you know in terms of storing information in within social media because, it's not just with not just giving the responsibility to the company's itself it's something that we have to protect hackers from and ya this basically the very the biggest point cause you know


even let's say like people on the dark web if you wanna go on a dark web uh, you have to make sure you know you know what you are getting into you need to make sure that you got all your VPNs you know firewalls and you know using other browsers sometimes people throw away their confidence up there because you know people can track you is very easy


ya so, also in like maybe, how do I say uh ya I don't think you should store information at all ya don't have the right to store information


, I don't know what else to say but at least there aren't ya


you rate the people


weak spots ya, they bring a knife I mean bring a gun to a knife fight basically


ya, I guess it it also comes with , I think it also comes with uh maybe future developments of how to protect these people against all these leaks and stuff or like maybe to be a bit more anonymous online


like maybe you know be able to cover certain parts of uh like their lives and you know uh ya stuff that may may or may not, jeopardise their relationships with people may or may not jeopardise their careers may or may not jeopardise a lot other


things ya , ya , I mean as much as yes uh social media may be stored like dirt on people for example a lot of okay this is a very very good example a lot of people are being exposed of having racist past


yes yes like for example you know jeffree star I don't know some doja cat is cancelled you know the cancel culture only all because data is, thought online that they can you know pinpoint that you know this person has said this this this about you know a certain race certain persons certain group of uh people who are usually discriminated and you know they the facade is out


like uh ya so I guess in that way you know to expose people is a good and bad thing but not necessary because people do grow from experiences and you know you know you should as a person learn to


forgive and forget certain things if they're wishing, grown out of it but that's not the minds of everyone, uh ya, ya it's very ya


, (mmhmm), accountability like you mentioned a lot of times, yup


yeah


okay was since your research was based on the statistics of singapore I actually did a bit of research myself but it is based on a pew research centre which is in the US itself and yes of course while there are a lot of users on the internet as well


, however there is a section where we call the older generation people who are basically fifty and above specifically fifty and above , because they may not be as technologically inclined to be using these products because one they may not know how to use it and two they still prefer to receive the news via television or newspapers


comparing the years from two thousand sixteen and two thousand eighteen apparently there's still about forty-seven-per cent in two thousand eighteen who was who still prefer to receive news via the television itself mainly because, easy of easy access and of course personally I have family members themselves who still actually just turn on the TV like CNN BBC because it's obviously regulated and these are complete facts that are being thrown out


while internet is obviously a really vast base to get information not everything is regulated so whatever is being posted online is not necessarily correct or true to facts and unfortunately not many people especially children or kids as a


a survey conducted in UK itself between the ages of eight to eleven seventy seven per cent of these kids every one in five of them actually have a social media presence and with that being said they actually do not know how to distinguish biased news from actual true news itself


and while I'm not diminishing the fact that oh you know internet should not be used as news I'm saying that we should be able to teach children or whoever that decides to use internet how to distinguish bad news from , sorry fake news from true news itself and with that being said


ya with that being said sorry I just lost my train of thought right there uh with that being said they obviously will be able to educate children and at the same time


I'm just gonna take a really quick example for example for PM lee speech regarding COVID nineteen yes it's available across all platforms but how many of our older generation actually have access to youtube, or even have access to maybe the internet per se


lower-income houses households may not have access the internet as well so their only source of information could be the television itself , and even in the olden days television have always been a way for people to connect for families to come together so I think television despite all the internet despite what they're showing I think it's just the way for people to come together nonetheless


without the whole like you know trying to find something to load on the internet if it doesn't load up whereas the TV it's just playing whatever it has to play and everyone will just come together and sit and just watch you know and they'll just make the best of whatever the situation is at the moment ah so that's my argument for this as what she just brought to me ah


(mmhmm)


meghan markle


yup


okay with that being said I go back to my point why I say that yes the information is very fast on the internet however a lot of people in the world are not equipped with the skills what you said though so it's, that's why you see all these fake news coming up because they're so ill-equipped they will not be able to distinguished which one is real which one is not real in fact in the polls that sort of like uh like I said a lot of children in UK are not equipped right so at least


two thirds of children they don't even trust the news on the internet itself because of the amount of fake news that's fake news had actually being put around , it's great that your grandparents are actually very you know well are up with times however what about those people who don't have the luxury of having people teach them if you gonna say the government I mean sure the government will definitely trying to enable all their citizens


however what happens when they are completely left alone and no one is is aware and how are they going to find out the news the only other ways that is the TV at the end of the day and yes while is heavily moderated and regulated because it's only because they don't want to have an uprest in the country itself they don't want


the country the citizens itself to, not say not care about trivial matters but, in these times especially in in COVID there's a lot going on so, I would assume that our country would obviously regulate the media to try and ensure that the people you know try to stay grounded and like hopefully focus on what's important to them


I do agree the internet is a great place for information but I just think that, it could be fact-checked a lot and I mean okay I'm just gonna throw something out there I mean in the event of a


terrorist attack for example cyber terrorism it's very very real in this day and age if, say for example a terrorist organisation decides to take down electricity there goes your wifi I mean there's literally no way for you to access the internet and at the end of the day I mean


your radio won't work but the old school radios might work because you know they have they can just use batteries and tuned into whatever frequencies and what not so, ya that's that's my case I just think that having both will be good


but having the skills to distinguish which is real or not like having this being able to educate people and maybe open up this, supposed world to everyone and not just limited to just the youngsters or whatnot, because if not then no one's going to be able to to understand


which is real which is not real and then you know they just going to be like oh ya the government just making stuff up you know like having conspiracy theories and things like that so, ya I rest my case


ya but with that being said there are so many third world countries that don't have everything that you just said, so, take for example we're gonna take a very extreme example uh probably maybe south-africa, , maybe in singapore and the US china north-korea maybe other places they are much more blessed to be able to have access to the internet and be educated however like you mentioned like Yemen


you know and all those places they don't have that luxury to be able to you know get access to how else are you going to know maybe the TV is their only way of finding out what's going on in the world, so that's why it's still very relevant to still have television I mean with global warming and everything there's always uh there's always ways to counter that solar panels for electricity for example newspapers they're recycling it to make like maybe recycled


notepads and what not you know , I guess at the end of the day I think both have to come hand in hand together because what you see in the internet may not be true but what you see on the news might be true despite it being regulated


