in terms of the climate and the environment and how uh it is in the natural order for things to , for the natural environment to constantly be changing and uh rejuvenating itself sometimes


it can be uh disruptive or progressive for human beings and the only way to deal with that is uh how countries and humanity, uh react and anticipate such change ya so


uh, back to you rachel


okay uh, thank you rachel perhaps we could, uh discuss, narrow or focused on, your point about the whole


rapidly changing world and globalization because I actually recently read an article about how in a few years' time uh, bots could be banks could be, uh replacing about over twenty two types of jobs


in exchange for robot workers so this is obviously another example of change and progress uh and I would just like to, uh hold a discussion about how the individual can


can adapt to such changes because obviously, uh good can come from this but also the negative, effects, are also pretty prominent and one uh prominent thing is the twenty two jobs which


are lost so especially to undergrads such as ourselves it is even though it is uh, now is uh progressive, time for us it is also a very worrisome and trying time for youngsters such as ourselves because we might not know if


the, major we're studying now might even be, relevant, and needed uh, in a few years' time and who knows we might end up, graduating with a degree that will just leave us jobless so I would like to hear about your opinions on that


(ppc)


okay thank you


debate topic three


okay, uh to start off this discussion on the topic of abortion should be banned, I am, speaking on the stance of uh, proposition so I would like to start off by saying that let's say a mother kills her unborn child because the child is unwanted but she is not charged for murder is this right


there are about, forty six million abortions per year worldwide and approximately , a hundred and fifteen thousand per day so the question is why is this the case is it because of uh sexual assault like rape or incest or health problems with either the mother or the child or


just simply because, the baby is, unwanted or inconvenient at that time, uh, I believe that the proposition believe that abortion should be banned because too many babies are being killed from abortion


, our stance is that if people do not want a child, they could always put it up for adoption , because, most mothers do not understand the consequences that occur from abortion


and, our our, question for, uh advocates of abortion is that is there really a difference between (ppc) abortion and murder because if a doctor, let's say if a doctor killed a child one minute after it was


born it would be considered mother but if the doctor killed that child one minute before, the the baby was born it would, be the mother's choice so according, to uh some research fifty two percent of abortions occur before the ninth week of pregnancy twenty five between the ninth to tenth week


twelve between uh the eleventh and twelfth week and so on so uh you, can have a baby that is born at week twenty two and still have a fifteen percent chance of


living, so if the mothers didn't want the babies, uh again as we said, the the child could be put up for adoption instead of being, uh having their lives terminated even before they even have a chance to


literally, step out into this real world, , and our concern is, that many of these, uh cases of abortion are because women


have non essential abortions instead of, uh essentials ones such as health problems, uh, so one example would be, in china where they kill


fetuses of the , unborn child, who is known to be a female because of of, the, culture in china so, I believe that the proposition believe that abortions should be illegal because it is unjust and purposeless slaughter to


this uh unborn human being , and to bring in uh the religious context in most across many beliefs , people consider abortions to be unethical and murder to the unborn child


and in a poll by the uh, pew research center in in twenty fourteen almost half of american citizens stated that abortion should be illegal, in most to all cases,


and this consensus, are are shared across northerners uh residents of the west coast and and uh, the inhabitants of south central state or kentucky or texas where they all declared that abortion should not be allowed


because of, this simply this one belief which is, in the christian faith uh abortions are the killing of an unborn child which is a deadly sin


so , the proposition would take the stance that abortion should be banned because it is against, not just in not just in the religious, context but also


in the social ethical context it is, against, or it it is against uh, a human it is against our morals to kill and basically at a defenseless helpless unborn child ya and to take its chance of


take oh to take away the chance of it even, uh, having a shot at its life, uh even before, it is given a chance to live ya so that is our stance


okay, okay thank you so, I would, I just like to clarify that, uh your concern with abortion is how , some procedures are unhygienic and therefore


uh detrimental to the woman's, health and, her especially your reproductive system


okay okay okay uh, thank you rachel uh I understand your, stance, on the whole point about pro life, and this this uh, this


point this realistic, looking from a realistic view yes I have to agree that if we do put a ban on abortion then there there would be rise of, uh shady,


quack doctors who who charge unreasonably high amounts to to carry out such unsafe and high risk procedures on women who secretly try to get abortion because it is


banned uh so I would I would also like to, I think that your point on the whole overpopulation and poverty is also valid as we all know the world population has been, uh


constantly increasing and, but uh I think, to clarify on, my, the proposition's point uh I believe that, we were when we say abortion should be banned it was


more, on it was more focused on countries where, the average civilian is, I would, say considered


privileged and uh they, resort to abortion because not because of of as what you stated , sexual assault or uh but because of their own choice


that resulted in this unwanted pregnancy so, , in that case they, resort to abortion because, they are basically uh


to put it bluntly trying to cover up, their own mistake or to just erase their mistake and , I believe that abortion in that, case should not be, uh should be banned , as


these people have, chosen to uh, put up with the risk and these should they should be they should, go through that process of uh being taught that there are consequences to their actions and they should


, uh deal with them instead of try to, uh avoid them by choosing the easy way out and in the process, uh, killing an innocent life, which did not even have a choice or a say in being


uh conceived in the first place, yup, so I would like so, yes I would like to clarify on that part but I I would say that I agree on all your other points and in cases where it is sexual assault or


uh, or where the women wasn't given the option then I believe the, statement about abortion should be banned, can be negotiated, yup


so, we will start the topic on eh the in the age of internet TV newspaper has become irrelevant so I'll be the proposition for this topic


so uh I will be talking about how in particularly social media has changed how we consume news so in the age of fake news and gone are the days of uh waiting for morning news for breaking stories or reading gossip from newspapers


we are now all, we have all the information we need at the touch of an app, and most people now like to get their news information online, specifically from social media so social media


has become the main source of news online with more than billions of internet users nearly in fact, more than sixty percent, receive breaking news from, Facebook, Twitter Youtube Snapchat or even


Instagram, so there's actually a recent survey that I found online that , social media sites as the main, source of news through the news, for example the top three will be the Facebook YouTube Twitter


then also in that survey it says that fifty percent of the internet users surveyed that they heard the latest news via social media before even hearing on the news station many internet users will see the breaking news on their feed and go to news sites to learn more


and more than, in fact more than fifty five percent, increase of traffic to news sites refer to referred from social media


so however there has been a decrease in how much of an article people read most people will just go through their newsfeed stumble upon relevant news content then just read the head news or short video clip , of that piece


so an average surprisingly uh an average visitor will only read an article for fifteen seconds, or less than the average video watch time online in ten seconds, so however social medias have a control, over what news and information we see our social media friends have become the managing editors deciding what we see an article needs to be liked and share multiple times before many people see it in their feed therefore social media and their social friends


have control over what news pieces you see and what you do not there are, also many fake news website that competes for attention with sensation head news headlines and ridiculous storylines that tends to get shared more often due to the lack of readers' fact checkings or even reading more than the headlines


that means that authentic, city contents is hard to come by by now in fact fake news are is actually more likely to spread than the truth


falsehood diffused, significantly further faster deeper and also more broadly than the truth in all categories of information , and the effects were more pronounced for false politically news or false news about terrorists example


, uh natural disaster etcetera so also timely and sensation news does better like BuzzFeed who has billions of subscribers contents need, to be shareable and likeable so often times is actually uh overly exaggerated for social in my point of view


brands can pay more to appear in their news feed and get noticed as well, while syndication is starting new it is more prevalent in social media with so much information allowed to be given at once and twenty four seven


so news, happens fast now today's story will be tomorrow's forgotten stories it is easy to miss things now, and because of how quickly stories can turn around and shared


so while having so much information at our fingertips is great, it is worth always checking sources and not taking headlines as truth with social media as our news managers it is up to us to be the new fact checkers for media thank you


okay so so my point of view again is uh just now you been talking about uh newspapers so so uh my view is newspaper is irrelevant so let me share with you firstly if you talk about


newspaper is a ah a waste of resources more trees are has been cut down, and uh, and uh people, why do people still want to spend like a few dollars just to buy newspaper where information can be like almost free online


and, uh in fact, from my observation, not only people at my age I think most of the people right now they do not buy newspaper anymore, or they don't even have the time


to, to read newspapers because of the environment that we are in so for example , let's say in the morning, when


we wake up ya we are rushing to, to to work and , ya we'll be uh on our transportation, and once you are inside the office you will start with your work so I think if you have time the only time that we can find a newspaper I think most most of the time is the free newspaper inside our office


