(mmhmm) but I still feel like if you if you (mmhmm)


continue


but if you legalise it it will be more regulated than the black market what


okay, a drug should be developed to allow human to live forever


yeah so I'll start I think a drug should be allowed for human immortality, for greater good like for human advances and experiences


so let's say if human can live forever there will be more time to create stuff to make scientific breakthroughs an to create bigger legacy so like for example <P1>stephen hawking</P1> if let's say he had


a longer life or he had immortality he could dedicate his whole life on this physics or whatever scientific research he's working on and he he can actually maybe observe more phenomenon over a longer larger scale of time


to something maybe observing the astrophysics and all in you can't really make significant observation, maybe over, sixty year kind of thing and humans don't even live for that okay human lives for that long but maybe he hasn't worked on it for that long


so, like stars and everything, like the planets they actually change over a very very long period of time let let's like let's say the the uh, it's been around for billions of years but nobody actually live from the dinosaur age to actually to tell us about the fact and whether like dinosaur truly existed and everything


so if we uh if we develop a drug like that to live to let human live forever, people can accumulate the knowledge and experience throughout their lifetime and is not wasted on death like if these topnotch scientists dies he has doesn't have the opportunity to pass on pass on his knowledge or if there's nobody that's capable and


as knowledgeable as him to continue his research, then wouldn't it be very wasted and the research direction might be very misguided without his, guidance lah so, that's why I think that , human immortality can


benefit us, so ya


I think that that's some good points to raise, but I was looking at this at a uh from another perspective so let's say if a human , can take this drug and gain immortality would she still need the necessities required to keep up the life since you already have this drug that will help us live forever maybe this drug already


provides whatever we need to stay alive so, like for your your example about african children dying and if they could take this drug, and live forever, then wouldn't it be, the problem solved


like if, this child is dying because of, famine, starving and or like other diseases, taking this drug will will, enable this, child to live longer what


so you get what I mean


I think that's very good point, yeah and on your point about like life experiences that we're gonna lose out if we don't age


for people who live a long like live forever right, they'll have more opportunity to live experiences and gain knowledge that we could not if we age, so if if let's say a possibility that people that like maybe one thousand years old


will have the same realisation, as he have, in our aging, and, I think it's it's not fair to say that , we will lose out on life experiences because if we live forever then I think there's much more to be gained from that especially like like my previous one I said human advancement


we about like say , going to the moon and everything that kind of thing to be accomplished in a much shorter time, time because people are around to, accumulate the knowledge and apply that knowledge


in a more efficient and quicker way instead of like, you know passing down knowledge and some of these passing down whatever since, it it can it can be lost in translation you know like the ancient civilisation the mayan civilisation, none of them are alive to tell us like what what they did


how humans, like started civilisation for whatever and how the egyptian egyptian built the pyramid, so if they're here today and they had to they had the ability to live forever and they could share the knowledge with us today I believe that that knowledge could be used to advance the human race in a much more exponential speed than


we are, advancing today so I think the benefit of accumulating the knowledge over this immortal life, far outweighs the life lessons that we won't learn as a human with limited life


like you get what I mean


I think you made very valid uh very valid points especially about sustainability and giving immortality to every single person, so and I I mean I do agree that it's not sustainable to let everyone to live forever but err I think you're also making some assumptions that people don't want to live forever because of


they don't want to, like commit their life for somebody else's interest, but also we have to consider that people actually do dedicate their life to, causes like scientific research and nobody ask them to like even even when they


like nobody ask them to okay when you're born you have to like commit your whole life to, researching about the the, planets and everything nobody ask them to because they do it because they want to and what we kind of assumed that they don't want to continue their legacy


even after death, like for <P1>stephen hawking</P1> right, he still continuously working on his scientific research even up to fifty then and, we can't say that he won't be willing to take this drug and live forever to continue on his pursuit for scientific greatness so I think that's a point that we should consider as well but


I also think you raise some very valid points about , human ya inequality, and , I do think that it shouldn't be distributed to like everyone but it should be made as option


especially for like like what I just said err scientific research and, people who has, things and knowledge that can benefit the whole human race and if they are willing to because, it's a choice


instead of making it like oh you should take this because uh you have this knowledge, you get what I mean yeah, but I think, ultimately we should still allow drugs to allow the development on drugs to convey


but make it a choice, not a must, and also just limit the accessibility of it, to prevent like whatever you said overpopulation and stuff but also on the point of overpopulation right, if


if you don't die do you need to like reproduce to populate the the earth people like people reproduce because they want to pass down their genes lah but if you're, healthy and alive then you don't need to and if you don't die you don't have to think about that


you get what I mean, ya


working from home, offers more benefit, okay so I'll start, I believe that working from home offers a lot more benefit first I'll start from the employer's perspective


so from the employer's perspective right uh employees are actually more productive if you allow them to work from home, because they're more able they have more autonomy over their working schedule and a stanford study actually found that employees who work uh from home are thirteen percent more productive than in office workers


and, there's no need to waste time on useless meetings that normally take place in office environment and then waste resources because when you work from home right people actually allocate maybe like say one hour one one hour meeting online and


this time limit actually allows employees to, be more concised and convey their point more, err instructively, so it there should there there're going to be shorter meetings and it's also easier to share like let's say if you have a


meeting a room you can share your screen, and you can allow for like a breakout room collaboration that kind of thing, so this kind of stuff right, it I think it it replicates that the office environment very well and people can communicate cross boundaries as well so if your office and your operations are not limited by geographical boundaries like let's say from what you


maybe you have a client in germany and then your your office is in singapore you don't have to fly specially over to to germany, for meeting and that's what people used to do so if like working from home you can stay at home but you can still on skype or zoom these other executives from germany and still get the same thing done in a very very short err short amount of time


like let's say if it err you can take one week maybe now it can be done in one day, and like also employers right, they can save a lot of time because uh save a lot of money because you don't have to pay pay for office rental


or like office resource utility and like restocking the pantry and everything ya so on that's what uh employers will tend to gain, and also for employees right we get to waste less time travelling


and this results in less cost so on employer's side you also can, in a way you can reduce your transport reimbursement or anything like your allowance you don't have to spend that much money, on your employee , and, there's also less stress


because like your work schedule is flexible, for employees like let's say if you're not productive at night, you can choose to work at night and you are not restricted to the conventional working hours, so that's one one one advantage and they can also be more productive


that's that, and , you can avoid office politics because you're just at home, and, office politics is quite unnecessary sometimes, stuff like we all know, and , ya so that's why I think


oh my god


okay and I sorry when I went back quit itself, just now I think that uh that's not a very valid point, really quit itself is, is it am I still here can you help me, can ah okay, ya so , four or five


oh ya okay on brainstorming and err chemistry within the group actually, if your if your group of your group of colleagues are too close knit right


that's a on good thing like people tend to agree with each other, because they want to preserve the harmony, so I don't think that's like, team community plays a very very very big role in brainstorming and for brainstorming right


I think it's very possible to, carry out out over, overdoing over cut whatever, and plus you're in a comfortable environment so you're you, you're more likely to be under less stress and you're able to be more creative


so that's that's a double edged sword lah like working from home I agree that , maybe you feel like you're not very connected, to the uh, to your colleagues that's why you don't feel like you can brainstorm as well but honestly brainstorming is kind of a kind of a individual process where everybody speaks about what they think themselves


and you still can build on other people's ideas via zoom or, like skype so I don't think that poses a big problem or big issue, because there's a lot of tools and technology that could help us today to facilitate in this exchange of ideas


so that's that and then about the germany one right okay so if you want to bring it back to local context, if your office is in CBD area and then your client is in the east, so you'll have to travel from the from the office CBD area to the east and back like two and so and then you have you have to account for whether there's going to be jam there're going to be extra cost like ERP that kind of thing


so if like uh let's say you your to-and-fro journey takes about one hour that one hour can be used more productively even if it's not doing work or anything, or like just working out exercising kind of thing right I think it adds a lot of more of work life balance


to an employee's life, and that's also another benefit of working from home lah because like , that's more work life balance you can take breaks whenever you want to do err whenever you want to do other things like doing housework exercising or like any other stuff and you actually can get to finish more things that you want to do in a day so


it way more fulfilling than going to the office and working there for like everyday but, ya because you get to save a lot of time that it can be used more productively to do other things, ya, and parents can spend more time with their children, and then they're going to be less likely to be absent during important childhood milestones like it's a very serious problem in singapore lah like a lot of kids grow up with like their helpers and the grandparents because their parents are busy at work so if they're at home they're going to have more time to like spend with each other