, all comes down to the person being educated like you said and of course, the ability to fact check between all sources be it whether the radio be it whether television be it whether newspaper but


at the end of the day I won't say that TV and newspaper or radio are completely irrelevant be it entertainment or not cause in third world countries they still heavily reply reply uh sorry rely on television cause they don't have access to the internet so while it is a good concept unfortunately I think the world has a long ways to go


before they can have this access to to grant this access to everyone you know , you don't even need, like, the government to regulate the TV for propaganda literally in russian soviet times , I don't think that would I don't think everyone had television back then you know it was just mostly just posters and everything and people form their own opinions it was only when the internet was formed than people started posting opinions online and then keyboard warriors start coming along


it's dangerous as well because if a person is smart enough to maybe hack or you know with regards to whatever information that the person wants to find out they could stalk a person in singapore thankfully it is a crime to stalk someone however in other parts of the world people can easily get away with it


because you know of their ability and you know , ya, I think before we say that it's irrelevant we should be able to cater to other countries as well not just ours like other countries have to be able to have that kind of access so they can make decisions for themselves you know not the government saying that okay you guys should listen to this completely while it's completely sad that north-korea has been cooped up


you know because of uh certain political people, , it's safe to say that they're gaining awareness more or less about what's going on, , thanks to media I suppose like you said you know I I'm not sure if they have internet access over there


, uh but I know that it's uh completely very strict but in china, even the internet itself is heavily regulated for example you can't use uh if I'm not mistaken facebook in china so the government has control of that as well in china I know the only possible


, apps you could probably use is Wechat ya Wechat if I'm not mistaken or maybe Kakao telegram for example, so ya despite the internet being a great place it is still also very heavy regulated


by the government ya so there are pros and cons to both really, rest my case ya, (ppc)


, anything is impossible


cool alright


, yeah


don't worry I've trouble with that word as well


okay you mentioned something about if they don't agree to show their face to an interview right now if I understand correctly if you are going to be out for an interview surely there will be released forms, that will indicate that you know are you comfortable with showing your face are you comfortable with this are you comfortable with that if the person is you know


probably maybe like you and me I never read the terms and conditions on anything was half the time well unless if it's about something that you know does require me to release certain things like personal issues about myself , so, the thing is that if a person fails to read whatever has been given to them in terms of an interview because I'm pretty sure there are protocols with regards to that and they sign it the moment they put that ink on that paper they relinquished all rights


to remain anonymous, so unless, they have explicitly say and is explicitly mentioned in certain contracts I believe that, if you want to be in the public eye if you are a public figure if you're an influencer if you are a celebrity you completely relinquished that right because


you are using your platform to maybe send out a message for example black lives matter protest these people knew what they were getting into when they decided to protest they knew, the media was going to actually cover, this of cause it it it became a big thing right you know so obviously


I mean it would be silly to say that someone go went into a protest, do not have to not have media attention because that's the whole idea of a protest you want to have media attention on whatever you're protesting for because it is a core's that you're willing to fight for and while that's very admirable I think you just completely give up your rights


when you decide that you know I'm going to going for a protest you can cover your face I mean nobody stopping you from that but if people find out who you are, you can't really blame them because you know it's coverage by media and since we're on the black lives matter topic


the reason why I don't believe that you know you have the rights to have anonymity I pronounced it right is that its accountability, people need to have accountability for whatever reason it could be maybe someone getting arrested who is this person we want to know who


so there needs to be, someone to take the fall, or more like someone to show accountability because if the person remains anonymous by definition they cannot be identified it literally makes it impossible to be accountable, so naturally the public will react in such a way like for example when george george ~loyd I think I got the name right I'm not quite sure floyd ya for ya is it george ya but I remember his name is george when


is this whole black lives matter uh started because of the wrong the uh unjust system and because of the wrongdoings that were done to him you know however, like you said if people remain you know have the right to be anonymous then like you know


I suppose then, the police also have a right to you know, stay anonymous as well you know despite them being the public sector because they might receive death threats yes they're doing wrong but why are they not you know covering their faces because of accountability people want to know who did it


therefore all these protests have come about you know that's why all these legal proceedings have come out and that's why justice has been served cause if if there's no accountability to it than who are they going to look for it could be anyone you know and, ya that's that's my argument to now


that's a very long argument ,


(mmhmm)


okay, you mentioned something about whistle blowers now whistle blowers I think it's slightly different to maintaining anonymity because whistle blowers are private people like and in terms of sectors


because the debate topic was to remain anonymous when portrayed in media whistle blowers are not usually portrayed in media in general because you are considered, they're not they're private figure they're not a public figure so public figures I'm talking about like I said politicians and influencers and whatnot whistle blowers obviously don't get write out because they are covered by corporate law itself


they have to remain anonymous like you said for the sake of their careers and it is their right ultimately because, at the end of the day they are not a public figure so therefore they still keep their rights,


however with the jeffrey epstein and the donald trump issue that you brought up while I can agree that yes maybe some of the victims might want to remain anonymous , I can understand that maybe there's a shame they could probably you know face when doing it


but, if I understand correctly, of the first two victims of maybe halfway through uh the victims they were brave enough themselves to face court to go up to a news article when they were going to write an article on jeffrey epstein in business times because they wanted to know who he was cause he was so mysterious cause he became a public figure


so you see how that works when someone becomes public figure they want to know everything about the person so when something really nasty comes out like that you know these girls like you know this person is not who he says he is therefore we wanna speak out so by them wanting to speak out already, if they wanted to stay anonymous they wouldn't have you know volunteered themselves and of course in the US I it really depends I think because I know the US the privacy laws are different from singapore


singapore safeguards uh their citizens which is a great thing really , current in the US because of the widely accepted belief you know in the right to know information of the public concern the freedom of speech and their first amendment itself, it literally generally overrides public figures like their right to privacy because they choose to be portrayed in the media if you choose something that has to be an action and consequence so


ya, that's that's ya unless if it's a for example if if it's a defamation cases, like if it's untrue facts and all that ya I completely agree by all means you know remain anonymous because it's not true facts however


