WHT 2023 Annual Debate: A brief retelling of how and why I defended the Proposition

Valeria opening the WHT 2023 Annual Debate

“Before the debate, the ‘Nayes’ had it. It was 15 for the ‘Ayes,’ 48 for the ‘Nayes.’ After the debate, the ‘Nayes’ still had it. It was 28 for the ‘Ayes’ and 75 for the ‘Nayes,” the debate Chairman said as I tried to process the number of votes and that the Proposition, my team, had lost. 

When I applied for the WHT Scholarship, the Annual Debate was one of the activities from the Leadership Programme that I was the most excited about. I participated in more than twenty Model United Nations conferences throughout my middle school and high school years. While a different style of debate, I saw this event as a great opportunity to reconnect with one of the extracurricular activities that informed my decision to study a B.A. in International Relations.

Upon my arrival at the University of Oxford to read an MSc in Global Governance and Diplomacy (GGD), I was instantly intrigued by the activities and culture of the Oxford Union. I did not imagine, however, that I would find myself debating in the Union’s historic chamber a few months later. The language, structure, cheeky jokes, and black-tie attire… these things took me by surprise as I tried to pay attention to the different speakers’ insightful comments on the world’s most pressing issues and controversial topics on the Union’s weekly debates.

I quickly signed up to participate as a debater for WHT’s annual event, not knowing whether I would be teaming up with the Proposition or the Opposition. Eventually, I received an email that revealed I would be the opening speaker for the Proposition. I took a moment to let that sink in as I stared at the names of my teammates and those of the Opposition. Then I realized I had just signed up to talk about a very controversial topic in a very public forum. “This House believes that acting on the climate crisis is the responsibility of developed nations only.” Did I believe that?

I decided that, while my own views would inform what I had to say on the debate, I would fully immerse myself into thinking like the Proposition. I would allow myself to explore how far I could take the argument within the limits of what I thought would be realistic if I were presenting such a proposition to decision-makers. I was very self-aware of how political the topic was and that I had received an almost impossible task: convincing an audience (my very own fellow WHT Scholars and the WHT community) of real-life changemakers and defensors of multilateral cooperation that they, we, have been approaching the concept of international responsibility incorrectly.

Proposition talking to a mentor before the debate

“This is a ´Go Big or Go Home’ kind of scenario, we need to let aside our personal views on the topic and, instead, create a ‘debate character’ for ourselves that will allow us to defend this very contested topic”, I said to my team during our first preparatory meeting. This is one of the many ethical dilemmas diplomats face: having to defend views that you don’t necessarily (fully) share in the name of your country, organization, or community. I saw this debate as an educational opportunity to explore the tension between my personal views, the Proposition, and the Opposition within the limits of the task I had been given. I also knew this was a point that my (and the other) team could use to weaken the arguments of the speakers from the other side.

On the day of the debate, I was not surprised when my very good friend, GGD classmate, and fellow WHT Scholar Danilo Angulo Molina pointed out during his speech certain contradictions between my professional work and my arguments for the Proposition. After all, I had done the very same thing in my opening speech when I individually introduced each of the speakers from the Opposition. That left me thinking throughout the rest of the debate, and even now as I write this blog, about the very real personal tensions and dilemmas in the diplomatic field.

I am a member of the Oxford Union; maybe that will change with time, maybe not. One of the conversations that I too often have with my college and department friends is the controversial history of the Union. I remember in Michaelmas one of my friends explained that he bought the membership because it was a “once in a lifetime opportunity” to meet and listen to world thought-leaders, but that he was not proud of being a member in an institution that has hosted speakers that have done or said ethically-wrongful things. I reflected on this, as I too had recently joined as a member. “Well, if we can’t have uncomfortable discussions with controversial people through educational institutions, then where are we supposed to have these conversations?” I asked.

Proposition and Opposition teams with their mentors after the debate

We live in a globally interconnected, fast-moving society that sadly practices “cancel culture.” Yes, I am very self-aware of how controversial “cancel culture” is—there recently was a debate on this at the Union! Nonetheless, from my experience as an activist, international consultant, and (most recently) Mexican delegate for the Y20, I can say there are too many moving pieces, political interests, and personal conflicts behind any controversial speech or activity. Often, there is information that cannot be disclosed due to privacy reasons. Most importantly, the subjects we are canceling are human beings with real feelings.

Valeria responding to questions from the audience.

While I agree that there are exceptions—I refer to people that have done atrocious and wrongful things to other human beings—I believe that everyone deserves the right to express themselves freely and learn from that. Listening to points of views that differ from our own allows us to learn and expand our understanding of other people’s worldviews in order to question why we think the way we think. That is precisely what I learned from this year’s WHT debate: there were more things than I imagined, from both Proposition and Opposition, that I agreed with or understood the rationale of.

So when it was announced that Proposition had lost and I looked at the benches behind me, where my GGD professor and classmates were seated, I was glad to know that none of them doubted my quality as a friend and professional. When I hugged my team and told them I was proud of them, I meant that. When I congratulated the Opposition and shook their hands, I was truly happy for them. And today as I thank WHT for this opportunity, I write that from the bottom of my heart. Because the world needs more safe, educational spaces to explore today's most pressing issues, even if the conversations are challenging and make us uncomfortable. These teachings I will take with me to my academic and professional career as my time at the University of Oxford slowly comes to an end and I continue my work in the diplomatic field.

If you are curious enough to see how my team and I defended the Proposition, here is the link to the WHT 2023 Annual Debate. Happy watching!