and it actually helps the build , the family bond also as well, yeah so that's why I think


good thing, brainstorming what, which point, (mmhmm) ya I think your points are very valid as well it's it's a very real problem and also for err I agree that it's quite hard to stay uh comfortable and productive


at home if there are so many distractions, when you allocate your time yourself and you know when you're going to be most productive, you're more likely to finish the, err your task


within a shorter amount of time, as compared to like you sit in office then you get zoned out, and then you you don't feel like do anything or you just produce some like half-hearted work, so that's that I feel like, micromanaging isn't the way to go especially for working from home a lot of like bosses


they don't like to manage it, instead they set very strict dateline, to counter this , productivity issue that people might say so let's say if you have a err if your boss ask you to do something, and he gives you a very tight deadline


it it won't be an issue that you were like procrastinate or not because like you're you'll be it were you you'll have the sense of urgency, and you will finish the, task at hand, faster so that's what, that's why I think like working from home offer


flexibility and, also productivity at the same time if there could be a system in place uh by the company or whatever, to help counter this , uh likelihood of procrastination, and also I think it's more important that you get things done rather than how much time you spend on doing thing


so, that's err that's one point and also about , wait when you see, you were saying about, which one was that


you mean like data entry and repetitive work is not good for home, ya that is true because it's very dry ya that's, true but , and also when you said about I remember there was this point about not having coffee together


I think uh a lot of companies they have they have like zoom lunches zoom workout together so is it kinda replicate that feeling you know like since, everyone is zoom together doing some things that are not related to work and also I feel like okay your arguments are very valid and working from home right should maybe maybe we should strike a balance between working from home and working in office


like making both a a a choice for for employees like okay you can choose to work from home for like two days a week or three days a week and then you go to office, for like two days to counter to to to you know offset like the possible disadvantages of working from home


to like for newbies you can go and like uh, err familiarise yourself with the company with your colleague and then , you can do more on your own when you work from home, that kind of thing what I think err like twitter and they're also pushing out this working from home policy that they allow err employees to work from home indefinitely


like we so whether they want to going to office or they want to work from home it's up to them , so I feel like that, that's a model that we should consider and I feel that we are, we as, like the world is moving towards this model of working


like hybrid of working from home and working from office, because both have it's own benefits, so, but in this period of time obviously working from home has more benefits lah because like, err I feel like working from home actually


it's a very good idea that we we should, consider


okay, the ban on organ trading should be lifted within singapore


should be lifted within,


and then I kind of agree with you with regards to the sperm and egg thing but I feel that like for sperm and egg it's something that we produce a lot of like throughout our life so it's I wouldn't say is replaceable


but in a sense they're a lot of excess of something that we do not need so for example like for a female right she can produce up to four hundred eggs in her lifetime but that does not mean that she have four hundred children so it actually kind of means that there're like a few hundreds egg that are getting


that are are lost that can actually be used on better purpose but for other organs that we only have uh one such as or maybe two such as the kidneys or like the liver that kind of stuff I feel that it's a different


it's a different uh problem altogether and it can't really be compared uh to like that egg and the sperm kind of thing so what I I feel that I just feel that the ban on organ trading should not be lifted within singapore because this can potentially cause


the exploitation of the poor uh leading to greater health care inequity so we all know the saying that how the rich gets richer and poor gets poorer so due to better opportunities uh many of such opportunities can actually be accessed through money


and one very one example very close to our hearts in singapore are like you know how students from better off families have better opportunities to attend like top enrichment and tuition classes and allow them to have academic leverage over their peers who lacks so right so I feel that this applies


to the access uh to health care in singapore also so right now many hospitals including singapore uh allocate the available organs that they have based on the combination of factors such as uh first come first serve or maybe the success rate of transplantation


or the severity of the condition of the patient to see whether the transplantation is really needed or not and if you actually put a monetary value on such resources like medical organs we actually allow the richer patients to have greater and easier access to


their treatment even when their condition is not as severe as another patient or if their success rate is lower so actually give rise to uh wastage on resources and deprive another patient the appropriate treatment so for example if we have like two patient right one is richer


and one is poorer so let's say the poorer patient has uh is actually essentially quite healthy and but he has so his only condition is like maybe he has end stage uh kidney failure or something so he needs a kidney transplant whereas the


richer patient let's say he has a lot underlying medical condition so a transplantation will actually it's very it's less likely to be successful as compared to a poorer patient but if both of them have to let's say fight to buy an organ obviously the richer patient will be able to


uh afford more and will be in a better financial standing to able to purchase that treatments so as you see so and if that if you allow that to happen you will end up wasting that organ that actually can be used on a poorer patient so it kind of like a wastage lah I feel so


err this will actually cause greater inequity because richer patients will be able to live longer and and is also a difference in access to healthcare as well so I don't think it should be lifted


so you said ya it's true one, (hmm) ya you can't survive on one kidney but


I feel that there's a reason why we have two or something like I'm sure with one eye we can see but why would you really need two so I feel that's a compensatory and kind of like uh they kind of complement each other it's not you don't have you need to have at least one kidney to survive but


you don't have to have two to survive but obviously anatomically wise this is how we're we were all made so that there must be a form of you know extra functions that the other kidney which maybe redundant but in most cases I'm sure that


it kind of complements the other kidney


isn't I agree with what you say in terms of when you put a price and then how like the market thing will kind of balance out so organs won't be that expensive anymore affordable for even the poorer patients so I assume like right like with that point you're talking about


the living donor transplant because there's two kind of transplantation so we have the cadaveric one which is from a dead patient and from the living donor one right so I assume now we're talking about the living donor one which means that these individuals are actually alive at the beginning of the organ donation and then expected to be alive at the end


so this actually I feel personally that is kind of it kind of violates one of the tenets of medical ethics which means the the the ethics of uh first to do no harm so making a healthy individual of patient in order to help another patient in terms of this


transplant you're talking about , so there's actually a risk of dying firstly from the operation itself and the risk of dying during a donor partial hepatectomy is zero point two percent and the risk of death during a nephrectomy is zero point zero three percent so what I'm trying to say is that


we are actually making a perfectly healthy individual a patient, to carry out this in in order to carry out this procedure right so err so or for all like doctors and whatever they actually make an err take an oath before you know they start practicing and stuff and one of the medical ethics that I said just now


uh is called primum non nocere which means first to do no harm which is part of the hippocratic oath that all doctor takes so incentivise such practices will cause mainly less affluent member also to actually succumb to the temptation of selling their organs and die straight and encourage more individuals to trade their organs in exchange for payment


and involving such practices into an out of control multi million dollar business, and I strongly believe that there's actually a dignity in human life and all organs that make up of the human body so if we actually allow freely the trade and purchase of organs uh we actually we're actually reducing the human body into mere commodities which is a contravention of one of the four principle


of medical ethics, so it may be true that everyone might be able to afford at the end but the action of your uh treating organs as, like a purchasing item or a trading item I feel that uh it kind of losses the dignity of life and is just medically ethics speaking I don't feel that is very right personally


but if you're talking about cadaveric transplant let's say where the patient's already dead dead right so for that case I feel that the major issue there's actually a declaration of death so we know that there's actually death by two criteria one is circulatory death and one is neurological death


so in both cases is argued in the medical community on how both uh brain death donor and donors after cardiac death are not actually validated so the diagnosis on brain death is actually not very reliable and as patients who meet all the criteria for brain death


uh actually do not in fact have uh the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain which is the strict definition of brain death , because some of the brain stem function such as temperature control and water electrolyte balance are actually still uh still remains lah and secondly the CPR can actually also restore cardiac function after arrest and put putting all these patients on life support actually err allow them to live for a longer period of time


so it's very difficult to determine what is the true meaning of death before you carry out such a procedure and it and the declaration of death has to be done only after very careful when impartial precise medical evaluation by the doctor and I feel that when you put a price tag on such organs it actually harvest the possibility of clashes in personal interests


where the declaration of death by the physician maybe maybe hastened or the determination of death maybe favored especially when uh this clinician is actually monetary compensated for carrying out the transplant procedure so irregardless of what kind of transplant