if you know, public figures were shaped by the defamation cases then obviously they can practise their first amendment rights whether like you know despite me being a public figure these accusations are false you know like I don't want to I'm not going to be accountable I'm not going to be we're going to stand accountable for this cause it's completely false and they have evidence to back it up


but again when you, want to be portrayed in media, you are basically just opening a can of worms already some people just don't have that right anymore I just don't think that like ya I get it with the shame and everything it's it's completely devastating


but, surely there is a way for them to speak to someone without wanting to be portrayed in the media they could speak to therapists they have their sworn secrecy between you know patient-doctor , uh confidentiality it why does it have to be portrayed in the media because


the media is a place whereby people look for answers in a way I guess when they want to know something newspaper internet and they're looking for someone to be able again back to accountability, they


be it whether normal people or uh public figures kayler talks about normal people like you said you know those who uh you know have been shamed and victim shamed and what not yes they stepped up to the media but my question to them is, why do you want to tell the media though why not just speak to someone about it maybe try and get some help you know I get it they want to maybe if you wanted to shame someone for doing something wrong and the media then I think it's a double-edged sword already


because if you want to put someone on blast on media, then I think that at the same time you also have to put yourself out there


but again sorry sorry let me know when you're done


ya because that's my perception is that uh when you want to put someone on blast, right I think it's only fair that you tell people who you are, because, maybe the justice system will fail you know but


by putting someone on blast you're essentially uh doxing them for back again accountability and for you to remain anonymous, it's, you're supposed to be well I guess if you want to step up you know to to put for example of jeffrey epstein out there


by telling people your story, I guess in a way it's trying to enable other girls who have faced the same thing to step up right but how will it how are they going to step up, when they can't look up to that person or not know who that person is what if they want to speak to that person they don't know who the person is so I guess in a way ya they can remain anonymous for sure


you know but at the same time, it has to be fair play, I don't think it's fair that you that may be a victim is like a get it she's a victim she obviously has a lot going on already but like, I don't think it's fair that if you're trying to stand up for something no matters who do it all the way there is always gonna be backlash despite whether in the media or not but you are brave enough already to come this far


so why not hold on to that bravery, and help other girls as well if if this is what we're talking about like I completely support that because obviously it's a terrible terrible thing but, if you've already taken that step to be brave and speak about it why not hold on to their bravery itself


and help others and help other girls as well so they know they can look up to someone, ya I think, I rest my case this is all I have to say


!woohoo!


(mmhmm)


okay well , this debate topic is very popular and at the same time very difficult to , uh been in the opposition side I'm I'm just going to put that out there mainly because I do agree with this statement unfortunately as opposition but at the same time there are pros and cons to everything else like everything else we have in our world


true that they should not have the right to store and use, our personal information storing is one thing like I think it's okay to store you know just to have the information, but to use the information it's a matter of how it's being used I feel


so I think that it's good well not good but like I think uh to a certain point I think it's necessary to store, I guess specific information about people like you know like you say where they stay social security number things like that you know


for example there was a documentary on netflix I think it was called uh don't mess with cats so , I feel like we may have already all watched it so essentially it's about a man got arrested, , from the use of social media by a group of people who were very dead set on catching this guy because he essentially tortured a little baby kitten


ya it's really sad baby kitten and other animals as well and murdered someone you know and post clips of it online and these group of people uh essentially used these clips used social media to find out where he's at where he might be located at you know


and with social media they happen to garner enough you know attention you know to ask people you know try and look for these people and, wherever this guy when if he posted something somewhere they could use the information and try and find this guy so if it's used in a way that's good you know for the society whereby you know you can catch people like this who


was nearly impossible to find because they could track they could hide their tracks so well then please by all means you know save my information and maybe help me if I ever got kidnapped for example you know maybe my last text message to Aisha for example was was


something that I would normally not say and I shall be like wait this is not right you know and then they could probably go into my social media to see where I was the last place I was there or where was I you know last tag there into that kind of things you know they could probably maybe try and pinpoint my location


, ya it's not really much of an argument literally just mainly to use it for good , cause, ya here rest my case there ,


(ppc),


those are great points those are great points I have to say again I can only go back to you know uh obviously using it for the good of humanity


because unfortunately even, based on research itself if you look it up a lot of people are very against their information or like social media sorry information being, used by social media accounts that's why you always have that box whenever you agree to sign up for instagram maybe or facebook there's like a little checkbox that will pop up even twitter


do you agree for this application to use or to track your information and most of the time we say yes because we want to be able to use the application unfortunately so sometimes, without a choice we are forced, to except those things because you know if not we can't use the application itself while at the same time by them like give like asking us to accept that options it's probably because they want to just you know uh


get information you know to be able to assess how well the application is doing to basically access the data what's the screen time of some people because maybe they want to make some changes to the application another thing that I could probably raise up is uh the nth room case


so long story short it is basically a criminal case that was in south uh south-korea involving uh blackmail and cyber sex trafficking essentially the kids were that the girls were ranging from age nineteen all the way to about maybe sixteen uh they were all minors basically


and these girls were targeted possibly because you know lack of money and this this guy , he was nicknamed god god and this was all through a telegram app itself, so telegram actually stores this data and everything that's going on you know during conversations and what not and


if they didn't store this information they probably would have never caught the guy you know because, everything that was everything was tracked anything from you know the text messages to the chat rooms that he created to sell these explicit videos you know to the blackmail to prove the blackmails to all these girls saying that if you don't do this you know I'll send someone to dogs you and things like that so ultimately at the end of the day


my only argument that I can actually just really argue whereby is possibly that if if there could be a regulation, to show that or a regulation or or like a drawn up contract or something to say that, this information is stored however they clearly dictate what it's gonna be used for then I think you know by all means go ahead you know you can store my information or or whatever but if there's no clear indication everything's very vague then


ya mean I I'd be quite terrified myself really I mean my bank details might be out there like I think singapore had a case not too long ago about DBS being hacked do you know our money was being lost you know and all by just one guy if I'm not mistaken so uh


oh ya ya from uh, was it C was it not CPF account , ya both, I I I know of these cases but unfortunately like uh you know you have said Aisha a lot of the times they're used for really horrible things but if a regulation or a law can be passed that companies have to explicitly show what do they need to store this information for and for what purpose


then I think maybe we could come to a consensus or even meet in the middle ground that you know !hey! you know what fine you can store my information but, only if whatever you say in your contract is true to it because ultimately a black and white contract enabled someone to sue another company if a person doesn't you know comply by it


