WADL Debating: The rise of wokism

WADL Debating: The rise of wokism

The adjudication of the Cameron vs Alexander Senior Inter-House Grand Final Debate:

Good evening, all. As we’ve heard tonight’s debate concerned the rise of ‘wokism’, and whether this was in and of itself regrettable. After hearing from both sides of the floor, the topic has quite clearly been broken down into two main points of contention.

The first being the opportunity for exploitation. The affirmative team came out strongly to insist that wokism becomes a slippery slope whose effects were not governed by sensible logic. They tied this back to the explosion in violence which ensued following the death of George Floyd, by Black Lives Matter groups. They identified a lack of cogency in their motives, and suggested their activism was merely a façade to mask anti-social behaviour. The negative team argued back strongly, retorting within the context of the example, that police brutality represented a systemic social issue that without mass public protest likely would have continued to remain unimpeded within our society. They continued further in contending that social justice activism serves to address overreaching issues which impact broader society, that could not feasibly be achieved at an individualist level. However, it was the affirmative team’s rebuttal, that the way in which wokism attempts to tackle this matter, being more counterproductive and serving to alienate a broad cross-section of the community, that saw them given this point.

The second issue which underwrote the debate was whether wokism ensures accountability or hinders public discourse. The negative team argued down the bench that wokism has served a mechanism for accountability in ensuring appropriate social media use. They maintained that individuals have a responsibility for the statements they make and the behaviour they demonstrate, particularly within the online realm. They shed light on an American school teacher whose closeted racism was unmasked by fellow social media users, leading to her removal from a public school. They maintained this served as an appropriate characterisation of the benefits wokist agenda can have on society in ensuring accountability. The affirmative rebutted this assertion, claiming that wokism serves to stifle mature debate and conversation, resulting in a highly noisy minority imposing their will on the majority of the population. Ultimately, it was in this rebuttal that the affirmative demonstrated that a society free of wokism would ensure honest public discourse.

And so, for these reasons aforementioned, I’ve elected to award tonight’s debate to the affirmative team.

Left to right: Jason Pocock (Year 11), Banjo Harold (Year 12), Fletcher O’Connell (Year 12) all from Cameron House (winning team); Patrick Hayes (Year 11, Alexander House);