I feel that err both in both cases both are not very ethically uh right and so I still feel that err the ban on organ trading should not be lifted, ya


err that's true I I I agree with you because uh, we've actually uh autonomy to our own human body so we can get to choose what we want to do with it and what we don't want to do with it but uh like like you said we might might what you want to with your own body is more important than the oaths that the doctors take but the person that's eventually carry out such


procedures are actually the doctors and to them they uh the principles that actually guide their practice are all these different pillars of medical ethics so, it's true that the patient himself he has the decision whether to donate or not but is also the doctor's decision whether or not to go against their own ethics that they've been living for or they've been learning throughout so


i'm discussing from the patient's point of view and the donor's point of view yes maybe it should be lifted and it can be lifted but from err the person carry the transplant while is from that perspective err I feel that it should


it it should still be a no lah it should still to be a no because, uh is not very in line with what uh they've been learning also ya, and uh so


that's that's doing doing that so err we are it depends on whether you're talking about living donation or cadaveric donation because if it's living donation ya you will save another person's life but you're putting your own life in danger so if you're healthy and you're undergoing through a it sounds sacrificial in a sense


but you're kind of making uh yourself a patient in order to to save someone so it's also against one of that ethics because you're perfectly healthy so that's for living uh donation but like I said but for cadaveric uh donation is when you're already dead right so uh you you could just take


your organs and donate or whatever but the problem here is like I said just now it was the declaration of death so if let's say this patient isn't actually dead but you declare this person dead just so you could take their organ isn't it kind of like murder also, in a way if you like kind of like


depends on who ya


people


that's true, I I agree with you so like just now you said on what we're talking about was donation and not really of like trading right but I feel like it's actually that worse in terms of trading because you're actually putting a price tag on something that I would say I would believe that's priceless because is


the reason why it's so expensive because you can't just like manufacture your liver or like your kidneys uh there is three D printing but nothing is as real as the biological one that like people actually grow within their bodies since they're born ah so to put a price tag on that and and make it like a trading item


I feel that you're just kind of, not giving respect to human life, it's just it's like how you cannot trade children and you can't like it's like like you you when you adopt I'm not sure when you adopt kids do you actually pay for the kids or not but that's kind of like actually it's kind of like human trafficking in a in a way it's just almost like the same just that even if it's legalised


it they're kind of buying over a life or like something that that cannot be used to compare, as like a thing, so I feel like ethically and morally I don't feel that is very right and when we talk about like the economic thing how the price will eventually go down and stuff right


I agree with that because of all the price mechanism in the market but we all know that err but the I don't think that the supply can ever meet the demand of organ of uh on can ever meet the


the demands for organ so I don't I don't think the price will ever go down because like I said it's not something that you can just manufacture like overnight and stuff but something that is growing inside one's body so even putting a price tag I don't don't I do not think that the price will ever be affordable enough for anyone to just


be able to, buy it and, afford it for their treatment, also, ya, this is what I personally feel


but if that's the case, ya as in it might it might solve the supply problem but in other that does not mean the other countries there are not there are no people there are nobody who do not need organs as well I believe uh all over the world


people do wait very long for organs, because not everyone is willing to, give away their organs and not that many people can have preserved well preserved organs after death or during life which is only the kidneys


ya and I , and also I feel that there're a lot better treatments than uh just getting organs, just they just transfer of course that that is the last choice but we can't we can't treat it so casually because like I said I just I can't emphasise how much or how sacred the human body is to just treat it as something as like a trading item or a business


and it's also very difficult to control if everyone starts you know selling their organs and stuff how do you ensure the quality how do you uh ensure that people who are who are not exploited to you know just like remove their organs to sell it to someone just because they need money and


maybe some to some people it is important they would rather give up a kidney than maybe give up their house to to pay for something I don't know but, it's very difficult to control as well if we ever legalise it


it will be more regulated but it's it can also be out of control because uh a lot of people will be more aware of it and a lot of people will start doing it and be open to that option in a sense they won't see it as such like a taboo or like they won't really see the uh the dangers or the risk of


engaging in such practices, ya


debate topic two


a drug should be developed to allow humans to live forever


uh I agree with you err on how saying especially when it comes to research and scientific discovery is important for someone who knows the basics or something to be able to live longer so he can contribute more to research


and more to science part I personally but on the global level uh much more than just scientifically and how it can you know benefit our advancements I feel that err, uh it's not a very wise thing to do because there're actually more problems other than trying to make our life better better on technology on on medical or scientific advances so it has always been a persistent fear that uh extending longevity would actually lead to a shortage of resources


for our global population as a whole because of the unsustainable increase causing what is known as all we know what uh as overpopulation and this overpopulation I can actually I believe that it can actually lead to a diminished quality of life


so for example so between nineteen thirty and nineteen eighty six the world population actually expanded from two billion to five billion people and right now it's actually nearing about eight billion people overpopulation is very undesirable


as you all know because it can lead to famine and famine and the spread on diseases a WHO report shows that environmental degradation combined with the growth in world population is actually a major cause of the rapid increase in human diseases


which contributes to malnutrition of three point seven billion people worldwide making them more susceptible to diseases so because of this malnourishment a lot of uh people have bigger uh uh body constitution especially when it comes to the poorer countries


and every three second a young child actually dies in most cases from infectious disease in some countries one in five children die before their fifth birthday and everyday three thousand people die from malaria and three out of four of them are actually children


so overpopulation can actually many social environmental factors as such err factors includes overcrowded living conditions pollution malnutrition and uh inadequate healthcare which can actually wreck havoc on the poor


and increase their likelihood of being exposed to uh infectious disease, so as we all know that we have actually very limited resources in this world and we we are trying ways to discover new sources of err maybe natural resources new sources of oil err maybe ways we can produce


or we can be self sustainable in terms of food production and how we can uh accommodate the growing population and there's a strong and with with growing population the amount of resources can be divided with each individual actually decreases


so there's actually a strong relationship between resources and the quality of life with only such finite resources the size of the population actually directly determines how much resources are available for each of us and the amount of resources available can is a determining factor for our quality of life


for an individual so what's the point of living such a long life if the quality of your life is going to be decreased because , it's all about adding life to your years instead of years to your life I this what I personally feel like there's no point of living to hundred and fifty if you're gonna go hungry every single day if you are not going to have fresh air you have to squeeze with twnety over people in a room


I personally believe that quality is always favored over quantity especially when it comes to life, ya


true I agree ya as err I agree with you uh but but it's very it's depends on this one it depends on the context we're talking about so if this drug is just a drug to ensure uh immortality or is it a drug that prevents aging and the problem and diseases associated with aging such as alzheimer's or maybe cancer


and all that kind of thing so if it if it just ensures immortality but does not ensure a healthy body uh it I feel like it kind of defeats the purpose so it's it depends on the context of the situation if it can allows us to prevent all forms of cellular aging


allows us to maybe forever being age of twenty one or twenty two twenty three or eighty ninety I feel that, it did you you will also lose out a lot of uh problems uh lose out a lot of life lessons that we can learn from the process of aging such as decentering of the self so


we all know that as people gets older they start to think about others more in a sense and they start to accept death and stop being so caught up with self preservation and, how to increase their life so for example uh I'm sure that an adult at age thirty will be much more afraid of death than someone who's who's at age eighty because the person at age eighty has seen a lot in life


or he or the person would feel that way and learn there are more to life than just living as long as possible and there's lessons to be learned in aging as well as , and accepting death


so it depends on what kind of drug uh so if we're just talking about preventing aging, ya you will lose out in many life lessons that you are can learn from that process if you're talking about preventing talking about is just ensuring immortality without the prevention of diseases you're essentially reducing the quality of life and kind of prolonging your suffering as well


especially if the disease is kind of out of hand and causing the person a lot of pain that is why uh now there's a whole issue talking about euthanasia and actually, encouraging death in face of such uh pain and, diseases ya


so I don't I still don't think that ya still don't think that it should be, invent invented, ya


ya I get what you mean uh but so right now we're talking we're talking you're saying that so where these people who actually have experiences in their life before that they can live long enough so they're able to share with us such experiences that they had in the past that we


we would not able to experience right so we will get a better picture of how they used to live their life and stuff but that's kind of , kind of prolonging their life for our own needs, and our own wants but from their own perspective


there're many experiences that they might actually lose as well so, like I said if so if you don't ever age you can never learn that if you know that you never gonna die you never be able to learn how to accept death that's that's what I said earlier on and there are other experiences that may actually balance out but


who will these, benefits, be given who will gain the most benefit out of this this is the question so is it will we be the one gaining such benefits from the other people who , survived from last time or are they the one who have the benefits of being able to live up till today


so I feel that now right now we're we're arguing in in the way of how it benefits us, but if you were the person that it has that that were given immortality so that uh we can pass out our own experiences to our future generation


wouldn't that be too selfish of the people who are imposing this on us so for example if someone give you a drug and told you that okay so I give you this drug and you can live forever so live until you're five hundreds years old and then pass on what you have learned now in the future, would you want that and also if when you give this drug who is the one is it a single person that's getting it or is the whole population because if it's the whole population I feel that it's not very sustainable in terms of resources like I mentioned earlier and if it's only a selected people would you want to live