, rest my case , is it, personal data protection this allows people to, keep information


it's it's only


ya but like I I was aiming at like you know if they like if it's okay like it's okay to store them I don't think PDPA covers the whole companies able to store them and use them for what reason unless uh because I if I remember correctly PDPA is between


the person he himself have to agree to it I suppose, but, I guess I'm looking on more on a large scale whereby companies explicitly tell anyway despite like maybe before a person signs up for something


ya


(mmhmm)


honestly this this is a very difficult uh topic I I personally just goes against everything that I believe in I mean as an opposition I'm not supposed to be saying that but I'm gonna say anyway because I more or less actually agree with that statement I really don't think I think it


maybe some other opposition could probably you know , state their points clearly but I think because of my personal belief uh that that you know what yeah I don't think they should store my information because there is always the fear, that I'm I'm going to have to like agree with proposition for this because like I


there's like everyone's terrified you know it's every everything is so digitalised nowadays even in china itself that they came up with this software, that mimics one of the black mirror episodes whereby you know they're tracking people and it's yeah it's basically a rating system you know and this more or less enables them to like like tell them oh okay


babe should we hired this person oh let us check this you know rating system how many people have written them good kind of thing so, it's it's at the same time it's also pretty unfair but as opposition I can only stand for, if there are enough regulations you know where


or maybe if people start doing good with the information maybe they can turn their perception around but I honestly highly doubt it because everyone's always looking for dirt on another person everyone's always trying to


figure out how are they going to kill the competition for example mean before you go to war you obviously you'll try and find any sort of way to foresee ya weak spots to foresee maybe take their gun before they can even shoot it kind of thing so it's


it's it's difficult, ya it essentially you know people have all these ammo against you and and you know what's what's the most you can do like oh I have this I have all this information like at what what how did you get it so oh you know


cause they are companies where you can pay to retrieve information you know and they are by a legal binding contract allowed to do that you know and there's really not much you can say because, when a person subject themselves to this ya they lose the rights but the same time I don't think it's fair either so unless it's being used for good please by all means but other than that opposition rest their case I have nothing else to conclude with honestly it's very it's very difficult


yeah possibly ya


ya definitely cause uh, ya cause ,


uh yes, yes very familiar, oh doja cat,


ya no all in all it's just it's just a very controversial topic that that everyone can have different views on I just feel like that it does more good than bad uh ya like in in terms of storing information


, then it's more bad than good cause it just implicates everybody really I mean that's probably the only other reason why some some people can be caught because of all the information that they've posted online you know like all these murderers who decide to yup literally that


(uh） okay okay


so the most basic way to refute the individual value of non human animals is the capacity argument according to which there is a complex cognitive capacity that categorically differentiates human beings from other animals and forms the necessary criteria for individual value


so the argument goes like capacity X exist only in humans and X is necessary uh is a necessary criterion for individual value but animals does not have individual value so this argument has been put forth by a lot of


a lot of people whose who who feel that a a lot of opponents who feel that uh animal lives are are not equal compared to human life's and however uh the there are problems with this argument the main difficulty has been to prove the existence of a capacity


that is exclusive to human beings so like much impressive literature have being dedicated to this subject and a number of philosophers and ethologist have argued that contrary to traditional themes such as capacity may be incredibly difficult to find


so the the philosophical side has offered arguments according which various complex cognitive capacities can exist also in the absence of propositional language in ethology various studies have suggested that the cognitive capacities of animals


are significantly more advanced than is traditionally assumed so these claims that animals are phenomenally uh conscious beings with various complex cognitive and capacities are becoming more frequent by the day more importantly the relation between the given capacity and individual value is also to be established


the capacity argument tends to on rest a perfectionist ethics which links the moral value an individual to a perfect perfectible capacity held valuable in it's own right so this link uh between the capacity argument and perfectionism has been criticised


for instance value is attributable to the cognitive capacity themselves rather than individuals who possess them so so for example , when an individual value is made uh indirect John is valuable because rationality is valuable the problem becomes clearer when considering intrahuman ethics so intelligence artistic ability and beauty are viewed as valuable characteristics


but they do not effect the individual value of human beings so why then uh does complex cognitive capacities be relevant when it comes to the individual value of non human animals so in in short right what what my argument is trying to say is


why, why are we not , attributing the value of humans with the intellectual and artistic abilities and all these intrinsic uh capabilities uh whereas for for animals we we we don't we don't do that so uh in in that in that sense we we need to be on a equal level playing field


, and hence that uh renders uh argument poorly justified in the in the opposition for this motion


okay thank you for your, uh rebuttals , uh one one key point I would like to raise regarding the the points that you have raised is when you was you were talking about how


you know how like apes may not have the cognitive capacity as compared to humans and like scientists have have discovered like maybe like high higher intelligence compared to rest of the animals but it's not as


high in that sense to to humans however there there are also different categories in in humans right for example very young children maybe uh people with mental disability people who are see now who who may not be able to comprehend and and have this limited cognitive


uh capacities right what makes them different from , maybe like the smartest animals right in this case the discrimination between how we view uh the animals and, okay so like let's say if we discriminate animals uh in terms of like their cognitive capacities comparatively to humans we also like aggravate the discrimination between people as well uh different groups of people with different cognitive capacities however like when when we are looking at


human as a species right we we don't we don't like , we don't, view the different kind of uh, groups of people differently and judge them based on their capacities their the level of empathy level level of being able to relate or et cetera and that that kind of things essentially if you were to talk about how feelings as is maybe like one part of


how we would maybe judge uh animals and people on on a plane then animals do feel as well as we have uh as studies have shown that uh animals do feel stuff and and that's very similar to to to to humans as well maybe like humans may have a slightly higher cognitive kind of reflective element


however in that sense we we still should not uh discriminate the value of animals comparatively to human


okay thank you for the points that you have raised so I think you you mentioned how you know like, you, like how maybe like less cognitively capable humans uh still belong to the human species group and that is uh that that is the that is kind of the general humanistic argument that