and uh even there is a piece of newspaper there I don't think that uh employees, or people like us have the time to, really go and read, and uh most of the time what we do is we will just read the headlines


without really uh go into the content so this will actually give a misconception people might not have the full story about it so they will have uh they will perceive in their own view, rather than the truth


so my view is people don't really read newspaper anymore they will go online and uh, another example is let's say for for most majority of us we are taking public transport


so uh on public transport we can actually use our smartphone to access popular sites like uh channel news asia , to actually get all the information and uh for another example is uh, because of the recent pandemic so right now we don't even need to go and search what is the latest


latest uh numbers, uh that that that are so called quarantined so automatically we get updates from WhatsApp , that that are sent directly from the government, so


ya my my view is people no longer read newspaper and uh not to mention TV even my I myself have a TV I think it has been months that I switch on the TV , and for majority of my friends they don't switch on their TVs I think most of us right now uh our focus is uh mainly on YouTube and Netflix ya yup back to you benji


okay so uh so why not we move into open debate so I got a question for you uh you I agree that some of the people they will still rely on uh newspapers but, uh do you realize that uh, during public holidays


example public holidays those those SPH don't don't really print newspapers so to say that this group of, people they are they they are not updated so unlike those people who are savvy or


willing to learn, so they actually get news constantly twenty four seven be it a public holiday be it chinese new year they will still able to receive uh, ya the latest news from the world so this is my concern that uh newspaper are irrelevant because they take public holidays


I see so so so what I feel is like ya in my uh yup my address this group of, this group of people I think majority will be the elderly but in times of, ten years or even twenty years later I think we can actually see it even more uh applicable to


to our to our so-called generation so I think by in twenty years to come or even thirty years to come right both TVs and newspaper will become like a dinosaur they will actually extinct, and it will be the age of internet or even some might say the five Gs or even six G or even seven Gs


so ya we might even , even as of now we we can actually select what kind of news that that actually uh we like, because some might like political some might like sports some might like fashions


so, internet still are able to do all this unlike, TVs or even newspapers, I, I think it's uh, ya they are very very limited, and uh again its's not environmental friendly


okay so uh we will start with the debate topic two


and on the topic of people have the right to remain anonymous, while uh portrayed in media, so I'll be the proposition, so let me start


so the uh the advantage of, online uh anonymous first of all there are many advantages to to being anonymous on the internet so firstly


freedom of speech, being anonymous online means you'll be uh you'll be able to fully exercise the freedom of speech , through the use of identifiable, platform user are able to speak their minds using various


optional sharing platforms like social media sites, blogs hosting service or even the comment section in the of website without incurring judgment backlash that might affect them in the real world, next, freedom of movement online


anonymity provides freedom of movement at least online allowing users like us to conduct activities without being judged by others, or directly observed by spoofers, I give you the a perfect example uh you know right now the the current situation in uh


the US you know the black life matters so ya people are judging because based of colours, so a user can, can can can shop for items online can watch can comment on a video express


support for any person of course and became a member of online uh community all without being judged in the real world, third will be online persona, establishing an an online persona that is not associated with a user real name is possible because of online anonymity this makes it easier to


compartmentalize online hobbies and personal life separations and can lead to an establish of online connection for those with the same interest, fourth, very important personal safety with online anonymity users won't have


to worry too much about their personal safety being compromised as a result of whatever it is they do maybe online, for example a user can do whatever they want without being finding other finding out where where he or she lives or the possibility inflicting physical injuries fifth


last but not least uh will be data security so personal data is considered among the most valuable commodities on the internet, being anonymous anonymous prevents hackers


from getting to, access to sensitive information such as personal data credit card transactions password and bank information with all these advantages it is easy to see why internet users values online


anonymity so much however with the current infrastructure supporting today's internet user can become anonymous only to a certain degree sad to say but they must utilize other tools to achieve full, anonymity while online


yup so so one of the best example that uh to, to to, to use is uh people can use like a VPN


so let me talk about the pros, of being anonymous online, firstly, self expression , it is easier to be your true self, , so the internet can acts as a shield to protect people from their insecurity


so people can uh say and do the things they won't, normally do in real life, because they are not physically engaging with other people, it's like having a podium in front of you during a public speaking class, so it makes you feel protected when you remain anonymous


, next just now you talk about celebrities, let me highlight, celebrity fear of safety everywhere fear of their own safety so to remain anonymous it is safer to be yourself


so for example a lot of teenagers feel unsafe, being themselves, so teens often turn into to the online world to make connection, find information to express themselves in a way that they are are unable to do it offline


so being anonymous is like a protector for them, one that for many inside and outside, uh of the community that cannot be taken away, uh next will be exploration, so the pool is like you can test the water


with your likes and interest, so people facing like a future with no that no one before them have fully encountered a future where everyone is and always been online everything they have done is on Facebook Facebook Instagram


so as we all know our entire personality and interest evolve over time, but in the digital age, that, if uh evolution is constantly tied to our social networks


people don't really want everyone seeing everything they do, so they want to try new things talk to new people, explore new interests and decide for themselves, who sees what, and uh


duality, so uh the advantage is we can live a double life how cool is that so imagine you can go online and be whoever you want to be you are fearless, you will have fun creative dramatic and cool


and whatever you want to be you get to express yourself and have nothing to hide from


K so uh, so again uh just now you did highlighted it's uh not not good not not encouraged to to to, to be anonymous but uh how about, freedom of speech so people actually fear for their safety once they are they are being identified especially


especially uh well-known people or or even people who are more introvert, so they they don't want to be judged so with the with the if let's say they know that they will be judged and uh let's say for example if I go online


I will I will key in my full name and uh whatever name then uh ya I I won't people won't won't have the freedom of speech they will they will be like , say only the things that that that the public perceive and uh people who like to listen then they they will actually do that so


my my view is they do not have the freedom of speech and also they do not have the freedom of, movement , so uh without being judged by others, how will you address that


but then how will you address uh data security, so if if if we, are able if people are able to identify us, they will know where we stay they will know your for example of our IP address which is very sensitive


hackers might go all their way to obtain it, so it is very important to be anonymous so this will actually prevent hackers from getting access to our sensitive information, like a bank account password


credit card transaction, all this how will you address that


okay so again my my view is people, must have the rights to remain anonymous, when portrayed in media, they will must have this right because if you remove this right then I don't, I think uh we can do anything without being ordered or instructed even I think if we without this right right


we ya we are as good as uh we will just let the government know where we are going and , ya


okay so I will be the proposition I will start with the debate topic three which is social media should not have the rights to store and use our personal information


so first of all, , they do not have the rights to store our uh store and use our personal information, because of privacy, how can they be sure that our


personal information are safe, secure and secure, so for example when we go online, using our social networks, our profile our status our location or even share content are so easily accessible and if they


have the rights to store our information, they will know what we have done uh where we have been to, so this will actually, uh, people will actually fear for their own safety so just imagine


, if let's say they they store our location because right nowadays our smartphones uh we have these GPS settings so if let's say uh and and and sometimes our GPS are automatically switched on without noticing it


so if uh they are able to start our our location they they will know our whereabouts, so , people will actually fear for their safety, and uh imagine your your children, those especially those hackers they will they will know uh they will those hackers they might hack into the social media


then they will have their your history your location, they will have your access of uh your location of your child, how will you will feel or how will you behave, second thing is personal information like uh credit card informations sometimes we we purchase things online or using iTunes store


or or using Facebook we will purchase something so imagine they they they have the right to store our credit card information, how would that be hackers my hack into our our credit cards information our bank informations


so so we don't want to, like suddenly wake up in the middle of night then we, have alert saying that !wow! there are few thousand dollars from transactions being used, uh example being in US dollars in, euro dollars so so this in fact these are the things that I I actually personally encountered before


how will you do benji


okay so , again, I will say that they do not have the rights why I give you another perfect example, advertising, behavioral advertising, so for example recently you know I was just typing a few words like uh


wine opener suddenly I, have all sorts of advertising information comes to me, be it Facebook be it uh IG, so we have all sorts of our wine opening equipments uh decanter everything


so I I realise that okay they they they're advertising they're trying to sell something so I do have the option to, not to buy it but the thing is this thing keeps popping up, throughout the entire week


or throughout perpetually until I actually report, to Facebook and uh put a hard stop on it, and uh not only that ah, I'm also required to put a reason


so one of the reasons I given to them is uh repetitive advertising, which I find it very uh irritating so I I, don't feel that they do have the rights and they


cannot store information, if not, every now and then we will be uh you know they will just, irritate us with those uh advertising, and not only that third parties application are also uh interacted with social media networks