for five hundred years when all of your friends and families have already like died four hundred years ago, so this, the most so like life is not just about yourself and it you're actually made up of people around you which is what I believe in so if you're the only one that's able live until five hundred will you want to live that long if you know that you going to lose all of your


family members and all of your friends during the process, and also on top of that it'll actually exacerbate the the moral problem of unequal death that is that has already existing in the world where the life expectancy uh it's already differs very greatly between a first world and a third world country


so just to give an uh put give an example so in some african countries like the south of sahara the life expectancy is less than forty, and the average life expectancy of the rich and developed countries is seventy to eighty years so in such third world countries right their life expectancy almost half as compared to the first world countries and this inequality actually exceed strictly medical realm


it's mainly the combination of AIDS with poverty that's responsible for this mortality, so it's very unjust when some people live longer than the poor because they have better healthcare and there's a high possibility that this extension life extension may only be available to the rich and making it far more unjust and uh


with the rich could instead instead of living you know forty years longer than a poorer some of our poorer countries they're able to live centuries longer than anyone else and gain more time to consolidate the advantages so if this drug can can this drug really be given to every single


person in this world it may be fair but is unsustainable but if you're only giving to a limited number of people that said only the rich, will that be, uh will will they want to take the drug in the first place will they want to be the last one standing in their lives when they've lost everyone else a long time ago do they want to live they they may they may get make friends along the way you know they're like two hundred years younger and stuff but


I just feel that it's not it's not very practical and it's just different when you lose, to to live your life your friends and live your life without your friends, ya so I do not think the world , so I'll I'll feel that our efforts to prolong life uh should not be separated for the more fundamental questions relating to our integrity so given our current problem of unequal death I don't think our our world can morally afford to invest in such research


to extend life because uh it's not practical and it's not sustainable, ya that's what I feel, strongly


inequality


ya, I get what you mean about like it being a choice so on that about being a choice but the problem here we have is


err there are some choices that we all make that we know that we do regret so on this issue of uh immortality the problem is is it reversible or not and I believe that if is will there be like a antidote for immortality because if there isn't


and if it's a irreversible process what if you end up realising that your whole life is not just about your research isn't it very difficult to put a stop to it and how would someone ever know that, uh if they want to do a research for the rest of their life which maybe


five hundred years a thousand years, so ya so I feel that's quite hard to debate uh on this topic because it's very subjective and if you never experience it and we don't know what is the outcome of it it's very difficult for us to decide whether we want to or not


ya, okay ya


debate topic three


I agree with you especially when it comes err maybe the cost-wise when from employer's perspective you have to pay for rents err we don't have to reimburse transportation fees, and also employees actually get to uh be able to work kind of own from their own time in their uh their own time own target basically and uh regarding the the germany example that you were giving right I feel that that is only applicable


for certain, uh meetings or certain discussions there're I I believe that there're more there're other there're kind of there're some topics for this discussion that is better to explained face to face and about the germany thing that you were talking about is probably you're talking about more of someone who lives


very very far away in another country so obviously when you do over through a computer screen is much more convenient than flying over but if this uh, team members actually stay in, err the same country or you uh maybe even quite rather close to each other and their travel time to the office is err is not that long


in some way I feel that the benefits, because of that the the cost of not working from home is drastically reduced so when you kind of tip so the balance will kind of tip over and, err the benefits will not be so much greater than the cons if you're talking about uh team members that are from the same country and also like uh I said earlier that err there're some topics of discussion that is better to be explained face to face


and a lot of work uh be it any business or any kind of brainstorming creativity wise uh, I believe that a a tight knit community in uh between the team members and in the office is actually very important to boost


the morale of the team, so if everyone is working from home I feel that there will be a lack of community and collaborative culture as well as team spirit which is very important for for any company to say because we all need that comradery and we all need that you know honor to work for the company in order for them to feel very motivated


and working independently with just a computer screen err, it's very very different from the hustle and bustle of the office obviously and face to face interaction between colleagues are generally lost when they're working from home right and that and there're just no substitutes for this during some activity especially those that are more collaborative so maybe


let's say brainstorming ya when you maybe say you draw a chart or you try to draw mindmap and stuff it will be easier to draw in person than on the screen even with the ipad and apple pen and stuff you can share it it's easier to see but, sometimes it's just that human presence alone and maybe your friend or if you're very close to


uh your colleague I feel that they would tend to be more receptive of the idea compare to if you have some if you don't like a colleague of yours or if you're like not close to that person , so although some people do still have calls and meetings online they will be home alone also and this also means that they can't have you know coffee breaks with their colleagues no lunch together no exchanging weekend plans and this lack of social interaction can be really hard for some people


and these colleague will tend to feel more distance and, err a study by global analytical firm that surveyed more than fifty million employees actually indicated that people who work with their good friends like physically are seven times more likely to engage in their jobs and also produce higher quality work


than those without so I believe that uh the actual presence and just being with your colleagues and kind of bonding with them day in day out it's actually very essential for any company to build that team spirit to be able to get uh job their job done more efficiently and more


err and will and produce higher quality work ya


ya can


(hmm) I think your points are are also very valid again but and we just we have different views but I also feel that when you talk about how err because you're saving time on commuting as well


you can actually use the time to spend on maybe working out or maybe taking a nap maybe if you're tired while working halfway so it kind of you you you trying to explain that it boost productivity right in a sense because you have more uh more control over your schedule


but because you have more control over your schedule I feel that that actually can adversely cause a decrease in productivity instead so because when you're working from home uh employers tend to have little to no oversight on what their employee's doing during the day


so maybe it's it's it's okay for those who are for those who work uh just fine on their own and are responsible and disciplined but it's not so great for those who are those teammates that are unproven or not so great for juniors


that just came in to the office because maybe that they do not know the way around the office it's very difficult to do keep calling out a a senior to ask oh how do I do with this how do I enter this data or whatever compared to you know just bending over to the next desk and asking


a senior colleague so uh it's always easier to do in person and I'll say and with all you know with a bit afternoon naps netflix instant noodles all these kind of stuff can is very can be quite difficult for some people to actually fully focus on the task at hand


a task that usually takes one hour to complete in the office can actually may well take five hours with these all these kind of distractions and that's in in one data set it was shown that office based workers were actually fifty percent more productive than people at home


as home based agents were found to have thirty percent more idle time during their work hours than those office based, ya so I feel that, err you you can have more sovereignty over your time but in a way you also have more distraction and it it's also depends on what kind of employee the person is so if it and a study had shown has shown that although working from home is very beneficial for those


err are in the creative line but those they're doing repetitive jobs such as data entry uh is can be quite hard for some of them to focus as well, ya and just now there was one point about uh


I couldn't remember but uh some sorry, brainstorming is the creativity one err but anyway this is how I feel that's actually might be, decreased productivity when, you think about it ya


err the creativity one is better at home, but for data entry and repetitive work, okay but anyway about , ya it's very hard for them to be focus ya it's harder for them to be to


ya, ya


alternate


ya, virus, ya


(hmm) just now you were talking about the micromanaging thing right I feel that that actually might be beneficial for some people for some employees who actually like disciplined so I think you're saying that based on assumption that you know everyone is everyone has a sense of urgency and everyone cares about deadlines and do their best to produce a work by deadline but by the deadline but we all know that not everyone in this world is like that


you know even in some people can as is some people as long as you just close one eye they tend to maybe take advantage or they tend to uh not not be on task and all that kind of stuff so I think it's uh it depends on the context and depends on which employees you're talking about


so it's really it really boils down to the person's character I would say and work ethic uh work ethics and about the thing about how uh is some people are are more productive at night they can you know choose to work at night instead


but that's that's a that's actually a problem I feel personally because , then how would you know when to work and when to take a break you essentially you'll feel as if like you're working twenty four seven and how do you, like strictly adhere to the working hours like you do it in the office like oh nine to five so do you actually start work at nine and when you're working from home do you actually stop work at five what if you're better at night so how do you actually manage that and especially those who are paid hourly so I think uh it it's very difficult for us to


uh to see see does it strictly have more benefits or strictly have more uh cons involved it really depends on uh the nature of the company uh the characters of the employees what they prefer and as well as the job scope of


ya so it really depends on how they like to, err how how the employers will like their employees to be and how the company is about ya so it's very difficult for us to come to you know one single conclusion and agree on something there are very there are too many perspectives and too many things to consider ya