a lot of, people who who who this uh the opponents of this uh argument uh would would raised and the the the question here is why individuals can claim to possess capacities on the basis of group membership right so for example a person cannot claim to be moderately musical simply because most members of a species


are right and maybe like another person cannot claim that his IQ is uh a hundred because this is the average for his specie, so in the same way we cannot say that just because they are they belong to a group of humans that their intrinsic value as a individual


would would in that sense belong to the group, and in that way you you would, in a sense like have humans as a as a high uh view view the entire group of humans as a higher uh


value kind of group uh however this this maybe groups of people they actually if you compare them with maybe the highest uh groups of animals right if you compare them based on cognitive abilities or like feelings and stuff like that right


they might actually be on the same plane of comparison so how can you say that uh in that sense that, we are not, the same and we are more valuable than them right and and a second point that you also raised was about how uh animals or apes


do not know about right and wrong however actually recent uh actually a lot of studies have actually shown that they do know how to differentiate what is, right and wrong through learning a certain patterns so like it's it's like a it's like a learning behaviour so I believe like humans in the sense we also do not we are not born knowing what is right or wrong right we we we are taught through education and like


do , our older generation of like ancestors of like uh maybe their knowledge and whatever like teaching us these kind of things and through this like learn learn learned environment right , they are able they are capable of being able to differentiate between right and wrong so in that sense uh that


argument there I I'm not sure whether I follow ya


(mmhmm) uh I think you you you raised the point on how like because humans are able to uh emote and stuff like that right and that's why , that would correlate to us to our to maybe like human lives being more valued then animal lives however the the the the the problem here is that


yes uh animal animal cruelty still exists so why do animal cruelty uh still exist and why are people still okay with , maybe like experimenting on on certain animals and and being cruel to some of them it is because they perceive that the human lives are more superior and more valuable than animal lives and


that that that is the that is essentially the the argument here where where, you know like animal lives and human lives should not be err, are are are equally valued in that sense because uh if if you want to brought bring in like the argument of right and wrong right so uh human lives uh of like murderers or like child rapist and and and then like the these uh very nasty kind of characteristics that have uh evolved


right from from humans how would you compare like them with uh that their value as a human would would their value as a human be lesser then maybe like your pet dog right who has been with you and and and for for like for like for like years who who


go through like go through tough times together that kind of thing right so in that sense it's it's a very subjective kind of , way to view whether err, uh humans and animals have uh value uh and and and to weight them on a scale and to compare them uh to compare their value right uh based on this uh scale just just because they are


just because they belong to a group that means they are more superior that that should not be the basis of comparison


, okay , so there's a common saying that goes as such change is the only concern change is like a huge and necessary part of life right so advocates of change uh believe that change is always good and it like it basically allows the world to constantly improve and move towards a better future


and some of the proposition kind of uh arguments would be one example is that change leads to innovation and improvements in life the desire to constantly improve and the willingness to embrace change in order to achieve better and to adapt to changes in the external environment


has uh resulted in a lot of breakthroughs in terms of innovation and technology so what we have today in terms of like virtual meetings our computers and and like iphones smartphones that you know and all this technology right like we we even have like


uh self driving cars coming up and maybe even self driving flying cars right so these are some of these are advancements that we have uh encountered because of change , and also in terms of err


allowing people to be more accepting to new and unconventional ideas so a a lot of the times we we, might stay rooted in our traditional mindsets or original mindsets but with change and discussion of like ideas a lot of mindsets in society has led to the world becoming more accepting of different cultures


of people with ideas and beliefs that do not align with their status quo so for example black lives matter uh in the recent news and also you know all all these like issues on race coming up as well as uh you know today is actually pink dot


so uh pink dot right anyone who celebrate pride month so uh all these things would not have happened uh without change you know without changing your mindset from the original status quo uh in the past where maybe our parents have or our our grandparents have have believed that


you know these things are you know just the way it is and they did not question whether it was right or wrong or or the morals behind it the reasons and everything else right they did not carry out discussions furthermore like things like , assault and like uh cases and like rape and stuff like that right all these things have uh surfaced more in the recent year uh and and has been put like the media has put more light on to it shine more light into it because you know


this this kind of change towards being able to talk about more taboo topics has lead to more people speaking up on uh on these like very sensitive topics which is more beneficial to be talked about than to be just swept under the the rug even though it might not be


a very pretty kind of sight you know so in that sense change can be a force of good uh which allows people to forgo stereotypes outdated ways of thinking encourage people to be more willing and accept different ideas


by changing their own views on you know how society should be so ya in in conclusion in a world that is increasingly divers and complex change uh has the potential to create a more harmonious tolerant and peaceful world


okay thank you for your arguments uh definitely does bring up a lot of points on how you know like change is a double edged sword so maybe let's bring back to, the the statement itself right change is always good so what is good here how how do we define good right I think in


the debate on how good and bad is is very subjective right it's uh like what are morals morals are something that we kind of like uh, decide on the basis of philosophers right even philosophers have have a very different kind of definitions on what might be good and what is bad and in that sense if you are looking at


how we define good right are we looking at it a utilitarian kind of point of view or how are we looking at it right so in a sense change will always have a price to pay because everything has a good and bad in in that sense uh if we are looking at it


subjectively right there's because it's a it's a construct right there will always be uh both sides of the coin however the the the examples that you brought up like war uh from the drone killing and irreversible loss of lives


let's take ourselves back a couple of years uh maybe like a couple of centuries to world war one world war two right where, they had they didn't have technological advancements at that point of time comparatively to now uh however there were also many loss of lives because of humans greed for power and stuff like that right and is that and that is because of


err humans nature on on like uh certain things like greed and power and authority right and and is not really, kind of, because of change and so like if we look at the the war that happened in the past and and right now right there there is definitely


with technological advancements there's there will be good points and and there will also be be, things like you know , privacy issues uh hijacking scams and like uh maybe like even equipping people with more uh with with like weapons for war like such as the nuclear uh kind of invention right like


even the the inventor of like the nuclear bomb was a was was quite, was quite regretful because of the possible negative impacts that it might , have on the world so I think the thing uh the the the the reason why change is still good in the sense is


because people are able to , understand and and and benefit from the good side of it and you know try their best to change other people's mindset who or or people or people who who would like to you know have err


so for example , there are two kinds of people good and bad people right in the world so like the the good people might think oh I'm not going to hijack people I'm not gonna have drone uh I'm not gonna like uh employ drones to go and kill people right whereas the the those bad people


would in that sense use these uh weapons uh in and and would would act on these things so in that sense the good people could possibly you know change the mindsets of the bad people by having conversations and and


trying to change their mindsets so in that way it would uh allow a greater uh spread of you know , going towards the goal of good so in that sense change is good , yes


