Last Update - Fri Nov 14 2025
UNSW Pre-Australs 2024: Info Slide: Rumspringa is an Amish tradition of sending off 18-year-olds to live in the outside world for a year, after which they may choose whether or not to return. Semi Finals 1 Kat Cheng OPP Youtube Link (Timestampped):HERE Kat (Chou) [2nd Gov] is right. The world is beautiful, but it is not what kids are taught in these places. The kids who grow up in remote Armish communities are taught that their lives are identic, they live in a pastoral ideal, the last refuge from the disgusting concrete jungles which exist in the world, that these worlds which are filled of smoke, violence, and suffering, which they will see when they leave these communities. The fact that people have to beg for food and money, the fact that people often survive and subsist without any shelter in the most destitute of conditions, that is the world which these kids are going to be exposed to and realize it is scary and realize it is awful. These kids were not going on some trip abroad to Switzerland to see how beautiful the fuking mountains are. They get exposed to the worst of humanity and the worst lives that possible. So the first thing I want to do here is go through the principle. So obviously these people, by their logic, is equally coerced into these lifestyles. They lack the same sort of opportunity, they lack the same sort of knowledge, so why do we make a distinction between them? It is deeeply unclear why we make distinction based on indigeneity for the first two examples and one based on religion, unclear whether we ought to impose the state's will in our instance but not all instances there. And that, I think, fundamentally undermines the principle conception of their case, because it is simply something the world does not believe in. And we do believe that people have an ability to live a life which is valuable and different and is still good. But let's deal with some of them their principal contentions here. They say the state has a duty to protect individuals, but this is obviously contingent upon proving harm, which is why I would now reject the characterization that these communities are awful, miserable, and people are constantly abused. Because for the very simple fact that, well, if abuse was actually occurring that you, they're still subject to federal criminal law, so you can actually get accountability there. But simply because we will live a different type of life does not mean it is harmful. Why is living in these communities not as bad as Gov claims ? For example, a poorly educated, you know, Armish child in the community might not be able to read super well, but they only grow up to be a farmer and enjoy planting potatoes and growing vegetables and living very simple life. That is by no means an unhappy life or one which we ought interfere upon. And I'd suggest intuitively that the fact that 85 to 90% of Armish people return from Rumspringa and stay in these communities suggest that this is life which is particularly meaningful. But let's give a few structural reasons as to why these communities are not likely to be abusive and are far more likely to be the good communities. The first of which is that alternatives currently exist in the status quo to actually regulate these communities. Because all it takes is one person to lead these communities to shine a light on the abuses which occurs to get a bunch of government action there, right? It takes one person to leave, to find the police, to speak out about the experience for the government to come around and know that, well, you know, this is a pretty bad community, break up. But also secondly n that these communities obviously have this sort of risk because they're out of sight means that they're often quite frequently monitered by the state, from at least not necessarily, you know, invading and auditing them, but at least moned from some distance to make sure people are living well. They monitor their population levels, they must ensure that these people are still healthy and far more and likely to be safe. For some reasons why these communities are likely to be good to you as well, right? The first of which is that these communities are genuinely quite altruistic for the very reason that they ideological tenants rejects things like selfishness, rejects things like, you know, capitalism or being, or like you looking out for yourself as opposed to the community. But the second thing is that they don't want people to leave, which is why they like to treat people well. The third thing here is that these communities often subsist on things like farming and therefore require every able-bodied person to be able to grow and farm stuff and to participate. If you were to abuse someone and hurt them, this obviously hurts your ability to survive and it hurts your ability to have an abled worker on a farm as well, which why once again, even from a totally selfish perspective, it’s still want to treat you well and is unlikely to treat you badly. That is why I think the life in these communities are actually quite valuable and are actually quite meaningful, for the very reason that these people often have purpose. They know why they exist, they're here to support their families, support the community, and that brings them lot of joy. When they go and harvest some potatoes and bring in a harvest each year, they're happy with the families who understand who they are, who understand that they only need very simple things in life and are unlikely to bring in things which are confusing and things