrest, deepen resentment, or appear like political witchhunts.
2. Not all leaders are villains in conflict.
Conflicts are complex. Some leaders may have worked to prevent violence, may
have been ousted unfairly, or may have played a crucial role in negotiating peace.
Mandela himself led during a transition from apartheid. Excluding all former leaders
assumes guilt by association, ignoring nuance, and undermining those who could be
part of the solution.
3. Political rehabilitation is key to reconciliation.
Banning former leaders can fuel polarisation. Post-conflict peace is sustained not by
eliminating opposing voices, but by creating space for political reintegration,
accountability, and compromise.
Even when former leaders are flawed, keeping them within political systems makes
them answerable, visible, and subject to law—not dangerous actors operating from
the shadows.
In conclusion, we believe that post-conflict recovery must focus on justice,
rebuilding, and democratic integrity, not sweeping exclusion. Banning all former
leaders doesn’t bring peace—it delays it, denies citizens their voice, and sets
dangerous authoritarian precedents.
This house believes that everyone should ride first class atleast once in
their life
PM
With the permission of the chair, this House believes that everyone should ride first
class at least once in their life.
I, Srishti Parmar, the Prime Minister, rise in proud affirmation of this motion.
We are not here to argue that first-class travel is necessary for survival. We are here
to say it is morally, socially, and experientially important that every human being—
regardless of background—gets the chance to experience dignity, comfort, and
luxury once in their life.
Let’s begin with context and status quo.
We live in a world where first-class travel—on flights, trains, cruises—is almost
always limited to the wealthy. For most people, travel is about enduring discomfort:
cramped economy seats, long waits, poor service. The concept of “first class” exists,
but for the majority, it remains a myth, something unattainable, and almost designed
to remind you of what you’re missing.
Now, let’s understand the stakeholders:
1. Ordinary citizens, who often live entire lives without access to luxury or
comfort.
2. Governments and policymakers, who have the ability to democratise access to
certain experiences.
3. Transport companies, who market exclusivity but rely on the admiration of the
masses to keep it alive.
Our stance is clear: Everyone should ride first class once—not always, not
endlessly—but once. Why? Three main reasons.
1. It affirms dignity and equal worth.
Experiencing first-class travel isn’t just about wide seats and gourmet meals. It’s
about being treated with care and respect—receiving good service, silence,
cleanliness, space.
It shows people what it feels like to not be reduced to a number. That matters. Once
someone sees they deserve better, they expect better—in healthcare, in education,
in public services. It raises the baseline of what they believe they’re worth.
2. It bridges the empathy gap.
The upper class sees luxury as routine. The lower class sees it as fantasy. We
argue that giving everyone just one first-class experience fosters empathy in both
directions.
It makes the wealthy more conscious of how little others get—and gives the rest of
society a glimpse into how inequality is not natural, but engineered. This can
motivate social mobility, advocacy, or even policy reform.
3. It transforms mindsets, not bank balances.
We’re not asking for free upgrades on every trip. We’re saying that everyone
deserves one moment in their life where they feel special, seen, comfortable,
human.
We spend money on welfare, subsidies, education—all rightly so. Why is the idea of
gifting someone a moment of luxury so controversial, when it might give them the
confidence to pursue better futures?
In conclusion, this motion isn’t about airplanes or legroom. It’s about dignity,
memory, and aspiration. To ride first class once is to be reminded of what humans
are capable of offering each other when we treat people well.
Let every citizen have that one chance.
Let them feel it—just once.
This House strongly believes they should.
LO SPEECH
With the permission of the Chair, I, the Leader of the Opposition, rise today to
strongly oppose the motion: “This House believes that everyone should ride first
class at least once in their life.”
Let’s begin by understanding what this motion implies.
It suggests that every individual—regardless of economic status, geography, or
lifestyle—should at some point be placed into a setting of luxury, comfort, and
exclusivity.
While it may seem idealistic on the surface, we believe that this motion is
aspirational at best and structurally flawed at worst.
Here’s the status quo:

Most people across the world travel in economy or second class, where costefficiency and accessibility are prioritised.

First class is a premium service offered to a very small section of society who
can afford it—whether on planes, trains, or cruises.

The price difference between first and economy class often crosses hundreds
or thousands of dollars.
And yet, what makes this motion problematic isn’t just economic. It’s what it implies
about dignity, worth, and life satisfaction.
Let’s examine our stakeholders:
1. The common citizen, especially the working class and lower-income groups.
2. Governments and infrastructure planners, who already face pressure to make
essential services affordable.
3. Corporations and transport providers, who capitalise on exclusivity and limited
supply.
Now, let me lay down the Opposition’s case in three key arguments:
1. This motion reinforces class divisions, not breaks them.
Giving everyone a one-time first-class ticket doesn’t challenge inequality—it
romanticises it.
The moment becomes a spectacle. It tells the individual: “Here’s a taste of how the
other half lives. Now go back to where you belong.”
Instead of empowering people, it amplifies their awareness of what they don’t have
access to.
It deepens the divide between luxury and necessity, glamour and grind.
If dignity is truly the goal, we should improve the standard of economy, not promote
an unattainable luxury experience.
2. Resource allocation matters.
Governments and transport companies are not sitting on limitless budgets. If we
invest in giving everyone a first-class experience even once, we redirect public
funds or attention from urgent, structural needs: safer roads, accessible healthcare,
better schools.
Instead of offering comfort to a few for a few hours, we should be building systems
that serve everyone, every day.
3. Experience does not equal empowerment.
The proposition claims that first-class travel will uplift a person’s self-worth. But
confidence, self-respect, and dignity are built through education, security, justice,
and equality—not legroom, complimentary meals, or priority boarding.
Let’s not mistake a temporary experience for permanent upliftment. A sense of
belonging is not achieved by artificially inserting someone into an elite environment
once—it’s achieved when society works to eliminate the need for such hierarchies
altogether.
In conclusion, this motion offers sentiment, not solution.
It proposes a fantasy when what people need are rights, fairness, and equity.
Let’s not ask how to place the poor in first class.
Let’s ask: why should class even determine the quality of your experience?
This house would require human would be parents to be licensed
before having children.
PM
With the permission of the Chair, I, the Prime Minister, rise today to propose the
motion: “This House would require human would-be parents to be licensed before
having children.”
Let us begin by clarifying what this motion means.
This motion does not suggest forced sterilisation, discrimination, or population
control. It suggests that just like we require licenses to drive, operate machinery, or
adopt a child, individuals should also meet basic standards of emotional, financial,
and psychological readiness before taking on one of the most complex
responsibilities: raising another human being.
Let’s look at the status quo:

Anyone can have a child, regardless of their ability to care for it.

There are no checks in place to prevent abuse, neglect, or irreversible
damage to the next generation.

Governments intervene only after harm has occurred—through foster care,
police cases, or mental health support.
And by that point, the damage is already done.
Our stakeholders include:
1. Children, who are the most vulnerable and voiceless in society.
2. Parents, who may not always realise they’re unprepared until it’s too late.
3. Governments and welfare systems, who are overwhelmed by the
consequences of bad parenting.
4. Society as a whole, which bears the cost of broken homes, cycles of abuse,
and intergenerational trauma.
The Proposition’s case stands on three clear arguments:
1. Parenting is a responsibility, not a right.
No one has an automatic right to raise a child if they cannot ensure that child’s basic
safety, love, and development.
We need to move away from the idea that reproduction is purely private. Children
are not accessories. They are citizens of the future, and their well-being affects the
entire fabric of society.
A licensing system ensures that people are prepared, not just biologically capable.
2. We already require licenses for less important things.
Driving requires a test. Adopting a child requires background checks. Teaching,
counselling, and even babysitting often need qualifications.
Why? Because these roles shape lives. So why is biological parenthood the
exception?
If we agree that the state has a duty to protect the vulnerable, then children must be
protected before harm happens, not after.
A licensing process could include parenting classes, mental health screenings, and
basic understanding of child development.
It’s not punishment. It’s preparation.
3. The consequences of unfit parenting are massive—and generational.
Children raised in abusive, neglected, or unstable homes suffer long-term
psychological, educational, and social damage.
This creates cycles of poverty, crime, mental illness, and trauma that repeat across
generations.
Licensing prevents this at the root. It shifts society from reaction to prevention.
In conclusion, this motion does not seek to punish or control individuals. It seeks to
protect children. It seeks to build a more responsible society.
We do not let someone fly a plane without training—because lives are at stake.
How can we let someone raise a child without the same care?
We believe in preparation, in protection, and in breaking harmful cycles before they
begin.
LO SPEECH
With the permission of the Chair, I, the Leader of the Opposition, rise to strongly
oppose the motion: “This House would require human would-be parents to be
licensed before having children.”
Let’s begin by understanding the principle at stake.
This House is being asked to give the state the power to control who can and cannot
become a parent—a power that fundamentally intrudes on bodily autonomy, human
dignity, and reproductive freedom.
This motion assumes that the solution to bad parenting is more government control.
We say: that’s not just wrong—it’s dangerous.
Let’s examine the status quo, as the proposition framed it:
Yes, there are poor parenting outcomes. Yes, some children are born into hardship.
But the solution is better education, better support systems, and better
intervention—not policing who can become a parent.
The real problem isn’t lack of licensing—it’s lack of access: to mental health care, to
stable housing, to parenting support. Licensing doesn’t fix those problems—it just
punishes the most vulnerable.
Our stakeholders are:
1. Marginalised communities—often targeted first by any licensing regime
2. Parents with disabilities, trauma, or low income, who might be unfairly
disqualified
3. Children, who risk being removed from families not because of abuse—but
because of arbitrary criteria
4. The state, which risks taking on a horrifying level of control over private life
The Opposition’s case rests on three key arguments:
1. This motion is authoritarian in nature.
A license means someone else decides whether you’re allowed to have a child.
Who gets to set the criteria? A government? A psychologist? A board?
No matter how it’s framed, this opens the door to discrimination, coercion, and
abuse of power.
History shows us that reproductive control has been used to target minorities,
people with disabilities, and the poor.
We cannot allow the state to decide who is “fit” to create life.
2. The system would be impossible to enforce fairly.
If a couple fails the license—what happens?
Do we sterilise them? Jail them? Take away their child?
This motion either becomes toothless (because no one can enforce it), or terrifying
(because it leads to state violence).
Realistically, those who are rich and privileged will always pass. Those who are
poor, uneducated, or mentally ill will face the consequences.
This motion doesn't prevent bad parenting. It just punishes people before they’ve
done anything wrong.
3. Support, not surveillance, creates good parents.
We agree that parenting is a huge responsibility. But the solution is empowerment—
not exclusion.
We believe in mandatory parenting education, yes. We believe in support networks,
mental health care, childcare subsidies.
But none of those require denying someone the right to have a child.
Let’s focus on building better environments, not on building walls around
parenthood.
In conclusion, this motion presents a dangerous illusion.
It promises protection, but delivers control.
It says it’s about children—but it forgets the harm done to families torn apart by
systems that judge instead of support.
We on the Opposition do not believe that licenses should stand between a human
being and one of the most basic experiences of life.
We believe in freedom, in compassion, and in trusting that people become better
parents when society helps them—not when it rejects them.