(mmhmm),


okay , that makes sense so if let's say we are going to define good right as a utilitarian kind of argument right uh you know like utilitarians belief that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things in the world


and decreasing the amount of bad things right so good things could be pleasure happiness and bad things could be pain and and unhappiness right so let's take a look at the past and now right


so in the past people were dying right from from poor sanitation uh a lot of diseases and stuff like that right and and right now in because of our advancements in healthcare a lot of things that would have killed people in the past


have uh have allowed people to live now right and that is something that would I would say was also irreversible in the past and now it's you know it it has bring about a a total kind of good to the world


and even though we might have COVID nineteen right now right it's uh you know what if this disease was discovered in the past would would they have like uh the resources the kind of education the kind of like , knowledge and advancements to to figure things out comparatively to now where we are we are working on vaccine and stuff like that I I I uh it it feels like you know the the past and the present kind of uh change is is is ultimately for the good of the world


and you know like last uh in the past there was a lot of poverty and to overcome that you know we have gone through education and and and , you know having like more higher skilled jobs and and from developed developing countries less develop countries become more developed countries right and have all these advancements and and uh


you know like even though money might bring us stress and stuff like that right ultimately uh comparatively to the past there are there are much lesser , kind of, change ya uh for for the bad yup so that's my point thanks


, yes okay so uh so thank you for that uh I'm just going to briefly run through the arguments that you have made and also uh reasons why the opposition stand holds true so just taking your arguments one by one right if we look at the first argument


which is that animals have uh complex cognitive abilities that are significantly more advanced than than humans so this does not appear to be true in my research there's actually an evolutionary scientist his name is uh Joe Graham


so he uh argues a a lot about how humans are actually very very distant from from animals so he talks about things like you know opposable thumbs for example if we go into if we go into details you know their ability to understand morals to


uh yeah for example and uh as well as other biological functions and our capability to adapt to different environments uh which have seen us you know as uh superior species through the generation so uh that's not something that I have come across and uh something that I think we can take further if you do have more details about


uh about what uh what which animals in in particular as well as how they are uh how their capacities are more advanced than us and uh there's also another argument about how we should uh I guess use a use a level playing field meaning to


be able to kind of value humans uh the same way as how uh animals are valued so I think this argument is uh predicated on the previous argument which is that animals have these abilities to begin with but there many sorry evolutionary scientists who have also found out that and that that's not true


so that is something that uh remains contested, as well ya and uh I also just want to forward a few more uh arguments so going into detail about what we have as humans are different from animals so uh capacities for perception and emotion and communication for example that is not something that uh animals can take part


uh in this discussion so for example uh scientist have also studied you know the ways that uh maybe like chimpanzees can can communicate, uh but they have also found that you know there is very limited uh evidence that animals even, you know considered as sophisticated as chimpanzees to us are actually as sophisticated in their


in the language as as we are so there is that difference in the, uh in the intensity or the extent they are that they are able to uh communicate to to perceive and to feel so uh that's that's really a huge part of why


we are you know genetically and also like philosophically and intellectually different from animals and I also want to touch on uh separate point which is the, morality point so we did talk about it earlier in a sense that morality seems to be


the you know uh like subjective uh in a sense that like what we define as like moral or valuable depends on I guess in a way like what humans already have but I would also like to forward the argument that there is a that that pre-existing condition that humans are


are there to be able to even to fathom uh what morality is in the first place so for example if you know if humans were to not exist and there were only animals on this planet morality is in a way is non existent because morality is is a human term


so whatever we you know discuss in a way it is in it is subjective uh to humans and uh and they and animals do not have that that consciousness to judge such a moral value that that we have, which we have


you know therefore come up with such a term in the first place and ya so those are uh the few arguments that I would like to extend


ya thank you for that so I'm just going to go through what you mentioned so you you did speak a little bit about so example the difference between a child who is very young or a person who is mentally impaired versus uh animals and how that might aggravate distinctions


uh between humans so uh I do think that, even though a person who is, uh even though for example we consider a young person right who is a child or someone who is mentally impaired uh doesn't make them any less human I think to look at it in a holistic sense they they do understand what morality is they do have emotions they do perceive the same way


we do so uh even though uh we look at them as for example not having reached the the average mental capacity I think it's also important to consider you know the other aspects and uh capacities they have which makes them I think inherently more human


than uh than animals for example I also feel that uh being able to understand that uh child does not have the average mental intelligence or or that uh someone is mentally impaired doesn't aggravate that distinction between


them and and other humans I guess it is to understand that they have different capacities but not in any way to say that uh that they deserve less uh ultimately they still have uh similar capabilities in terms of uh us as a species so I think I would consider that


very different from from animals ya and I think you also touched a little bit about animals cognitive or uh reflective abilities so , yes they definitely do have some uh some degree of cognitive and reflective ability if we look at evolutionary science for example we know that chimpanzees or like apes are more similar to us because they demonstrate uh traits that are very similar to us as well


but , they are very different still uh in terms of the extent of the traits that they have and certain uh aspects of uh for example if we take morality the ability to judge between what is right or wrong is almost completely absent uh in this animal so I would say that uh we are still very different categories I think based on based on this


and uh ultimately is in a lot about weighing what we feel are are distinctly human or distinctly animal traits and uh these are still being debated but according to current studies I think that still quite a clear distinction between them


ya okay , yes so uh just going to take these two arguments right I think the first main one is regarding uh intrinsic value and why they shouldn't be linked to to capabilities but I think I will argue that that is exactly my argument


err I think value is also uh correlated you know to certain to certain capacities in in a sense of you know what differentiate us from, uh from humans and animals are certain uh traits and and therefore we we are different and uh and also you know scientifically and objectively speaking dominant as a species but I also like to forward the idea that just because