so without actually being part of the social networks example this application usually take many forms and some typicals and, popular forms including games which I find it very irritating, and online post quiz


or even third parties' interfaces with the social network, so my my feel is they do not have the rights


not really okay, another okay so so uh another thing that I want to highlight is uh, they do not have the rights for example you imagine they have the they have they they actually store our information like our birthday


so it's actually very scary sometimes it's it's like uh I receive email, , during my birthday months they will actually uh send me things stuff that I don't really need, and these are the things that that I I I receive so many inside my junk mail and and


and sometimes like I might even open, like a, is like a scam, it can be a scam, or even sometimes I open it can , I got virus because of that


and, ya these are the things so so what I'm fearful of is uh my own personal information be it birthday credit card, and uh my address


so I I fear for my safety, I fear for my family, and uh, so so what I will usually do is to prevent all this right what are the things that that we can actually do is we can actually use a very strong password that is uh different


from the previous password that we use across different sites use different passwords, and , the best is to provide security questions if possible to protect ourself


and , if needed considering creating a new email address, and provide minimum amount of personal information necessary, and also best is to review the uh privacy policy and the terms of service


and during the registration processes social networks often , offers or provide you with an email account password so you can actually access to your address book so if you consider using uh all these features uh make sure you use uh read all the


terms and conditions, and uh to be familiar with the privacy settings, and uh, be careful of sharing, uh personal informations uh even like age


or even the place of birth, so this information can be useful to identify thieves, and to data mining companies, so if you do consider posting like our birthday age place of birth restrict


who have the access to this information using the site's privacy settings


so so uh I hear you, so okay my my concern is uh if they have the rights to keep our personal information like our our status our location our shared content


uh what will happen to us our safety, so imagine when I talk about location they actually know where we go, where we stay, so uh if they have the rights to keep our information they would share our data


or often sell our data to third parties, to make more money which is their intent, and when they first started be it a social media or what is to generate more income for themselves


so if they have the rights to to keep, our information or or or continue to use without our acknowledgement or often, you might say ya we will users might always you know before we register for Facebook or any social media we must acknowledge first and everything like that but most of the time honestly how many people will go and read and Facebook being so influential being so powerful


how are we sure that they might not misuse our information to third parties, and, ya so so every time like I I've actually fear for my own uh personal information being misused


and uh based on the history and stuff like that so how will you address that, how would how would how would people like how will you make people like us feel safe to use such social media


okay so to wrap things up I feel that uh we, social media shouldn't have the rights to store information so uh information like our credit card so credit cards uh date of birth et cetera they shouldn't share with uh


and so I think that still uh like with uh all this type of uh with the in the age of internet, basically people we are more exposed to things like forums whereby people can just uh post questions there and there will be uh people who address your questions or so so it's actually with the age of internet it's a good platform whereby people can interact and information is provided and exchanged instantaneously


so for example in terms of let's say like for example uh newspaper companies actually buying over uh certain like tech forums or so for example our SPH in singapore they actually purchased hardware zone because it was a a good platform whereby people will give technology reviews and stuff


so it's a very I'll say unbiased kind of feedback over there it's free for all you like it you post you don't like it you put it down you like to question you don't like the answer you just ignore, so choice is always at your fingertips lah, and uh it's more open at this point in age


okay so basically right now in terms of let's say when we talk about uh in the age of the internet TV and newspaper have become irrelevant to me I don't think that this is the case but it's uh become more or less that uh TV and newspaper they have actually become more adaptable


in the age of the internet because gone are the days really whereby people will uh just sit down and uh just watch whatever the TV is feeding you right know what we are doing at this moment is we are chasing for content, okay so for example if let's say what has uh actually replaced TV it will be things like Netflix uh be things like Disney plus whereby all of us uh this is to uh if they they have content that is uh actually curated specially for us and what we


want to actually see so for example if right now if uh in the past uh every prime time slot lets say seven PM to nine thirty PM we have a particular movie let's say home alone, and every week it's a different content but it has already been preset what we can watch what we cannot watch but then at at this point in time what happens is that everything like with uh with the age of uh the internet we can decide what we want to watch and


TVs and stuff uh in terms of let's say news or uh maybe let's say uh documentaries or comedy shows, they are all being uploaded onto the internet whereby viewers can actually watch as and when they like gnome uh gone are the times whereby the TV stations or whatsoever they dictate what they want us to watch and see


so in terms of control from TV, uh stations and stuff it has actually become, irrelevant at this time but then at the same time they have to adapt to changes that's ongoing in the technological field so at this I would say in terms of let's say when we talk about newspaper newspaper or news stations in particular


they are actually very very good sources whereby we want to check whether the news is accurate or factual because whatever news that we see on internet uh there are news and can be noises that uh people they want to uh actually uh put on


good in uh the trending department of things so, things over uh maybe on the internet they tend to be maybe more exaggerated and towards a certain people's liking, so in terms of let's say for example newspaper and uh news in particular they have also created accounts in social media platforms like Instagram on Facebook


okay so people consumers like us we can actually make use of this uh them being on the social media platform to cross-check the accuracy that various newspapers or let's say news channels they are actually trying to tell everyone out there


so it comes back to the point whereby things have actually become more and more open during this age in time due to technology so it doesn't mean that newspapers news per se they have become irrelevant


kenny back to you


I would say in terms of let's say uh for example relevance towards uh TV and newspaper it will then depend on the age group that that particular individual in is in


so for example if you talk about our parents let's say uh maybe even people in their forties or so, to them having a physical copy of the newspaper or watching news directly from the TV it has been embedded inside their day-to-day life because they would have belong to a generation whereby technology hasn't been that advanced before


so what this means is that uh it's still relevant to a group of uh people but then it's uh less relevant towards the other group of people, so for example if let's say my dad himself every day if he doesn't uh go down to buy his uh one set of uh chinese morning newspaper uh okay at night uh the the what is that the #wan bao#


okay so it's uh actually something that has already been embedded inside his daily lifestyle for him to miss out on this particular step each day itself it it will be like it's it's a detrimental to him is like he miss out a important part of his life okay


so there's also people whereby in his generation, if they don't watch the uh six thirty the nine thirty PM news is like, they are not updated with the world, so of course they have uh actually start to use the handphone uh be uh on Facebook or so but then to them in terms of let's say trying to get news from this is still a bit difficult


if they want to let's say they want to go to a certain article or so you tell them they can even tell you which page uh which page to look at which uh which section to to actually go to of course in uh for example for people like us we can uh we can actually see this in the same category also


at the tips of our uh at the fingertips lah so basically what it means is that internet is good for, a majority of the people but for the other, perhaps it's not so good for them so I would say in terms uh let's say for example


TV or newspaper uh what what we see how we view that whether it's relevant or not relevant it depends on how we think about it


in this uh topic statement itself it's missing one very strong keyword as well, radio okay so for example if they don't have newspaper they don't have TV the uh the reporters are taking a break but then there's always radio to keep them updated as to what they want to find out uh find out in the world


so for example in terms of a very very strong fan in terms of uh the radio space itself it will be my mom itself okay so both of them like my dad love the newspaper my mum loves the radio so without doing all these they they


it's a very very relevant to them that they need to rely on such sources to keep themselves updated with what is happening around the world, okay but in terms of let's say for example us uh what we what we'll do is that we will just go onto social media we are just we will just go go into the free version of the app itself to to find out about things that's happening around the world


so even if let's say something happens we will also tell them through uh things like WhatsApp okay so it's quite thankful that they they are still very open towards uh things like uh, WhatsApp channel to get updated and keep in touch with every one of us so


it has also become us to tell them that oh okay this is happening in the world that is happening the world where should we go for the our next holiday or so we can just send an image across to them or no matter where we are which part of where we are in we can always just send a selfie or send a picture to them


everybody is updated even then, so if let's say you think that TV and newspaper have become irrelevant I would say it's to a limited extent


ya so so like uh what you mentioned perhaps in down uh down uh in a few years' time, will will this uh TV will newspaper become obsolete definitely so, so I would say that in it's a matter of whether people are getting more and more adaptable towards uh internet I'm sure because there's uh with time everybody will start to be more inclined towards uh turning towards the internet as a good source of information for uh let's say content viewing


and uh in in terms of let's say social media or so they have actually curated all the necessary feeds that we want to look at


yup benji okay so basically in my uh my opinion itself I do not think that uh people should actually be given the right to remain anonymous lah so if let's say


for example if let's say for uh I would say by letting people remain anonymous itself it can actually lead to a lot of unseen attack okay so we can call this kind of this group of people the keyboard warriors