okay


k so uh, I, disagree that uh become irrelevant because uh in the first point I want to bring up is about the credibility of printed newspapers, so printed newspapers contain articles which make use of their sources that are vetted and checked by multiple people before it is allowed to be published


so, uh these new agencies news agencies also employ hundreds of uh people specialising in uh different roles to ensure that these published news are factually and grammatically correct, and then these two newspapers also follow a strict production process


where reporters are often sent to gather information on scene and also write articles, while editors will then proofread articles , and this strict process ensures that mistakes are brought to a minimum hence increasing the credibility of printed newspapers and compared to


online media when and compared to quoting your news and other forms of information from just the internet there can be a lot of uh negative side to it, for newspapers uh, their strict process ensures that


err there's a high credibility and also combined with the higher quality of writing that we can expect from the reporters and uh journalists it it just gives the newspapers uh, uh, stronger foothold in this uh digitized world lah and doesn't mean that just because it's more convenient it should replace newspapers


and also, news uh news agencies also need to maintain a sense of responsibility over what is printed out because, these news are printed and mass produced and given out to hundreds and thousands of people and once these mistakes are sent out it cannot be altered it cannot be changed it cannot be removed


so, if they were to push out, uh articles which are factually incorrect it will uh ruin the reputation as well the credibility of the newspaper agency, and that's why it is important uh that newspaper are still


in youth today and we shouldn't just rely on our mobile devices and through social media sites to check for information lah, uh, with the rise of the internet so now anyone can publish information about any subject regardless of their background and then in recent time there have also been an increase in the use of the term fake news it I believe it is not a coincidence that this term has been increasingly prevalent


as our world becomes more digitized, because the internet is a place where a large amount of unfiltered information, can be put out freely, so this also means that unverified information, uh, can, gullible people who read posts start will believe this unverified information more easily


especially the older generation because this group of people they , unless tech savvy and also you will you make it harder for them to verify and check the sources of thing they read online


uh with regards to the television uh, it's true that there are many subscription services taking over right now but uh TV has also continued to kept the pace and continue to change and it's together with the times together with the internet and now there are more smart TVs


and also uh, uh TV cable channel TV cable companies such as uh in singapore starhub and singtel still have a lot more uh, still have two uh bigger size company and we still


uh are able to do a lot more things that small streaming sites cannot do and an example is the world cup so uh singtel are able to bid a huge amount, for the world cup and outbid many of the smaller streaming sites and this is one of the reason that TV cable channels can still uh become can still stay relevant in uh today's the the world today just based on its pure size and


the amount of the consumers that it has built up to this day lah


okay so with regards to the point about uh trying to be mindful when it comes to reading uh news articles of the internet it is not an easy task that will be solved uh, quickly because of the need to educate the people involved so a lot of people may not know uh which sites are the credible and which sites are the non credible sources


, and because of that uh, it may, results in them believing in, fake uh news sites, , it requires like elderlies they won't be able to tell which sites are the real one and which are the fake one so if someone were to send them an article through say an app like whatsapp they might not know that uh the news article they received is not


an actual uh, official new I mean from a news agency so they might believe that and continue to spread the information so while it is, uh, one of the correct way to to proceed is to of course to be mindful and try to educate everyone this still takes a lot of time and


it will not be easy to change the, to educate all the elderly and let them correctly know what is correct article and arti~the sites to visit compared to, uh newspaper, if they pick up a newspaper anywhere from uh, a nearest convenience store or any supermarkets


they can just read whatever they find there and there's no need to verify any of the sources because, everything you read from newspaper will be true and, uh this helps solve the problem of, and you which raises a lot of manpower issues with


the with even trying to , teaching them and educating them about uh spread spreading fake news lah, so uh about the TV , it is true that


it's more flexible for streaming sites because we have the choice to choose what we want to watch at any point in time and this has also been, true for television and TV cables uh in recent years there has been a lot of uh mobile apps for


for companies such as starhub and even singtel there's also been uh on demand , features that uh allows people to pay to rewatch some of the episodes or record some of the older episodes


and this shows that, TV still has a role to play lah as they continue to change and evolve, and then another point that I would like to bring up is regarding the accessibility to the internet so while it is true that, more


most people have access to the internet nowadays it does not mean that everyone still have an, especially it's especially true in uh rural areas lah where they people may not have a reliable connection to internet and so for these people


but instead of always relying on uh the unstable internet and for some maybe they don't even have internet the they can uh still continue to rely on traditional printed newspaper because this has been delivered to them for many many years


and you can continue to do so through, uh vehicles such as, uh, cars bicycles or motorcycles and this does not require any complex infrastructure, uh such as wifi towers or, uh ya so the wifi towers so that


they to give them the their internet connection and accessibility lah and after all humans uh are all creatures of habit and, for the middle and older older people middle aged and older people they have been used and accustomed to reading newspapers for many parts of their lives


and many of them will still continue to, to uh, uh have many of of them will still have the habit of going down to the, newspaper uh to the convenience stores and supermarkets to continue buying uh this uh newspapers lah and I believe


because of this, uh newspaper will still continue to play play a big part, in the current digitized world and, ya


submit, yup yup, yes,


okay so uh I take I'm taking the stand that uh we should not uh have the right to remain anonymous when being portrayed in media and so my my definition of media will be split into two categories first of all would be print media which is newspaper and magazines


and then after that uh my next definition for media will be the internet, so firstly when it comes to the internet, , I believe that we should, uh, uh we should not have the right to remain anonymous because this can result in many problem uh more on the problem it brought up was that the internet and social media is will be here to last for a very long time uh


and some of the things that we do will stick with us because of the existence of social media, and, by allowing users to stay anonymous a lot of people will choose to uh


there is no accountability and, many users do not find the responsibility to uh think before they post anything on the internet , and one example for this is like commenting on sensitive topics such as for example racism so racists and homophobes will not express their opinion publicly because by doing so they can face many people questions


uh legally and personally they can get arrested for spreading hate and they may be outcasted by their group of friends, and by allowing for anonymity on the internet it gives people uh the chance to express hate speeches and opinions with uh no fear for consequences so


while it's it's true that whatever you do on the internet can uh end up sticking with us for a very long time and our future employers can somehow uh look through our social media profile and find out something maybe irresponsible or sensitive that you talked about in the past


and that can affect our career prospects and job prospect also, so by uh letting people not have the right to remain remain anonymous it uh lets people have a sense of responsibility and gives people uh


it lets people be more wary about what they what they say and what they choose to post on the internet, and, ya it is, I believe is one of the main point that I believe we should not uh allow people to remain anonymous


and besides just this other issues such as uh cybercrimes is something that can also arise from being anonymous on the internet so cyberbullying fraud identity theft extortion all these are some of the crimes that can be caused by anonymity


on the internet, this would make uh culprits who participate in such activities almost impossible to track, and also it will take up a lot of resources and manpower by the government and uh, police agencies to track down these anonymous culprits


hence uh I believe that by, choosing to uh by limiting people's rights to remain anonymous on the internet, it uh let's say you want be, it should give people more responsibility and everyone should be held accountable for their actions online lah


okay so uh, uh with in response to the point that you brought up about how some public figures can still choose to go ahead and continue making hate speeches, and talk about some uh sensitive topics uh many of these public figures tend to get some kind of backlash and a lot of criticism when they choose to do so so uh


the fact this is shows that , , if you choose to probably it's because once you get backlash it will not look good on them this will , severely uh ruin their reputation and


this can , reduce their , influence, and maybe reduce the number of people that would want to vote for them, and so it does by so for public figures to stay


when public figures are expressing their hate speeches it does have a negative impact on them when they choose to do such uh irresponsible acts, so, I do believe that, we should we should still we should not have the right to remain anonymous because by doing so uh it


other people are able to respond to what we have to say and, ultimately does have a negative impact on us if you choose something if you choose to do something bad, and then another point I want to bring up is about the one of on printed media, so I believe that uh anonymity in the form of printed media will greatly reduce


the credibility of articles that are written out, so local news articles and , reporters journalist, can often choose to interview uh affected parties when they are involved in a certain incident that they are covering


and this so when interviewees choose to be anonymous, reporters will then be able to freely twist the words in order to sensationalise articles, and headlines in order to increase viewership, so interviewees would not know if their words are being twisted and we just will also not be able to do any fact check or cross cross referencing to check with this interviewee because they do not know who it is


so this makes it very difficult for articles that are published online offline or on the printed media to be credible and for it to be to have a credible source lah because , there can be a lot of irresponsible reporting going on and


so by allowing for anonymity in the media this uh can result in some fake news being pushed around, and non factual information being put out there


okay so uh I believe there have been many examples of where, celebrities and public figures have backtracked on their words and publicly apologized for , saying