we are not the same as animals in value doesn't mean that we cannot value them more so things like uh animal cruelty for example or even uh farming of animals that can be quite inhumane are still wrong under this paradigm


but uh but nevertheless there is still something very different between uh us and them which are the capabilities that we that we spoke about just now , and uh regarding morality I actually have read the same arguments that that animals can tell the difference so uh it's actually still very controversial at the moment and uh the books that have


you know had come out are still very in a sense they are very nascent and uh there are very many unanswered questions about the ways that these studies were done so there is there are other scientists as well who have you know study animals for years and have argued that in some sense of you know their behaviours they are not able to tell


what is so called like the right thing or the wrong thing to do or they don't even have an agreed way to do things which I would argue that is very different under the human paradigm even though these things are are learnt by humans I think that it it is precisely because of how superior


abilities to perceive to emote and to communicate that we can come to an an agreed definition of morality in the first place uh which is something that animals do not have and therefore something that is pretty much uh absent within uh their communication and their understanding as well


right yeah so I think we can, uh probably just summarise the arguments that we made so uh there were a couple of arguments on on on morality on the basis of value and also I think towards the end uh we are speaking a little bit more about


about cruelty which I I suppose uh is more about the effects of something being perceived uh with more value than the other rather than the the idea of value itself so I think we can agree their value is subjective


alright so thank you thank you for those points I think it's really very relevant that you started out saying that change is the only constant and it is the uh the only constant uh we are constantly required to adapt to change in our lives whether in


err whether we we look in the area of technology or in business or in personal life uh things are constantly changing uh ya I feel that the motion uh that change is always good uh is definitely contestable there are plenty of places uh in which we see


change as as a negative force and uh and I'm going to just go through some examples so first I want to start off with technology because that was something that you mentioned earlier regarding you know things like self driving cars uh Zoom or like Webex which we are on


err ironically right now also all have all have issues so if we just look at uh the recent example of of Zoom's hijacking I think uh is really a very well known example but just to condense it I I think the main argument would be to say that uh with technology comes a lot of potential


uh both for users but a lot of potential for people with ill intent so we see a lot of this in scams in in hijacking uh for example and uh even in the dystopian series Black Mirror I would say that Black Mirror is a is a huge reflection of what's going on today


but it's definitely a reflection of the fears that we have of technology and the fact that you know when people are able to to use things it's always both ends of the sword there are there are a lot of cases that uh tech hijacks have happen that people have never expected for example


and uh these are some things that we need to definitely consider when we think about technology as a good force and uh so I also want to bring in uh a very iconic example uh about the drone killings that have been happening in Israel and Palestine so ever since drones have become err


become uh automated you know the most recent drone technology for example is able to uh identify the figure of a human able to recognize the face able to trigger uh automatic missiles and all these things are huge concerns even though they are


they might have a positive impact I I feel in terms of when it comes to war you know benefiting a certain countries interest over another there are nevertheless many many uh other negative consequences to think about and one of them is the irreversible


loss of life so if we look at the example of the Israel Pakistan uh war that was happening in twenty eleven so there was actually uh a couple of drone uh drone strikes about three drone strikes uh in one particular month


and uh we see that the amount of people who were killed were actually three times the usual number of people who were killed within that same time frame if we look at some more statistics and uh I think what is more shocking is the fact that uh there are uh the amount of when we compare the amount of


people who died who were militants compared to the people who died who were civilians it's actually a two to eight ratio so there were very very many innocent civilians who who died in this conflict simply because of the technology was used in a way that was unwise and when I say unwise


I'm referring to the uh Pakistan government actually uh acting on certain uh orders that they received or uh information that they received from anonymous officials or witnesses who are unnamed so basically , really information that has no credibility and uh it's really a very regrettable uh loss of life and I think what it shows is


even though in a way we can consider that technology itself is not uh the cause of this but technology avails humans the ability to uh conduct really such uh such horrible acts and uh the negative impacts are something that we definitely want to consider


and uh if we look in our day to day lives for examples which is things like uh like smartphones or the use of computers or uh devices that we have like iPads and tablets a very huge concern that has been rising over time has uh definitely been the negative


psychological effects of isolation and anxiety so again while we cannot say that having an ipad or having a smartphone or having a computer means that uh means that I become isolated or I become anxious or depressed I think there is definitely


a very high correlation nonetheless so uh even though technology has sought to bring us together you know make us more connected more efficient in our work there's been a lot of evidence to show the reverse which is that uh despite someone having a high number of followers on social media


uh they are still very very much uh even more so susceptible to mental health issues simply because of the superficiality of relationships that are conducted on these platforms and if we look even deeper the uh anonymity that these platforms uh offer


which have also led to to occurrences like cyber bullying and plenty of teens have actually died from that as well ya and uh there are also if you look at micro level certain physical effects that are that have surfaced because of technology so things like


uh like poor posture you know or really eye strain over time and uh and things like insomnia and reduced physical activity and obesity for example so uh all these things are very much concerns related to technology so as we spoke about just now


definitely a double edged sword uh not always a good kind of change so that is for technology uh and then if I can go into uh another argument about uh management corporations so even if we look in the in the area of business


uh we are definitely looking at change as as a form of innovation which is you know always splendid always wonderful but we have also seen CEOs you know over time who have changed for the sake of change and uh that has actually you know wrecked their business so if I can take an example of


of Nabisco so it's one of the uh medical companies that uh that was very popular in in the US back in the nineteen nineties so uh what it did was to try and play around with the management processes in order to make uh people more productive than ever before, and uh all these kinds of uh changes actually wrecked relationships between employees uh so it ended up that the company actually lost twenty five billion so so that's that's a huge concern I think to change for the sake of I think uh sometimes wanting things that are not realistic or not making an informed decision


uh also definitely wrecks uh negative change


okay alright ya so I think we touched on two main points here ya do correct me if I'm wrong so uh the first one is the idea of what's good versus bad and the second is specific to technology I think uh as as a prime example being able to understand how you know one person might influence another


so if we return to the first argument about uh good versus bad so you mentioned a few ways or thing about good so things like philosophers different views or uh what it mean to be utilitarian and does that necessarily mean good for example