so for example if let's say we are talking about a celebrity itself they are under under the scrutiny of everybody out there, so for example to them we do not know what they are actually going through how the celebrities are actually feeling


if let's say ah they done something wrong, okay so for example if let's say a celebrity actually goes out with their child or so and uh the child actually misbehaves okay so a normal parent itself if the child misbehaves they'll either beat beat the the child okay and tell them not to do that


but being under the the scrutiny of everybody out there okay and uh right now with technology so advanced people can just take a snapshot or take a video of that particular celebrity hitting their child so in terms of let's say what will happen next okay


people will start to post it onto social media and the celebrity itself would get flamed by everybody out there in terms of let's say a normal disciplinary things that a parent is actually carrying out would be deemed as child abuse by many people out there


so for example what is the celebrity going through in terms of uh what is going through in their mind , a simple measure of let's say disciplining the child out of love has been portrayed and uh given a twisted fact that he or she is abusing their child


so of course all this type of thing it's uh because of uh the celebrity not being able to uh see in real life who this person is or what it can actually be just a normal name like I have for example I can just put my name as uh A B C D E and I can just


type a comment okay but in the celebrities eyes that people they're judging they're scrutinizing them for all kinds of action that they carry out because they are in the public eye, so I do not think that it's fair to remain anonymous when it comes to being such a a a position like a celebrity itself okay not only will it affect


the celebrity it will also affect their loved ones because they're also at the constant scrutiny of everybody out there, so we another very very good topic that many people uh can think about it will definitely be things like bullying


okay so right now in terms of let's say bullying in the past without anything like social media or anything, it uh bullying involves pushing bullying involves punching but right now with just a mere keyboard and uh quick fingers everybody uh has resulted into cyberbullying


so in terms of all this type of things bullying has also advanced okay not only from physical but it has translated into a mental kind of bullying okay it takes a a psychological impact and it's detrimental to one's mental health


so I would say that if let's say you really want to say something, take pride stand out and make your facts known don't hide behind things like a keyboard and uh just uh type non uh type away lah so I would say this is uh to me


I still stand firm that no one should remain anonymous especially if you are using social media or so if you want to say something mean it man up and just say it


ya so in terms of let's say when we talk about duality it uh it might lead to a case whereby people have a split personas, I would say it's uh more or less the same kind of thing is like uh for example when you want uh you create a social media account like Instagram people will never portray the ugly side or the ugliest truth out therefore the public to scrutinise


so for example whenever you post anything on things like Instagram you want to be able to showcase the best that you have so it's like you are remaining behind remaining behind a imaginary facade whereby people will perceive you to have a good and beautiful life


okay so in terms of this for example when you want to actually show, you want to make an opinion that is heard out there if you remain anonymous people will think that oh you lack credibility, you have something to hide you are not maybe telling the truth because what if you uh if let's say you make known to anybody out there your own opinion your own point you have the credibility when you dare to actually showcase


yourself so for example if let's say we talk about the politicians that we have right now okay if let's say they were to remain anonymous, they can also maybe they might be able to influence in terms of people's viewpoints towards themselves or whatsoever but that would uh be a different case if they choose to remain anonymous


okay so they might not be able to convey the right amount of message across to us influence their political decisions or political opinions that they might have, so I would say it's not uh right for people to remain anonymous because it's uh it it will be better if things were being open and for everybody to see and uh


just let everybody to see who's your true self and not hide behind a certain facade you can talk about having a different persona uh from real life uh in reality, as compared to maybe uh in a different spectrum itself but at the end of the day you got to be accountable to yourself


and you got to face what is in front of you so you cannot do that by uh living a lie so not everything is a fairy tale whereby you hide behind something that is uh fictional so of course you can uh remain anonymous or then what's the point


okay so for example like this if let's say we talk about strong advocates for freedom of speech I would say in the western world the americans they are very vocal they're very opinionated so for example if they have they think about something uh in their mind they will just speak freely this is where we come from in terms of freedom


of speech whereby you won't be judged for who you are or what you want to say as long as you say things that it actually makes sense and you say things that matters to you so for example the the, the recent case okay whereby the person was actually killed by uh police okay so everybody


in the US they actually step up celebrities let's say uh famous stars they are floyd mayweather they actually step up to say that !hey! they, discriminate something like this from this kind of uh racial discrimination from happening so all this type of things is that no matter what people out there in the US they do not care


because this is something that they, believe strongly and they need to stand their ground to make sure that everybody out there in the world knows that this is not the right thing to do so always is like for example if you remain anonymous okay of course your safety is protected but at the end of the day people right now


they have so much time okay especially during uh periods like COVID or so they can also do their own CSI they can easily sieve out where you stay or what alias that you are actually hiding behind so


indirectly when these people find out uh the cruel being that is being behind this anonymity okay so what will happen is that they will just shame you upfront as well, so in this point of uh age in terms of technological advances there's really no way to really hide behind anything


so of course I bet this comes, to having security settings for example if let's say you are talking about your banks uh bank details or so you'll have authentication tools in place whereby you need to key in a one-time password into your phone or to actually


obtain a pin from your secured device this to is this is to ensure that your data remains protected, okay and who should actually be responsible for your data, it would definitely be the company that you place your trust your money in so that is uh the banks you uh let's say for example right now in terms of what you are


trying to debate on to remain anonymous how would the banks then be able to verify that you are the right person that is uh actually handling things like this, because data is private you will only know what data you


provide to uh organisations like banks you will be the one that is able to set your password set your security questions information that is important to yourself, so if you remain anonymous you give a fake name or so you might even forget such important things uh going forward when you do your own log in into your banking accounts or so


ya okay so in terms of let's say for example this social media should not have the rights to store and use our personal information I would actually agree to this statement but then to a certain extent itself


I would say in terms of in terms of the rights to store they should have the rights to store to a certain extent and uh they should not have the full access to what they want to store, and uh this should actually be decided by us the individual users okay so in terms of let's say what is


what is acceptable to store I would say in terms of let's say things like uh , maybe let's say uh those not sensitive informations like for example my hobby or whatsoever but in terms of let's say things like bank details personal informations on where I stay perhaps it should not be stored on their platform but


on our own personal devices whereby it has the tools like auto prompts or so, this will help us to in terms of when we want to keep information we will not have to key in the same kind of information as and when


it's required it's all automatically pre-filled for us in our own our own phones itself, so in terms of let's say social media not having the rights to store all this type of uh sensitive information like our credit card details our address or so this is uh I would say the right should not be given to them


but for us to decide what we want to store with them in terms of our personal information,


okay so like uh what you mentioned in terms of let's say preference or personal information like what we key in as to what we search for example your case wine wine openers itself I'm sure you also will definitely feel very irritated


as to uh see the same old things coming up over and over again I actually feel you because it's also a same experience that I actually have, so I was uh looking at cars throughout the weekend, so in terms of let's say my my so-called my feed in Facebook or even on Instagram itself since they co-own each other right now uh Facebook owns Instagram right now so things like for example all the different car brands or so it just appears right at


uh my my uh my feed itself so sometimes I also feel uh find it that it's a bit scary whereby it's uh, when we talk about certain things like let's say I'm talking to you right now maybe my phone is actually listening so of course if let's say uh right now maybe we're talking about this topic on debate itself


so perhaps in terms of let's say our feet perhaps later we will be seeing all sorts of different debates that's happening in the US or maybe the upcoming elections if any uh, in the coming months or so uh in the coming month itself so for example in terms of let's say uh


I would still stand firm as to having uh uh like for example we decide on the rights to be able to store what should be stored and what should not be stored so the decision actually lies in our court rather than social media having the rights upfront


to store and use all our personal information, these companies social media companies they actually use it on the pretext of uh analytics analytics itself to see what is , uh what the consumer wants and they actually sell it to this data over to businesses because let's say when we talk about social media platform it's uh only right for example for something like this to be free


but then if let's say free who will uh if things are free so how would they come up with the different kinds of uh money uh or profits to actually run something like this so it definitely come through all this sale of uh


uh I would say Facebook they were actually involved in something like the cambridge analytics uh scandal whereby uh they were actually be sued by uh companies to who actually use their


their data unwillingly okay so uh over here is that , so over here is that uh in terms of what they have to store or so it really lies in what we want them to store and not everything is up to them


like we can actually so what informations that we share with uh the public for example I think let's say Facebook itself we can limit our audiences to friends only and not to make all informations public so this will more or less protect us because I would say


our friends will will know when is our birthday so I don't mind sharing such joyous occasions with them so for example for me itself I I tend to make it open because I don't feel that there's anything to hide in terms of the day or year that I'm actually born


so uh it really depends on personal preference as to, what you feel it's okay to share or divulge to the public eye, or even things like for example uh like for me for example my mobile number I'm okay to share with everyone


because to me it's like if let's say the person if I don't share the number I'm still also at the uh uh I would still, be able to receive spam calls like stuff because if let's say for example spam calls or so it's not really up to uh my info being shown on social media but it's more towards telecommunication companies selling my mobile numbers to maybe let's say uh telemarketers or so


uh for them to it's another revenue source to them so it's also beyond my control if let's say I, choose to put it on Facebook also my number straight away or if I don't put so to me I'll still say that it's a personal preference as to


how I want to portray or whether the company is allowed to store and use my personal information so of course if let's say for example if I post a picture or so I would feel that if let's say I have a kid


uh it's not right for them to actually target my kid because they are absolutely out of the picture and I am the one who's choosing what to post and what they can use