for saying some things that the general public do not agree with so that is something that, as it is the result of being, of not being anonymous on the internet, and also with regards to, staying anonymous in the media and


since you have brought up topic of sexual harassment uh there's a big incident recently involving justin bieber on twitter so uh, there's an anonymous account, on twitter that basically states that uh they have been sexually harassed and assaulted by justin bieber on twitter


and, this was subsequently and very quickly uh proven to be wrong, by with justin bieber uh showing many of evidences and, witnesses evidences that he was not even at the scene


so while it's true that, for people who have been sexually harassed they can they may not want other people to know about uh their identity and, as a result choose to stay anonymous this can also mean that anyone else for example anyone who hates public figures or celebrities they can also choose to


uh making a fake account and then, but falsely accused, these uh celebrities, even without any concrete evidence and many people will believe that like what we have seen just recently on twitter, and the case like justin bieber case and


ya I believe this, is why I still believe that, we should not allow for anonymity on the internet


okay so , regarding so now I would like to summarise up my points, and in discussion to an end so while it's true that people have the right to remain anonymous on the internet


this can bring down the credibility and, instances of sexual assault or other crimes, perhaps or feel of being embarrassed, if they choose not to, reveal their identity and remain anonymous, this can result in a lack of trust and belief in them


to summarise up is regarding, uh accountability lah so I believe that


by uh taking away the rights to stay anonymous on the internet, it can , help, , educate people to, be more responsible about some of the things, that they do, they post


they say on the internet, thank you, okay


also I I'm taking the stand that uh social media companies should have the rights to store and use our personal, information lah, so the first point that I want to bring up is that social media companies, uh they need a way to be able to generate profits


so, uh since social media sites, uh free for its users there has to be another way to generate profits, since many of the users do not pay and are free users, so in order to continue to be able to host the


uh for such a huge number of users , for instagram they have up to a billion uh a billion monthly users and so in order to uh ensure that these people can continue to receive uh a smooth user experience on the app and


a good app interface, that does not crash easily, , the these companies need to find a way to make profits so uh social media companies like any other companies are business organizations and these business the main goal of business organizations is to generate


continuous profit and growth and to do so since companies like this do not charge users for using it the most other other most efficient way would be of course to, be it through targeted ads


and, uh from the viewpoint of an advertising company they would want to be able to reach their target audiences, and, require businesses to reveal personal data and information such as uh gender age uh the pages you follow people you are friends with and these are all necessary in order for businesses


to continue to put out all this service, and, ya so this I believe is one of the reason why, companies should, have the rights to store personal data in order to


continue to attract advertising companies to work with them so they continue to grow as a company and social media will the social media site and company will then be able to continue to take up all the uh content and


uh give users a better experience lah so regards to the, the, point it brought up about the safety of our personal data being stalked on the internet so I believe this has largely been uh improved especially in the especially now


uh in light of the coronavirus situation there has been a large uh change and shift in a lot a lot of aspect aspects of our life towards uh, the internet so things like work


and , things like work are mostly being done on the internet now and not many people realise that, these internet sites, uh are safe enough for,


important meetings to take place so, I believe, with, changes in the world such as, with the coronavirus there has been a large shift in mindset, and companies are also uh


putting more into research and development, to, and show that there is a safer and, there's there is a safer their their sites are safer nowadays to prevent hacking, and this is this can be seen since uh a lot of companies are doing work meetings online through sites like zoom so I believe if something like zoom can


are able to , host such a host meetings with confidential information this shows that there are a large amount there there is a large amount of trust towards, uh online companies so I believe that regarding with regards to the point of being unsafe it is not as relevant nowadays especially with


especially with the introduction of features such as uh two factor authentication so ya this, helps to, reduce risk about the lack of safety on the


okay so with regards to the point of social media sites like instagram they have the feature which allows people, to put up , their phone numbers and their email on the internet and this make it vulnerable for scammers to uh scam us and


bullies to make use of these numbers and email to cause some cause some harm to them and , but these phone numbers and email when put up for the right reason it can help uh it can help the these users positively


so uh we can help for example uh email address, a lot of emails that are put up on instagram are used for business purposes and are managed by social media managers, so a lot of times they many of the, public figures on instagram don't even have access


to these emails that they put up because they are solely for business purpose and the very fact that there is this feature allows them allow uh companies who are interested to work with them to be able to make use of these uh emails to be able to to to contact them and to reach them


and to , and this can help uh benefit users who put up some of their information on, social media sites, uh regarding your next point about how


if you do a search for something like oven it, it can, be, undesirable for some people since they do not want media social media sites to know what exactly they are looking for but it can be a good thing for some people


because it means that there is a tailored user experience and, they receive advertisements that are suited to, what they are looking for, and let's say you in the example of an oven if you are if you are unable to find a suitable one in the first attempt many social media sites


with the advertisements they will still continue to push out many ovens from different companies such as shopee lazada and this gives you the chance to, maybe end up finding something that is suitable to your needs and your price range


and regarding the point about how facebook employees has, some of their employees has , uh publicly spoken out about the company's policies, uh facebook is uh facebook themselves have actually helped authorities to solve crimes in the past


and this is seen in the US uh when a man named darren anderson, he created a fake, facebook profile and, talked and, when he was caught


he he initially created this fakes uh this fake profile to, who talked to underage girls, and when he was caught eventually, he was charged with the intent to engage in unlawful sexual conduct with one of them, and facebook cooperated with authorities and turned over two and a half years of facebook data for this man and revealed over eight hundred chats conversation and this information was subsequently used to charge this man of his crime and he was


eventually convicted, so while there are cons to, having our information being stalked, on social media there are many positive benefits


and it can, there are still many positive benefit benefits and I believe, it still, uh brings a lot to the table


okay, okay I pressed already then I submit right


ya, the ya, this one, just take a screenshot ah


okay, k, it's the one that we have been planning to right, okay


okay


part one, debate topic one, okay so , ya firstly the the question is in the age of the internet TV and newspaper have become


irrelevant, and so for this uh I largely agree cause I mean like the current age, it is , a uh a technology based age where there's a lot of accessibility to technology


and uh for example we have like our cellphones and our cellphones basically, allow us to make us of uh do a lot of our daily activities all in one, common device which is our, which is our cellphone and so for this I feel that


the TV and newspaper have become irrelevant in the sense that we do not need , this TV uh kind of like more ancient stuff like using paper and stuff where we already have our modern devices to able to do it


uh for us and with the TV and newspaper we have to like sit down and then like kind of flip the papers and whatnot I mean like we have to bring the newspaper around and for example for newspapers we have to bring the newspapers around, but phone for cellphone is like we are able to have access to it uh no matter where we go and so like for example when we go out to just like buy our food we can still read up and catch up with news uh whereas if let's say we want to uh


if we continue relying on newspaper, we have to bring our newspaper there while queuing and then like, ya which is which just makes it more more inconvenient, and so for the TV as well currently we already have streaming services such as uh netflix


and like hulu and other stuff, so all this uh require already like allow us to, rely on such modern devices where we there is no need for us to uh continue using streaming streaming services such as like just our TV


and, uh also and another point to note is that uh for like, the TV right now there is uh like a growing trend of, web accessibility on TVs, so like that just shows the point of basically if we already have computers to access the web then basically we don't need there's no need for us to have another TV


like another device just just for, , just for something that we already uh do have access to lah, basically ya


uh okay so uh I understand your points, okay so I'll I'll tackle it one by one for newspaper uh as you stated that , sources such as like strait times or like, new paper and whatever right I don't don't read the news so I don't know, but I mean uh example strait times right I understand that they do have printed material


but at the same time these these resources are also available online like just because they are printed doesn't make make them more credible, like basically straits times they just publicize one on the internet and then one printed out so they are both essentially the same thing


and what's what more is like the online version there might be links that can , allow the users to access other different sites where they can actually find out more about whatever they are reading about and so this gives, users more accessibility and more convenience as well


furthermore , uh, resources such as or accessories such as like, I don't know like online dictionary and stuff like that, it's basically just another tap away like just have to press one button and you can access the dictionary, to google whatever


, words or stuff that you are unsure about whereas if let's say you do not understand something, uh on the newspaper you actually, have to access, uh some website to continue, uh knowing more about whatever you are reading so it just, it more inconvenient


and also , err about fake news like fake news is a is a real concern and it's a, uh it's a it's a global issue but, the internet right now it's uh, it's a double edged sword and actually it's more so for the app uh


it actually provides more advantage than disadvantages, it's true that sites might not be, as credible because of fake because of the rise of fake news, but by if the users actually make use of, credible sites such as straits times or