which are quite upsetting. And there is a beauty, in stability, and simplicity, and these are things which will come to terms with. And the final thing to say here is that because these communities are so communalist as opposed to individualist, there is this constant sense of collaboration and support, which is why you can always rely on other people and know that someone is always going to be there for you. Compared to currently, you know, when you live out, you know, living an individualistic capitalistic side, and is not always true, and there are people who seek to undermine you and seek to take advantage of you. This is a simple life, and this is a good life. I do not think this justifies any of the affirmative team's principal justification, for no harm has existed and is actually somewhat unlikely to exist. So at the end of this, I think you ought believe that they principal force, and this is one principle where you ought believe ourside, where religious autonomy is something we ought protect. Now on to the second question I'm going to ask in this debate, which is what happens to children. Because their claims that, well, because they love and care for their kids, they will going to teach the kids how to survive, and they're going to make sure they've got good skills so they're able to enjoy the year abroad. But the problem is our conception of fear mongering and their conception of care and love is actually not mutually exclusive. Because these parents do genuinely care about the kids and because they fear the outside world, which is why they have to warn them as well. But a few more reasons as to why this world could potentially manifest or how it’s likely to manifest is firstly, I think, you know, the advice isn't to enjoy the rest of the world. It very much could be like to stay in your hotel room, avoid everyone, avoid all contact, do not go to a pub, do not go to a, you know, go to a party, just stay in your basement, don't turn on TV, you're going to get corrupted by the devil. I think it's pretty common and a way which people exist and, you know, do this one year Rumspringa. But secondly, I think the reasons why this is true are a fewhold. The first of which that if you believe this policy is introduced now, it means the current adults in these communities actually did not have this experience and thus do not have the skills to be able to pass down to the kids in a way which is useful. Which means the people who are currently giving advice to the next crop of people who are going to go on Rumspringa is one who is countered by their own fear of society and as a result likely to pass on bad advice and ones which tell them to be reclusive and stay in their own homes. But secondly, even if there are some free thinkers out in the world, the problem is these free thinkers often do not come back and do not translate that knowledge back to the kids who are now experiencing Rumspringa themselves. But third to not is that even in the absolute best case scenario, the free thinker comes back and teaches them a bunch of skills. My problem here is that it's deeply UNC to me as to whether they teach the actual skills, actual skills. They teach people how to socialize, you know, like cool slay words to use like Yap or POG or slay Queen, like deeply un this a device they teach these kids. But more so things is like do not go to the pub, do not, you know, be seen without any other person from your community, do not. And for very reason that they've opted into come back to the world, they obviously think the outside world is worse than the life which they currently have, which is why they're also likely to be fearful and likely to pass down similarly cautious advice parents will currently pass out as well. That is why it's far more likely under the outside the advice they get is to stay in your hotel room and don't leave it, and just survive this one year because that is the only way they can be safe as well. That is why, at, you know, the conception you opt to weigh in this debate isn't a year of war just fun, we'll see how beautiful Ro it is. This is going to be a miserable, lonely year. This is a kid who is stuck living in fear, who's staying alone in this hotel room, eating food, not watching TV, not having any ice. Maybe they have ice cream, maybe I'm not sure, but they're probably going to be alone. They cannot contact the family, they cannot contact any sort of support networks, they don't have the life they have, and all they want is for this year to end as soon as possible so they go back home and finally be comfortable. That is the reality of this policy, and if you cannot, do not believe by the end of the speech that this is something which is deeply immoral, deeply awful, so harmful to the psyche of these kids, I do not know what else to say to convince you.
80+
Religion
DLO
And the first thing we to start is an intuition, which just to say this is not something we force on any other isolated and remote community in the world. We do not touch the Senales (Sentinelese) who live in Andaman Sea, not just because they've got, you know, arrows and spears, but because we recognize it's a lifestyle which ought to be preserved. We do not touch remote communities who Amazon rainforest, who are able to live their traditional lives, which, to be clear, are not necessarily our lives. They lack technology, they lack education, many people are not necessarily literate, do not actually participate in other forms of the economy. We do not touch their lives either.
Why GOV is non exclusive