I would say in terms of let's say when they store things like uh preference on what I want to view or so, perhaps in terms of let's say uh the example that I shared uh I was looking through cars or so if it's if it's for the next few days is okay but if let's say it's a repetition on maybe like for the whole month or so I would say that is a a bit abusive


to abuse my trust or whatsoever so in terms of let's say what they can uh use my information for, uh it's it's more towards the extent that they actually use it because sometimes I find that uh it's more convenient for example if let's say uh when we were talking about my hobby when it comes to food


uh my feed is all curated with food lah in with uh things like for example uh travel destinations or so so it would give me suggestions and ideas whereby I won't really need to think of what I want to eat or what I want to do it's more or less like eh I see !hey! oh this uh


maybe this particular brand of like Kebab it appears oh I don't have to spend much time thinking what I want to eat for dinner, because this kind of thing it actually just pops up, so but then it will be uh very irritating if let's say for the next few meals it pops up as every day I have to eat Kebab Kebab Kebab Kebab all the different kinds of Kebab that is out there in singapore I think that is a detrimental and abuse of uh


uh the the usage of my personal information but if it gives me other alternative suggestions on what I can do for maybe uh the period of consideration I think it makes sense for them to uh have a bit of uh accessibility to my personal information


if it helps in my daily life


oh okay sorry , okay


okay, okay uh arts can bring about positive social changes, oh okay sorry, okay part one debate topic one


ah yes okay so in my argument against how arts can bring about social change I want to bring up how negative effects of propaganda art has lasting effects


so art is used deliberately by political groups to incite shifts in social dynamics to their favour and they vantage on rifts between different strata of society which causes more social harm than good so it shouldn't be any surprise that design is a powerful tool persuasion


the employment of design techniques to convey messages has been traced back as far as fifteen thousand BC where cave paintings were made in france so in the war time climate battling countries provoke their populists to join the fight through art and entertainment, so uh these design efforts had a powerful impact on viewers propaganda animation design created a sense of community among peoples of various nations and let a fire under the feet of several soldiers providing an outlet for uh for those emotionally physically and financially suffering as a result of that conflict


so towards the end of world war two the japanese released propaganda materials one of the most prominent being the first anime film in nineteen forty five #mitsuyo seo# painted a picture of the japanese occupation of asia in his animated piece Momotaro or


#momotaro#’s divine sea of warriors the production feature animals playing the role of japanese pilots on a quest to obtain more land and occupy more regions, Japanese war time propaganda from animations and films to posters and advertisements perpetuated the country's ideal of group over individual and sacrificing yourselves for the greater good


art was used to a similar effect by the japanese's war time enemies propaganda animations design aim capture those who weren't initially in the war, through snafu character in the American world war two film Booby Trap the united states government highlighted aspects of the war that will intrigue young males from displaying woman's chest to visualizing devastating explosions the animation targeted a particular subset of the American population and spurred them to action


so to quote maureen furniss an author of animation the global history from an interview with Eye On Design he says it was an effective series for imparting messages to be careful and keep your mouth shut using a character that people could laugh at


with things like this they knew that even if people had heard or read the message a hundred times snafu will get their attention however not all propaganda art was created with the mindless quality in which art is subordinate to bring more shame high art was used as proxy ground for international conflict


during the cold war for instance modern art became a weapon deployed by the american government in nineteen forty six the US state departments spend almost fifty thousand dollars buying seventy nine paintings by ben shahn , georgia o'keeffe and other's one international tour exhibition called advancing american art which ended up in Prague at the time when czechoslovakia was behind the iron curtain


the idea was to refute soviet claims that america was culture evacuees there are even reports that the CIA help to fund the abstract expressionism movement for similar reasons, I also like to bring up the argument on modern day propaganda to prove how art is being used even now


far from modern from war times uh as a weapon so the film breakfast in uh breakfast at Tiffany's from nineteen sixty one this was released sixteen years after the US nuclear bombing of Hiroshima on august six nineteen forty five at the end of world war two on september second nineteen forty five


so this film has instances of yellow face which is historically which historically consisted of other stereotype of asian people including broken teeth and having eye so small that they are not able to see in the opening scene of breakfast at tiffany's mister


Yunioshi is unable to see where he is going and is tripping over everything he encounters until he grabs his glasses which from a from a from a sociological stand point and given the usage of yellow face in this role is meant to insinuate that japanese people are blind because of their almond cheek eyes and reinforces their chink stereotype


the film was released in a post world war two US but, but perpetuated such attitudes carried during the war through mainstream media this shows how the resemblance of the yellow peril a xenophobic theory of a threat posed to western nations such as the US by the japanese and the chinese given the influx of asian migration to the US in the mid till late nineteen forties


given the existence of post world war two attitudes among the US public and mainstream media in the nineteen sixties, viewers would still internalize characters from films of this time period such as mister Yunioshi as being representative of the japanese as a whole and this ethnic groups consideration as being the enemy of the US


anti asian racism and propaganda dominated mainstream media in form of films art illustration newspapers and theater following world war two and the US bombing of Hiroshima, especially given the passing of FDR executive order twenty sixty six and nineteen fifty five which called for the intermittent uh which called for the interment of japanese americans xenophobic attitudes prevailed


thus I conclude my argument


the opposition would like to bring up the fact that although we recognize that art has the power to create positive social change it also has the power to create much negative social change that perhaps zeros out some of the positive effect of this uh some of the positive effects that it creates


so I'd like to bring up the point on the weaponization of art in particular music in twenty eighteen Germany's national train operator #deutsche bahn# announce plans to a use atonal music in the city's railway stations, to drive away drug users and the homeless atonal music is an experimental type of music created in the early twentieth century that doesn't rely on conventional harmonies and rhythms


it can thus be unsettling and discomforting to some listeners furthermore in west palm beach florida you might hear something strange a playlist of annoyingly catching children songs including baby shark and raining tacos played on loop all night to deter homeless from sleeping near any event centre


the waterfront lake pavilion a luxury venue that can be rented for two hundred and fifty to five hundred dollars per hour doesn't want rough slippers on it's patio so the city's parks and recreation department devised the sonic deterrent , thus we see how art has been harness in a manner that is not necessarily always positive and can create in fact negative negative consequences and harm people such as the homeless I'd like also to bring up


some of the negative effects of modern day art such as cultural appropriation and the creation of social ideals now I'm not saying that art doesn't have a power to create positive impact but I think it's worthwhile to examine some of the long lasting negative impacts of art


such as with pop culture and music, so here I list twenty five of music's most some of music's most obnoxiously misogynist songs including songs like guns and roses it's so easy and near young a men needs a maid which perpetuate certain ideals uh certain


certain sexes and misogynist ideals in culture so although it is not the although art is not to be blamed it is important to consider how art can be manipulated in such a way or perhaps unknowingly perpetuate such ideals


and these negative effects unfortunately zeroed out some of the positive effects that we see in society thus I conclude my rebuttal arguments


I I think I see your point on how the vagina monologues aims to combat the negative effects of some of the art we see on mainstream media


but I'd like to push forward the fact that the vagina monologues though popular is not as popular as some of the misogynistic songs that we see in mainstream media and in fact it's very nature as mainstream media , shows how it exist in the subconscious of society whether we wanted to or not and therefore might permeate


our consciousness as society and therefore uphold certain misogynistic sexist ideals that we don't really believe in