, Lianhe Zaobao where they actually have credible sources publishing these , news articles then it actually makes it more credible for users, uh I feel that for the issue of fake news, it is more so where users have


no control over whatever they are like, it is more it occurs more often when they do not know that the news they are reading is false and this will highly occur when the sites that they are on are not credible sources such as fake uh such as straits times


like where there is no, government recognition of these, uh this uh, news sites ya so, uh it's actually up to the user to actually uh, kind of uh be mindful of whatever site that they are on so that they know that it's a credible source and not just


a fake news, ya so also for the TV, it's true that TV actually allow, like because of the how, the major corporations that are behind the the


TV stations, right uh it's true that the, they have a a huge funding and they are able to, produce, uh productions at the at a bigger scale but the same time ,


the, , playing, shows at regular timings and these timings might not fit everybody's schedule, it's true that they try to organize the timings


in regards to, to the, majority of the population and whoever is free at home and whoever like are still at work or whatever so for example they might publicize some I mean no not publicize but for example they might show horror movies


in the midnight compared to, uh in the in the uh, I don't know morning where babies are awake and, and are able to watch but ya so, but this still shows how limited and how restricted that TV has has to rely on timing spot to be able for the general populace to be able to watch lah and with


the the with, the computers right now they are uh we are able to watch anything any show we want at anytime and with the TV even though we might be free at a certain timing the show that is playing might not be


to our, liking so it just gives us more accessibility and more convenience where we can actually have a whole array of uh shows to watch online and also even more at anytime, and be be able to pause and be able to even like playback and whatnot which definitely are functions that TV has but if the TV is creating more functions to


keep up with the the computer then why not we just continue with, the computer currently, and uh as forr example of the world cup uh, I mean for for myself I watch the world cup online on on on the stream not on the not on the TV so so I don't think that the use of the TV is necessarily important


to to keeping up with, major news around the world and stuff like that ya


uh I understand your points, so firstly for elderly, I understand that uh the elderly might not, know which are the credible sources and which sites are, more , reliable to, to get our news, but I think this problem is uh


is one for, mainly for our government to take note of and to, restrict and clamp down on, , fake fake news sites and also in the case where, uh for newspapers right like, uh I'm I don't think that many teenagers and many young adults these days


are still reading newspapers, in fact , most of them are glued to the news, and whatever news we get we get from our internet, uh from our phones not the newspaper, so even though it's be uh it might still be relevant to, a small population of the a small part of the population


is the mainly the uh older generation, , but in the evolving and changing times it's slowly gradually becoming more and more irrelevant, and sooner sooner or later , , uh it will it will cease to be relevant entirely


and as for being, err, being for as for the, internet being unavailable at rural areas, , I think that for rural areas it is more


like people get their news more from uh word of mouth rather than uh, uh proper newspapers like in the sense, these rural areas will also not not have, uh much accessibility to


to the outside world and there will not be many people who are able to, get get newspapers for them , and also with the case of, purchasing the newspaper itself they might not have uh, enough money to to get it at all


and so, in these areas I don't think that, uh either the, phones I I I actually I think that they would actually have phones like, even though people are poor they will still like want to get phones and they will get like secondhand phones and whatnot so I think ya I still I still keep to my


my point and and I think that , in this age of the internet, uh TV and newspaper will will become irrelevant and, even if they are not now they will gradually become so, ya


three, uh okay so for this question, social media should not have the rights to store, and use our personal information, uh I largely agree so, so these are my points


uh firstly it's uh, largely , uh, points to the issue of security, uh basically having the rights to store our personal, uh data uh makes it, available for hackers and scammers to actually


uh hack into the system and to actually expose our own, public private information, and for example uh data scams and credit card scams, are, in a huge abundance and it's not uncommon to hear of such cases


in fact , many credit card scams have amounted to, millions in dollars and, uh they actually like they're actually hidden from public authorities, and are not exposed, until several years later


where they actually where they already have spent most of the money that they have, and this all resulted from, the, personal info that were stored, uh originally, and so this shows that


uh, it's not safe to have these uh personal details uh being stored and as for, as for data that is more that is more , explicitly for social media example uh instagram there is there are already cases of accounts being hacked by by hackers even though it's it might not be


uh very severe, to to have like credit cards or like money deducted but even having the accounts being hacked themselves it shows that uh our personal info is not safe and, uh by trusting social media to actually


uh withhold our own personal information from other people that is just a a false sense of safety, and , it's just not reliable, and, ya that's all


okay thanks for your points , k so, k I just wanna add on some stuff first, err , okay like as uh adding on to the to the safety issue right like , many users of the social media might not be actually familiar with the dangers


of social media and so they, actually use , they actually , make use of these apps make use of these platforms, uh without knowing, the the dangers and, they expose themselves to public , to the public to the public audience


who might actually, , kind of like , make use of them and, and get like different different private details from them, so example uh, I mean uh, like for example


instagram like uh we are able to put our phone and email phone numbers and email, first on our on our accounts and, this might actually uh expose ourselves to dangers where, the public might might,


have access to our emails, and even uh even though they are not our own friends and, uh, family who we are actually familiar with, and also, uh in the case okay in the case of , business business


platforms being uh, using our social media and using our preferences to, to leech on these, data for advertising company, err, it is true that it does generate profit and it does uh help these companies to


grow but at the same time uh you have to take note that, uh it largely infringes on our, own human rights and also our private safety and, and whether we actually allow these information, to be used or not, because there is no there's no actual there's no actual


legalization of us, saying that oh we allow these kind of things to happen for example like you can go and google like , maybe you want to buy an oven and go and google an oven and then , while scrolling instagram you suddenly get advertisement of an oven


and you might think that oh someone is like you know stalking you or what but it's actually, the the hidden the hidden setbacks of of, uh this uh, social media having having uh, access to our private information


and this goes to show that actually it's not very safe and, and users actually we leave behind a a a, a footprint an internet footprint where , people actually have access to whatever we are accessing, and just by just by this


this access alone it might not be uh very uh dangerous but with, the, addition of our personal information , uh, uh possibility of uh I think our personal information being breached as well


and it just goes to show that our whole lives are our actually at stake where if example we actually have, our whole life savings stored into one account and this account is being hacked then uh, our life is just gone just like that ya and uh for your case of having a


an improvement in, apps such as zoom , uh it is true that uh, especially for this uh period of COVID where, where , work has largely ceased and, are largely based online , and development companies


are actually uh, take into a more, uh I, development companies actually uh, kind of pride themselves to, want to improve their security and improve their features


uh it is true and, however you must take note that even uh credible uh, uh resources such as zoom, can also still be exposed to hackings and I'm sure that you have been uh, you have been informed of uh zoom meetings being hacked by by outside people as well and


this goes to shows uh this goes to show that even though there has been improvement, uh it is still going to be a long way and we do not know when it will entirely cease, for these hackers to be able to access our own private information, and, of course if uh


if, social I mean if uh, users do allow this uh use of information to be, to be exposed to to the outside world then sure but at the same time uh, uh this also like


encapsulates on our own human rights where we actually, have the right to choose on on whether we want to allow it or not , and in this case it should have the rights for people to actually say no that they do not agree to their personal information


being used and exposed, and for example I mean facebook is also has also been one of the large companies that were exposed to these , err, personal data leaks where people actually come out and say that I mean even the facebook staff themselves actually talk about their


their use of , users personal information and this this just shows that actually it's not as safe as we may think, that it actually is lah, and as for


uh measures such as uh two factor, , authorisation like it does help to , uh uh increase safety, but at the same time, uh these measures do uh, uh actually uh require more funding and more budgeting by the companies and so this also goes to show that


uh with the addition of security then the company actually has to uh, allocate a certain amount of uh budget to, to to with to actually kind of like uh handle this issue, but many big uh general uh big companies do not actually uh care so much about security features they actually only care about profits


ya so for example one company uh that comes to mind is uh WhyQ which is, it's a startup uh hawker delivery company where they only care about profits and so security features such as


like I mean uh maybe examples such as uh thumbprint scanning , , thumbprint scanning uh features uh which are actually kind of as a security measure are not implemented and even two factor uh authorisation is actually not available on many of the apps nowadays even though it it's it's true that it's a security


feature but apps such as WhyQ they do not provide this kind of measures and actually just disallows users to actually have the sense of uh personal internet safety, ya


okay so uh I'm gonna wrap this up quickly, uh for okay as for the, internet safety where, uh it's true that , users are able to put their business emails onto their profiles for business to


