제15회 YTN 중학생 영어토론대회 General Final

Summary

The video shows the grand-final round of a middle-school English debate on the motion: “This House, as a parent, would teach their child to be egoistic rather than altruistic.”

The government supported prioritizing one’s own interests. The opposition argued for teaching children to help others without expecting a return.

Government: Teach children to prioritize themselves

• Preparation for a competitive society: The government described society as cutthroat, with limited opportunities and strong competition. Parents, as children’s closest and most influential guides, should help them pursue their goals and practical success.
• Self-protection and independence: Prioritizing oneself can help children identify their needs, defend their boundaries, speak up when treated unfairly, and avoid being exploited. The government maintained that people need to be secure and fulfilled themselves before they can effectively help others.
• Parental responsibility and trust: Parents should prepare children for the world they will encounter. If children see people behaving selfishly or unfairly, the government argued, teaching them that they must always put others first may seem unrealistic and undermine their trust in their parents.
• Egoism need not mean cheating or sabotage: The government said that seeking success does not require harming others. Dishonest or hostile behavior can damage one’s reputation and, in turn, one’s own interests.
• Altruism can be subjective: The Deputy Prime Minister argued that expectations of altruism vary across cultures, generations, religions, and social settings. Parents might teach values that no longer fit the society their child will enter, whereas children can assess their own interests as they grow.
• Egoism as a basis for helping others: In the government’s view, children who first build their capacity and stability are better placed to help others later.

Opposition: Teach children to be altruistic

• Altruism is not self-neglect: The opposition defined altruism as helping others without expecting a reward—not as accepting abuse, abandoning one’s needs, or becoming a pushover. Parents can still protect a child’s physical and emotional well-being.
• Children already face pressure to compete: School, work, and social life already encourage competition and self-interest. Parents do not need to reinforce those pressures; they can instead teach generosity and consideration.
• Well-being includes relationships, not just achievement: The opposition argued that children’s happiness and fulfillment depend not only on financial or professional success but also on trusted friends, partners, and stable relationships.
• Altruism can strengthen social and professional connections: Helping others can build trust, a reputation as a reliable teammate, and supportive networks. These qualities can benefit children in workplaces and other competitive environments.
• Egoistic relationships may be fragile: If children approach others mainly for personal gain, people may recognize the transactional nature of the relationship and withdraw. Genuine, reciprocal relationships are more dependable over time.
• Children may not succeed through self-interest alone: Not every child will be especially gifted or able to reach the top of a competitive system. If a child is taught to measure success mainly by outperforming others and then fails to do so, they may lose out on meaningful relationships as well as achievement.
• Parents’ reputations matter: The opposition argued that a child’s behavior reflects on their parents. A child seen as selfish or manipulative could harm a parent’s standing and cause them distress.

Main points of clash

The debate centered on how parents should balance self-protection and achievement against generosity and lasting relationships. The government argued that self-prioritization gives children a foundation for success and for helping others. The opposition argued that altruism does not require self-sacrifice and can itself support happiness, relationships, and success.

The government reply emphasized that self-interest can coexist with friendship and that children need personal security and capacity before they can help others. The opposition reply stressed that parents aim to raise a happy, socially connected child—not simply to maximize income or competitive success.

The judges then left to deliberate. The transcript does not announce the result.

Speakers and sources

• Chair/moderator: J. Kim, as rendered in the subtitles.
• Government Prime Minister and government reply speaker: Singan Lee, as rendered in the subtitles.
• Opposition Leader and opposition reply speaker: Yun Kim; she stated her pronouns as she/her.
• Deputy Prime Minister: Name not clearly audible in the subtitles.
• Deputy Leader of Opposition: Name not clearly audible.
• Government Whip: Name not clearly audible.
• Opposition Whip: Name not clearly audible.
• Judges/panelists: The chair introduces a panel and says that nine judges will judge the round. Names rendered in the subtitles include Jonathan Tulia, Sarah Aston, Rial/Rialo, Aino, Hannaf/Haniki, Kumin Kim, Tonging Kang, Shinry Lee, and Yin Kim. Some spellings or name boundaries are unclear because of the auto-generated captions.
• Teams identified by the chair: Government—Team Advocates; Opposition—Team Cookin, as rendered in the subtitles.