I think that's a fair argument


however it doesn't not everybody who, not everybody who listens to these songs has the awareness that that this is something that is not right and the fact that these songs have been allowed and to remain popular for so long I think


might perpetuate the ideal that it's still okay so the


I'm not uh the opposition is not referring to the internet but rather the popularity of art itself


the opposition is arguing not that art the problem lies within art but rather how art is being used


part two debate topic two


the opposition would like to rebut the uh proposition's point on how physical sites now lose their cultural significance over time


physical sites hold a cultural significance to particular groups that stand the test of time in fact their age adds to the significance of these sites as these site grow to reflect their historical narrative of a particular people over time, the proposition stated how


certain sites may just be end up being unnecessary buildings that does not bring value to anyone and I'd like to uh and the opposition would like to oppose that they are certain physical spaces that hold significant that will stand the test of time


for example sacred sites such as the Kaaba in Mecca it is a small shrine located near the center of the great mosque in mecca and considered by muslims everywhere to be the most sacred spot on earth muslims orient themselves towards the shrine during the five daily prayers , bury their death facing its meridian and chariest the ambition of visiting it on pilgrimage or hajj in accordance to the commands set out in the quran


furthermore there are sacred sites such as notre dame which have visited by around uh thirty million people a year which is an average of thirty thousand people everyday , furthermore about fifty thousand pilgrims and visitors enter the cathedral on peak days the crown of thorns along with other relics are held in its treasury museum furthermore the veneration is held on first fire of each month for believers


along with at least five services or mass conducted everyday on top of more than two thousand celebrations every year, thus these are places which people visit because of the cultural significance and the act of physically visiting these spaces is part of holy pilgrimages thus the physical site itself is crucially important to the culture to which it belongs


I'd like also to bring up how there are heritage site that holds significance to certain ethnic groups for example #rio tinto# uh a big mining corporation recently vandalize uh the australian indigenous people's forty six thousand year old Juukan cave in australia


archaeologist michael french called it the highest archaeological significance in australia while another archaeologist mister chaple summed it up as the dawning of humanity on record, last year light rail construction destroyed an indigenous site in Sydney from which more than two thousand four hundred stone effects and five glass artifacts among the trove of objects were among the trove objects found in a small excavated portion of this site


that showed that aberrational people had used it like a like a quarry between roughly seventeen eighty eight and eighteen thirty site site these are prove of these people existence and denying their relevance to current society, and leaving them to be destroyed is akin to erasing the history of these people thus fueling current day discrimination against certain groups such as the indigenous community in australia


thus the uh the opposition would like to post it how certain sites will never loose their cultural significance and will never become just mere buildings for these buildings are prove of civilization gone by or perhaps uh minority groups that don't have these much rights anymore


I'd like to pass my time onto the proposition


the


thank you proposition so the opposition would like to rebut the proposition's final point on how , uh cultural and heritage site no longer hold their relevance because the physical site no longer has purpose I think the opposition has brought up clearly how their physical spaces with which the physical site itself has a significant purpose to the ethnic and cultural group


furthermore the opposition would like to rebut the proposition's point on relevance verses importance and how not everybody has the same goals and ideals and thus we cannot all work towards maintaining certain heritage site because of uh unified ideal


to quote the UNESCO website heritage is our legacy from the past with what we live with today and what we pass on to the future generations our cultural and natural heritage are both irreplaceable sources of life and inspirations it is the UNESCO goal to bring


to promote the idea that work heritage sites belong to all the peoples of the world respective of the territory on which they are located, thus such a big organization as the UNESCO brings forth the idea that all these heritage and cultural sites although they might only belong in it they might physically belong in a certain geographical territory


they belong to all the peoples of the world because they are they all represent a certain story and history that connects us all as a human race, the fact that such organization exist and are so well funded and internationally recognize proves that cultural and heritage sites are and will continue to be relevant long after humanity existence


uh the opposition is not done with their argument so I like to also bring up the point of how, heritage and cultural site enable humanity to discover profound truth about our species searching far back into time


so for example we look at site such as the rosetta stone which is an ancient egyptian stone bearing inscriptions in several languages and scripts their decipherment let to the understanding of pyrography writing further more let's look at the pyramid of Giza, these architectural feats represent perhaps better than any other archaeological find the power of the ancient state construction involve mass quantities of workman artist builders and brewers


to show that a state uh so these pyramids show that a state had to have the financial means and regulative authority as well as material wealth necessary to accomplish the construction of a single pyramid, and in some case multiple pyramids thus the discovery of the pyramids let us to understand much more about the power relations to egypt as well as how they as a society work


cultural and heritage site hold crucial cultural evidence that unlock information about civilization that have long since parish revealing more about the human race thus I think it's useful to consider how


we need to preserve cultural and heritage sites for future generations to revive our own living memory of our existence thus I pass on my time to the proposition


the opposition would like to propose the argument that it is impossible to look forward into the future without first looking back on our past, uh the opposition has brought up points such as the pyramid of Giza which have enable us to discover things about the societies that exist before us as well as the Rosetta stone which enable us to


decipher language that existed before us in fact language that we are still using today so thus the the opposition argues how it is impossible then to modernize without first looking back on our past doesn't that than vendor culture and heritage site forever relevant


furthermore although it is possible to digitalize these sites and hold them in memory through technology , there are certain physical sites that will forever hold cultural significance and that can never be digitalize for their physical spaces are an important part of the culture which which cherishes them for example it is impossible to simply digitalize


certain sacred site and therefore leave them to be destroyed because , the the physical act of visiting these places is whats important and it's a crucial part of practicing these particular religions


I'd like to pass my time over to the proposition for any rebuttals


the proposition would like to that the opposition would like with like then to propose, the idea that perhaps perhaps digitalizing these sites and taking away the physical space but imprinting the memories on a digital platform actually proves their relevance in today's society so the fact that we


we think that they're important enough and relevant enough to move to a different platform shows that even as we progress they will continue to be relevant and they're important to keep at the forefront of our minds


the yes


the opposition would like to bring up the point that although they're other pressing like the opposition is arguing for the fact that, cultural and heritage site will remain to be relevant but that is not to say that they


arguing for the priority of other issues would not be the same as then arguing for their relevance because just because they are not the forefront or they are not the priority that a state should be


focusing on does not mean that they should loose their relevance


yes but the proposition still hasn't rebutted the opposition's point on how


modernizing and digitalizing these sites proves their relevant and proves how they are important the fact that we feel that we need to carry them forward into the future shows that they will continue to be relevant for the rest of humanity's existent and perhaps even after that


so the proposition is arguing then that the physical sites themselves do not uh no longer hold any relevance


the opposition has already brought the point about how certain uh cultural and heritage sites require the physical site to be there and to be maintained because of certain cultural rights that are tied to visiting these sites


or how certain cultural objects are house in these sites because they are considered the sacred and appropriate place to house these items, thus it is impossible to say that, certain cultural and heritage sites will loose their physical significance and it is possible to digitalize and modernize these sites entirely further more the opposition okay okay thank you


this is part two debate two


okay, part three, debate topic three


the opposition would like to argue how there are pitfalls in art in reflecting society's progress art has long since been connected with the ideas of freedom and progress and reflects the ideals that society


strive towards however by extension this makes it a less effective nearer for for society to hold our gaze to in order to truly reflect upon our progress as is as it is inaccurately and disproportionately reflects the current state of society


thus, some sport gun violence have been written and produced time and time again and scenes with gun violence in movies are featured are scenes with gun violence are feature in movies and on the stage, however they do not have the same staggering impact and urgent call as other mediums such as news and the media perhaps this is due to how art might strive to reflect social progress but it can truly only reflect in retrospect artist create in the aftermath of crisis not


at the moment of the crisis art then has a powerful art has an undeniably powerful impact on the psyche and consciousness of the society but, it is not necessarily the best way to reflect our progress research has proven that the effectiveness of art in raising awareness about social issues varies in accordance to the audience that consumes this art for example george gerbner's cultivation theory brings about the discussion of mean world effect


which suggest that audiences who view much violent content in movies and television began to cultivate a shared sense of their social world as a violent place as the effect of such art on the consumer's view of the world was dependent on the amount of time viewers spend watching art


uh interpreting violence art is then revealed to be a much less effective mirror to reflect social progress than we might think, thus I pass my time back to the proposition


the opposition would like to rebut the proposition's point on how art is a good reflection of society's progress, because of how uh because uh that it's a good reflection of society's progress so the opposition brought a lot of good points about how art is an outlet for artist to dispense their commentary of society


perhaps this actually proves the opposition points about how art reflects the ideals that society strives towards and what we like the ideal society that we strive towards but perhaps it is not a good enough reflection of what society currently is therefore art is not


a true reflection of society's progress the opposition would like to propose who there are other mediums that better reflect the progress of society for example the progress of society is best reflected through its political environment or perhaps it's legal systems