contact them directly, uh it is true that it's a very convenient, and uh efficient method and so this just goes to show that, uh, it should be allowed but then it's also up to the users themselves to practice personal internet safety


and as for the tailored user experience for, uh the advertisements uh it is true that it gives us a very uh more convenient, but in a sense it does not it might not be consented by every individual, and


similarly if example after I've I bought an a product and it shows another cheaper product shows up on my app, then I will just feel sad that I already bought one that is more expensive and now I regret my decision, so it's just a sad experience where if without without the advertisement I will actually have not have already like forgotten about it and just like left it away


and finally for david the david anderson uh it is true that uh this, allowed him to be exposed but in the first first first place, it's the girl's private information that were exposed and were available such that he was able to leech on it


and to kind of like contact them to, to kind of like have, this uh charges ya


oh ya mine mine mine have also no no no no mine ya mine have ya ya ya so I ya, ya just for the second one


part one debate, topic one, okay so I do I start ya oh so the debate topic okay so


arts can bring about, positive social changes today okay so I start alright, so , I guess, so cause I'm on the, I'm on the proposition side, so I guess I would like to, unpack the word social changes


okay so when we want to talk about like the social changes we need to know realise that you know, is that ya there is like a tangible, change so it's moving from one from one turning from one aspect to another so for instance like how can the arts bring about upon this social, change so let's bring in the context like okay in singapore singapore is a STEM society right I guess we all know we all roughly know what STEM means right you know like science tech uh


I forgot what e stands for math so you know like we are so we are so like focused in all of these okay so let's think in the context like if we do not have arts in singapore, okay I think it will be a really like uncreative and a really dull place so singapore being a STEM society I think most of us would just be like robots and just churning out like economical productivity although it is like good for economy and although it is good for like


running the the whole ya economic progression of singapore I don't think it I don't think that that's the way a nation should or any country for that matter should progress because it kind of shows like there's a sense of unevenness and even like a sense of dullness in a country


you know if you are just going to progress like economically and just with with your workers all just , constantly just working hard you know with no creativity being spread out you know there is a sense of unevenness in the society and I think that's not and I think if any country or nation wants to progress like positively you know there should be there should be progress in all and


changes in all aspects okay so I guess my first point will always will be that that the arts how the arts has helped to bring positive social changes is that yes it encourage individuality and expressions of like of oneself and ultimately this influences a change in opinions and it


increases diversity so I think my main point that I'm driving at is that it brings a change in like opinions and our diversity because I think that that that is something that every nation or country should kind of achieve or walk towards to especially in singapore we've like our


diverse cultures and races that together it's really important that you know we are all accepting of of different people and different , like different unique uh individuals so okay, so ya so I'm going to talk about singapore again so many people may feel like pressured to fit into this whole STEM system okay so a lot of them like since young like even for many of us we will feel that we have to fit into this whole like okay you need to be good in math you need


to be good at science all these sort of things you now like like I mean your parents will probably told you like okay don't do the arts you know like you won't you won't go anywhere one ah ya so ya a lot so that pressurises a lot of us to to feel that we have to fit into that, way but the fact of the matter is that none like not everyone is built that way you know like uh not everybody is built to to be able to excel in math or science you know some people are able to excel in like drawing or like painting or singing or like whatever their art form is you know so that's why I see


like the arts that I see as an extremely welcoming platform that extends like the openness and acceptance for people for like their individualities and their identities which I think it's great you know like , it's a platform where where you are you are welcome for whatever you can bring to the table okay and so the arts has brought about many uh positive social changes from encouraging people to come out of their shells you know like like encouraging people to just do what you


uh you feel on the inside you know uh express yourself instead of like suppressing it and, you know if like STEM isn't a way for them you know there's another way to express your creative output and I think that's really great you know like that the fact that also the arts has liberated so many people you know and it has allowed so many people to express like a lot of suppressed creativity


and that is the positive social change that uh in singapore that I see so ultimately I really feel that you know this helps to bring and increase openness and diversity which is definitely a positive social, yes so do I go to my ya


okay, so your so the point you're driving at is the fact that okay if you if you ya if you put this just into the context of singapore that like that art that this whole art form and this whole art scene is easily misinterpreted by a lot of people lah


okay okay, so I guess I mean ya that that that is one way to see it because it it's true that that in singapore uh not art isn't the most appreciated topic or subject because not a lot of people like know how to appreciate it and that's a really sad thing because


I I I I personally feel that art is really just uh an amazing thing because , I don't it's really hard to for everybody to fit into this whole like academic system also because I like personally like it's been really difficult to just excel in like math science and all these topics subjects so I think that art is the really great


it's a great alternative to all of this ya but I I agree in singapore it's difficult to bring us positive change but I think that in general as a society I think can bring a lot of positive social changes if, people are willing to produce the right type of content and also like


like and also uh receive it properly so ya if that that does come with a certain form of like uh, knowledge and education to be able to appreciate it properly okay but I guess, inside of all of that the arts can also the arts can


be seen in a more positive light and bring a positive social change by like giving alternatives to many different, aspects in life I guess or in the society so one thing is maybe like raising awareness okay so I feel that arts can bring a positive social change by raising awareness in a different way okay so like I mean with the whole uh okay lah I would not get political or anything or like racial but I mean we all know about the whole like black lives matter movement you know


all these kind of thing all the racial riots and and all like this hate that is going on you know and there's so much depth to all of that and like really and I don't think a lot of our young people are willing to go and read a whole uh like uh like watch a whole documentary on the whole systematic oppression of black people or


or I mean people of colour I'm sorry or like or even just read like like a two-page two or three-page article on what on what this whole black life matter movement means okay so I think that art in itself is a very universal form of communication


it isn't bound by any language I feel that the art produce by for example one person in Lithuania can be interpreted can be like interpreted properly by another person in for example china you know it's I mean that's dependent on the type of art form but ya it's a universal form of communication


which I think is great so and I think it it's a great medium to get a point across to many people especially with like our generation cause our generation is always on the phone so with art you know it's like a it's like is a it's you know when you put it


thing to a zip file you know like you just compress everything and just send it to somebody you know it's already great like way to just give it to somebody and get the your main point across so okay ya so I feel that the arts has helped to bridge this gap you know this has helped to raise awareness of


so many things so I guess one example uh okay few examples I could give is that okay so one of my favourite rappers like uh anderson paak you know like he recently released a single called uh lockdown uh okay so basically this whole this single talks about uh the whole systematic oppression of like


of people of colour in the US and it also helps to bring awareness to the whole black lives matter movement and also like the sad reality of what it's actually going down in in the US you know and it gives a really brief insight in the systematic oppression and all of that you know and this is also this can also be seen through the music


videos you know there's so many like hidden meanings if you if you really analyze the lyrics and the whole music video properly you know it gives a really , it gives a really good uh heart like shine some light into the whole movement if you are not willing to go and read about it like ya and also maybe another one is okay there is an artist called uh adrian brandon you know he's an artist who


he drew some he drew a few portraits of victims of police brutality and uh what was interesting was that the time that he took to colour the the faces of the victims correspondent to the age of uh the people the the age of the people that they had lived until


okay so for example uh george floyd okay he was forty six he lived until he was forty six years old so the the artist dedicated forty six minutes of colouring to the whole portrait so if you analyse that properly you take some time to to find a deeper meaning to that


you know it shows a really strong representation of how much potential and colour these peoples' lives could have added to the world but unfortunately they have been stopped due to police brutality, so, so I guess this in itself you know depicts a really strong message you know like like like that like the message that art that the art can carry you know


ya, so ya


ya


ya I agree, I guess , like


in I mean ya if you if you really need to ya bring the context of singapore in our own society it's really difficult for arts to bring a positive, change but I guess like in general even the art that is being produced right now like whatever is being produced I think it has been able to give to bring about uh real positive social


change lah uh uh even just increase like or not increase like open the minds of people to know that like like I believe that our society now is becoming much more diverse and they are being more open to all of this like there are so many , arts schools now or or schools that are focused on art


you know and I think a lot of a lot more people are being a lot more open with their expression of art you know like like there's a lot> of movement of people now who realize that that ya like, like math science like these are not the only ways of getting through life you know so I think we we are getting there which is great so ya it's it's going to take some time especially in


singapore so but I guess in general in it's more evident in other countries honestly but ya we are getting there , ya


ya, ya, yes, and that's a positive social, change , it is (mmhmm) ya


ya, ya if you give ya cause if you give everybody a chance to


speak or like express their opinions then then ultimately you'll realize that there are different many opposing opinions and that's what you see , in other countries, I'm not going to say but ya you see in a lot of other countries