and they way it's citizen are treated the election for certain inflammatory politic figures in some country revealed deeply in great racial discrimination and the hidden insecurities of a larger and majority group when these country were assume to have progress significantly in terms of equality


furthermore the legal treatment of an individual or certain groups of people is often the best reflection of how far a country has progressed the rights allotted to an individual by the law is a reflection of a society and it's high authority's recognition of an individual's identity and their worth and value in the eyes of that society


for example australian laws protect aboriginal heritage sites and non aboriginal sites differently any first breeches of the aboriginal heritage act can result in a maximum fine of twenty thousand dollars, and nine months in prison for an individual or fifty thousand dollars for a company but in the heritage act the fine for damaging or demolishing a a registered heritage site which do not include many aboriginal heritage sites is set at one million


this reflects how certain countries are far from achieving the the level of social progress that they claim in terms of equality and social justice, therefore important shortfalls in social progress are reflected in a political climate of a country and it's legal systems perhaps in a way that is much better than art can present


the opposition would like to pass uh their time on to the proposition


the opposition would like would then like to argue isn't a society then reflected by it's highest power no not just by it's people but also it's highest power of authority, and it's legal systems because artist might imagine the ideal world that they want to live in and that is a reflection of


what we strive towards as a society but it does not necessarily accurately represent the the point at which we have achieve social progress or accurately represent the how far we've come in


terms of how far we've progress as a society and this is because the very nature of art is that it's creative and artist want to imagine an ideal world for ourselves and although this might, be a goal towards we are striving towards it might not represent what society is actually like at that point in time and I think that the legal systems and


the political climate of a country can more clearly reflect that furthermore the opposition would like to present how news and media coverage is perhaps the best way to expose the true progress of society it is news and media coverage of an event that calls attention to certain roadblocks


or shortcomings in our progress as a society as they bring to light the urgency of these issues with clear cut evidence and facts that jerk our attention to issues in a way that only this medium can to quote the american press institute news is part of communication that keeps us inform of changing events issues and characters in the world outside


though it may be interesting or even entertaining the foremost value of news is as a utility to empower to inform the purpose of journalism is thus to provide citizen with the information they need to make the best possible decision, about their lives that can maintain their societies and their governments so by definition news and media provide the best reflection of a society's progress as it's factual documentation of events serves as the most comprehensive coverage on a manner in which it's society functions thus I pass my time over to the proposition


the opposition recognizes that there is certain art in journalism however there should be a distinction that needs to be made between art and news and journalism in terms of the art that the


proposition has brought up in their evidence the art that the proposition referring to is art such as theater and visual arts and writing and these are all creative, creative products and creative platforms with which artist imagine a better world for ourselves and process what has been going on and reflect it in their artwork however this is different from the media and news coverage and journalism which


strives to reflect information in a way that is empowering to individuals and enables them and equips them with the knowledge but is in a manner that is perhaps more factual, thus the opposition would like to argue that although the arts is a great way to reflect perhaps some of the


experiences of individuals in society and what a society is going through journalism and the media is still a clearer way, and perhaps a better way to reflect the true progress of society because it doesn't make use of it it it it it isn't a creative platform in the same way that are is and therefore by


by nature it will be it serves as a better platform to truly hold the mirror of society and enable us to recognize whether we have truly progress or not


the uh the opposition would like to argue how although that might have been true in the times of the mayans at this point in society we have progressed to a point where there's a greater distinction between, art for the sake of creating and perhaps creating awareness and the news and journalism and media although the opposition does not dispute the fact that art is used to spread information and create awareness there's still a distinction between art


and journalism and the news and the media and rightly so because the art serve as a platform for artist to imagine and to creatively express and an outlet for them to express what their feeling and their hopes and their dreams for society but


the news and the media aims to empower and inform and give facts about the situation that we are and the that state that society is been now so although that might okay thank you okay


part one debate topic one


arts can bring about positive social changes today art is a vehicle for social change they can give voice to the politically or socially disenfranchise a song film or novel can rouse emotions and those who encounter it inspiring them to relief a change within the history of social movements


art and media have always played a role from political posters to buttons to film and music so how do arts affect social change in the community level involvement and existence of art improves lives of youths and social well being especially for people within the low income bracket


statistic show that at risk students involved in arts are twenty three percentage points more likely to be involved into college than peers with low arts involvement this is the twenty twelve study done by the national endowment of arts in washington D C in D C


arts education is a field levering intervention all students or youth benefit from arts education but research shows that it's effect on academic achievement is strongest for lowest income students such achievements or outcomes include increased high education graduation rates


and social emotional outcomes including fewer behavioral challenges low income students with high level of arts experience in schools are also more likely to attend college vote and volunteer in their community this was stated in a study done by the university of pennsylvania in twenty seventeen


the arts promote academic and life outcomes by providing opportunities to learn critical thinking skills and build technical capabilities for expression the arts promotion of better social well being in lower income communities is shown in the study from the social impact of the arts project in twenty seventeen


where it states that low income neighbourhood with cultural resources have fourteen percent fewer cases of child abuse and neglect and eighteen percent less serious crimes than low income neighbourhoods without culture resources in neighbourhoods with limited economic resources engagement without art and culture create social


social capital that it exert a strong positive effect on well being in both primary care and behavioral health music and art therapy are widely recognized strategies to reduce stress and anxiety as well as well as cope with symptoms of disease


a report by the all party preliminary group states that sixty seven percent of music therapy participants with dementia felt less anxious and reduced their use of medication many communities use public art and cultural assets as a tool for health promotion


to address inequalities in social determinant's of health the social and physical environments that affect a wide range of health functioning and quality of life outcomes and risks in a book called the gerontologist in eighteen in twenty eighteen it states it it's findings that forty


forty five percent of medical institutions nation wide offer some sort of arts programme with eight out of ten of these stating they do say say that they benefit patient recovery


the proposition would like to argue with the opposition that, propaganda isn't used currently during this period of time that and also even though propaganda is available at this time and age the fault does not lie within the art forms it lies within the government that and also with propaganda art and art in general there are always two sides of the story two sides of the coin


art is used for propaganda for one purpose and there's always the other purpose and such purpose is what I'm gonna talk about in my second point the second point is gender equality and women rights movement and the feminist theory it emerged in the late nineteen nineteen sixties and the early nineteen seventies


in a research done by the victorian health promotion foundation in twenty eighteen it states that art can be a powerful tool to promote gender equality for heath and well being and inspire culture awareness social connection and change it can help people imagine what it's like to be someone else and understand the issues around gender inequality


modern women are often under represented and silent members of the society and art gave women the skills and opportunities to tell their own and other women's stories which amplified their voices and increased their visibility, art is seen also to challenge toxic masculinity with encompasses negative socially regressive masculine traits including domination devaluing women homophobia and violence the project locker room talk in twenty eighteen focuses on one of these environments sport


during the project high school footballers used writing and storytelling to confront the hyper masculine football culture and and redefine what it's like to be male by breaking down the idea of masculinity it is seen that art is a platform which allows people to evaluate certain harmful societal constructs


by bringing these values bringing these issues to light and promote social change other projects explored the problem of male dominated environments which can make women and minority groups feel excluded uncomfortable and intimidated some of these projects example


women in sound woman on sound key change and yours and ours supported and encouraged women to participate in and experience these environments to address gender bias and equality the social changes brought about by art was found to encourage girls to enter male dominated fields


and change ideas around gender masculinity and violence against women by highlighting and and problematizing drivers such as gender identity rigid gender stereotypes feminine and masculine norms recognition representation and isolation


such initiatives can contribute to a safer culture to prevent violence against woman from occurring, another example that is a good example of gender related art being upscale extended and stretch to have a stronger and wider impact to promote social change is the vagina monologues first performed off broadway in nineteen ninety six and publish in nineteen ninety eight the vagina monologues have been adapted hundreds of times and performed by celebrities and groups


the author eve ensler waives her rights to the play for one day every year so that activist around the world can perform it and hold events to promote it's message these events raise money for groups that work to end violence against women after the popularity of the vagina monologues they created one billion rising


which started on valentine's day on in twenty twelve and seeks to end rape and sexual violence against women, it is a signature dance holds flash mobs attends protest and produce online videos to reach more people in conclusion the art is the only space that allows people to voice their opinions in their own unique way the social changes they can bring are nearly permanent especially when it's tied in with the media especially the internet


now I handover my time back to the opposition


to state the opposition's point the proposition would like to bring up that pop culture isn't exactly the cause of perpetuating stereotypes in a sense where stereotypes existed in society before art has brought it to light, like I said before the vagina monologues is one of the good examples that shows of gender related art and stuff that actually debunks the stereotypes of sexist


of, the sexist issues in society it is also if you're talking about pop culture the vagina monologues is actually part of pop culture because it was performed in broadway and broadway is a very big part of the pop culture in art right now it might not be mainstream media pop culture but it is


mainstream to a certain extent art culture, hence your point of art to be weaponized and used in a way that only perpetuates stereotypes isn't exactly valid


the proposition would like to argue then that , aren't these songs and pop culture essentially bringing up the main issues of our time it might be perpetuating certain stereotype but they bringing to light all these stereotypes in order for us to look at it in the face


and realize that this exist and to debunk them in our everyday lives


then the proposition would say that the opposition is highlighting the issue of the internet instead of uh the issue of that art isn't promoting like positive social change


then the opposition would argue to a certain extent and ask the opposition what do you mean by the popularity and where does the popularity come from instead of how


art is the issue at hand


part two debate topic two


cultural and heritage sites have lost their relevance in the context of modernization the proposition would argue that it has caused culture and heritage sites to lose their relevance modernization is the process of starting to use the most recent methods ideas equipment and et cetera


so that something becomes or seems more modern with and this is defined by the cambridge dictionary the push for modernization has placed emphasis on economic prosperity and the development over the intangible value of cultural preservation as such the the conservation of cultural and heritage sites


will mean the lost in opportunity to improve further economy of the country therefore with the focus of a country is to have a good economy to ensure the livelihood of it's people culture and heritage sites have lost their relevance if it does not bring any economic benefits for example given singapore's recurrence problem of


land scarcity there is a tight regulation where the local authorities to decide the purpose of land allocation for different purposes be it commercial or residential as every land available can be of importance to help create a hub that will improve the economy of singapore


the global heritage foundation even stated in twenty ten that the appeal of modernization often wins out over that of culture heritage preservation and even national level heritage protection does not guarantee that a significant culture asset will survive


from a historical perspective cultural and heritage sites has lost their relevance as these sites hold memories of the past that may not hold any meaning in the present or the future as a result these sites may end up being just unnecessary building that does not bring any value to anyone


furthermore if the memories are and the memories the culture heritage sites hold negative memories to sites it only causes result it only results in people getting consistently reminded of bad memories which does not bring any benefits to their country or it's people


therefore these historical sites has lost their relevance as they can be deemed a thing of the past that does not belong in the present or future, the proposition now hands the time to the opposition


the proposition would like to argue with the opposition's point of significance by questioning the the definition of significance versus relevance so essentially the definition of relevance is the degree to which something is related or useful to what is happening or talked about


and this is a definition by the cambridge university in this case relevance is dependent on a person's score, if something has the function to helping achieve a goal then it becomes relevant the problem for cultural and heritage sites is that when it comes to relevance what is relevant to one person may not be relevant to another it is in fact not possible in practical terms to be relevant to all people of of all the time


this is due to a numbers of factors individuals don't pursue goals and don't uh not, don't unanimously share the same model of the world therefore depending on their private knowledge and experiences something like a heritage site may not be relevant to achieving their goals


the culture and heritage sites are, culture and heritage sites have been rendered irrelevant due to other pressing issues that demand relevance national disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes join the litany of human aggression death and errors of human of judgement to bring about disruption collapse and lost


the recent fire at clandon park in surrey is the latest of the UK's man made calamities erasing it's exquisite Italianate interiors it reminded of a park in west sussex which burn down in nineteen eighty six and of windsor castle which suffer a similar fate in nineteen eight nine nineteen ninety two


it is clear we cannot save everything we like to for all time preservation is too great a burden for many developed countries and the UK government has given it's national property portfolio of more than four hundred sites to english heritage it is now a charity case and someone else's problem meanwhile war mongers target prominent monuments and the weather grows more extreme


equating authenticity with prominence is a western concept this may sound odd as many people hold that crafted manifestation of imagination and effort and are irreplaceable by personalist but some cultures routinely reviewed ancient monuments


in japan ancient pagodas are celebrated that have been rebuild perhaps ten times but which inherited inherited that original ethos and form which represents the soul of the object above it's materiality, in western countries it is rare to encounter an ancient building that has not been restore or repaired we pretend that the march of time can be harness and my question is should we get over our own delusions and accept that the patrimony cannot be


replicated in technicality the original culture and heritage sites are no longer relevant as it's memory holds the relevance but the physical sites no longer has the purpose, now the proposition would like to bring the back bring the time back to the opposition


the proposition would like to argue that then


the proposition would like to argue the opposition's point of the physical sites having relevance compared to the information that the sites hold essentially what the proposition is trying to say is that the culture of heritage sites it may have some sort of significance and importance


but it may not be relevant as a physical site anymore, anymore at this day and age, as the point of singapore especially where we do not have enough space for the people to live in the space and keep the culture and heritage sites as well the information that we can get from culture and heritage sites are definitely important but we can always get those information but


have those sites be digitalized instead like currently at this day and age of COVID nineteen we have museums that are completely digitalized and we have virtual tours we no longer needs the physical sites as it is and as they are as of now


because due to modernization we need to move forward with our with our country instead of moving back wards and looking at our history the proposition would pass on the time back to the opposition


the proposition would like to rebut then that, the sites itself may hold significance but they could be rendered irrelevant as the space itself can be modernized in a sense where despite


the space being modernized the the significance of the site does not get diminished it's just that the original site has lost it it's relevance and the modern sites now hold more relevance than they


they they would with the original sites


the proposition would then argue that there are more pressing matters than cultural and heritage sites being relevant and to a certain extents the other issues that demand relevance cause the cultural and heritage sites to lose it's


relevance like I said in my second point there are issues like war and earthquakes and natural disasters that we put so much focus on the lost of the culture and heritage sites that the main issues like earthquakes and hurricanes and war are rendered


less irrelevant than culture and heritage sites, the idea of in japan that ancient pagodas are also rebuild proves my point about the of modernization and allowing cultural and heritage sites to be modernized but still not loose it's significance


so the relevance of the original sites like I said before is of no use but the modern sites hold more relevance than the original sites


the proposition would like to argue that, then bringing back my previous point that your opposition have not rebutted my point fully in a sense where we can still modernize our culture and heritage sites without loosing it's significance


instead of keeping the original breaking apart culture and heritage sites and digitalizing many culture and heritage sites can actually allow


the humanity to modernize themselves and move forward into the future we can hold on to our history but not at, not sacrificing our future movements


which the proposition is saying that these sites are no longer relevant where we can maintain our culture and heritage within modernization by keeping it within technology or keeping it within newer sites


instead of keeping the original old sites that are breaking down and can cause humanity can impact humanity negatively compared to positively


okay , uh my phone kinda of it the recording stopped so I submitted and moved on, yup, three yup


part three debate topic three, the progress of society is best reflected through the arts


the proposition would like to argue that art is a reflection of society because arts include various branches of music painting literature dance and other creative activity they have a significant impact on society religion and education thus deserve the same reverence bestowed upon the sciences


as society expands and grows art changes to reflect it's new developments art reflects our history and documents the crucial component of our lives if you ever studied literature you will see that writing reflects the period it was written in when writers compose their text they are influenced by whatever is impacting their current society


for example the marriage plot which was written by effrey eugenides was a reflection on how the theme of marriage as a driving story line which is commonly used by authors like jane austen is no longer the same driving force today, his book represents a society in which divorce is very common and his personal reflection makes a statement on our societal's marital views people would read eugenides' novel in the future and will get a glimpse of what society prior to the future generation value arts are considered


to be the repository of a society's collective memory art preserves what fact base historic historical records cannot how it felt to exist in a particular place at a particular time art may be the most impartial platform to reflect society as art is the only few platforms that allow some sort of freedom of speech


where in a sense there are always two parts of art one of the most common uses of arts throughout history in a cross culture is the used of art to tell stories sometime these stories are fictional sometime mythological sometimes historical but in every case art is an important way for information to be recorded and preserved


for example look at the art of ancient maya culture or the dominant empire that existed in modern day central america and mexico around twelve thousand BCE until sixteen ninety seven CE the maya were the only culture of the americans to have a true writing system


but much like the islamic kingdoms or imperial china writing was considered a form of art in the case of the maya this is especially true considering that their art was based on images so painting and writings were literally one in the same used to record information story telling art can also be found in the paintings of eighteenth century european emperors


who commission master pieces to capture victories in battles or in a traditional japanese noh theater a musical dance that performance that combines various aspect of performance art including the use of masks and an intrigued dance form to tell complex stories in japanese mythology