yes so definitely there are different ways to understand what good is I think it'll be useful for us to agree on a ground to discuss what good is so so personally for me in uh understanding change I do see it from a utilitarian perspective


but I also see it from a reversibility perspective so we are able to understand that uh things like you know loss of life or uh physical health that happen you know like during bombings that cannot be reversed I think it's


it's not purely utilitarian in a sense we need to understand that certain things or effects that happen are more severe than others so uh despite the fact that tech has brought us you know so so much advancement uh in military technology countries like Singapore for example can now protect ourselves


in a scalable way from uh other countries who might try to intrude our territory for example it's an example of like a great you know great change great technological change but I think also weighing that


more seriously with the loss of lives that happen with mistakes that happen that are both on account of uh technology for example you know inaccuracy in drone strikes uh and on the account of people who had who made decisions that are not valid or are or are grounded


are things that I think you also need to consider and you also bought up about the point world war two for example so yes there were a lot of death uh in world war two in world war one as well and in any other major war that has happened uh but I think what differentiates


uh change from that it's the fact that uh technology now if we look at technological change enables us to create the same harm so much faster uh and and without much thought uh in effect and that that is what happen with the drone strikes right because uh it's not something you see on the ground you send a robot to do it


and so we are lost to those effects and uh that it something that technology I think uniquely enables us to do in a negative way that is different from taking a spear for for example and and throwing it at someone uh the the rate of killing so the speak is is actually


slower and lesser ya and if we understand uh look at that uh I think when we look at the good people for example influencing the bad I think , that that is a possibility of change itself but I think that would be a smaller scope compared to things that have major shifts that have happened over the years so we look at uh social changes we look at technological changes political changes in fact


this idea that someone who is bad good can influence the bad is is a little bit smaller compared to the changes that have have happened so I guess what I'm trying to say is that the major points that I've made uh align more with the bigger changes and less with you know for example individual changes on the ground


okay so thank you for those points definitely a lot of of breadth and a lot of depth as well in term of in terms of the stats so thank you for that ya I I definitely agree uh that


there are many cases where mothers may be very unwise with abortion uh but I think we also must remember that banning it means that, mothers can't make wise decision either but before I really get onto that track I just want to quote what uh the UN secretary general said three years ago


so he said any person who does not control what happens to their body cannot be free and uh that really is the basis of a lot of my arguments that yes you know when we consider effects in totality they might be


abuse but I think we also need to be sensitive to the rights of the mother here that there are certain uh rights that we have and over our own bodies especially I think that that should not be contested but that's something that I'll go into more detail later


so before that I just want to look a little bit uh more into some arguments that you mentioned so one of the arguments is that education is important so the fact that people for example may may have a child you know


unwittingly and see abortion as a contraceptive measure you know that that can be very cruel as opposed to understanding these measures beforehand you know and not inflicting such pain on a child so yes I do I do think that education should uh should continue you know in


more the more rural parts of Africa for example because of culture and tradition many mothers have many children and they are not really educated so to speak on how to raise these children whether in terms of the capacity that they have or uh in terms of uh financial status


so those are things that we should continue to to be able to provide to help mothers to understand the weight of their choice uh in abortion uh options are what we should continue to provide as well so like things like uh allowing children


to go to social service centers when mothers cannot provide for them uh those are things that we should continue to offer but I think that that is not mutually exclusive with making abortion legal I think we should consider that even if we do make abortions legal you know there are certain


steps that we can take and should continue to take to uh to ensure that the wise decision is made, and in terms of there is also another separate point regarding uh deformity because uh and I think it's very relevant because it kind of decides you know, in a way what makes uh an abortion a a wise one so to speak I would say that that is definitely very contested but there are a few moments in time I think when we should uh give more serious consideration and weight uh to what the mother should do


so for example when abortion uh happens because of pregnancies as result of a crime so things like rape incest uh and child abuse so lining up to whatever we spoke about you know regarding uh having choice being really the basis of a a lot of human autonomy


I think we need to give that uh that more weight so yes in a way it would be cruel to you know murder a child for example because uh that child has been you know conceived within you but I think we also need to consider the circumstances


that uh that surround that conceiving so uh crimes that I spoke about like uh like rape and incest , err these crimes do in a way threaten the mother's health and her mental health is really very important in deciding whether or not to give birth to this child so it definitely lines up with autonomy where it is the mother's choice and


if we look at the deformity for example I think we also need to view deformity uh from a different angle so uh what we spoke about just now was that uh looking at deformity as seeing someone's life as more valuable I think that


that is one way to look at it but another way to look at it is to understand the quality of life that the child might have so a child with you know with serious physical handicaps genetic problems mental defects do suffer in their life and uh it's it's not something that


uh that can be taken uh trivially uh I would argue so fundamentally it's not in a way that you know the child doesn't deserve to live or the child uh deserves life or privilege any less than us but it's to understand the cost and uh and and then the pain


that children do go through as a result of having as these uh as having these defects or or problems uh health problems and I think we also need to give weight to you know line always lining up with the autonomy argument uh what the mother decides for the child


even if we look at things like , err poverty for example yes you know the option to give away your child is is is always there but that it is ultimately the mother's decision right on whether she wants to give birth uh to a child who you know she ultimately has to let go of as well I think that that is a degree of cruelty to the to the mother as well


ya so that is on deformity and and autonomy and uh and I also want to forward another argument that uh banning abortions isn't always isn't always effective and that is not to say that just because it's not effective


it shouldn't be banned uh but to talk about certain negative effects that arise with that as well so states that have tried to banned abortions in a in history according to the world health organisation it's found that when abortion services are denied or limited


mothers actually resort to other measures so things like uh using coat hangers you know to kind of like insert into themselves which is very violent threatens their lives as well toxic herbal medicine or unqualified practitioners who you know have been involved in uh


scams with mothers as well these are all other options that are really uh really unhealthy and toxic methods that uh mothers actually go to uh in order to in order to abort so there are definitely


these are definitely some of the uh negative effects that we need to consider there's also a very very harrowing story uh related to my earlier mentioning of the the the rape issue that uh there is uh one woman who was


err granted asylum in Ireland after she was uh getting beaten and raped by militaries in her own country so uh this is actually a less developed country that was at war and uh when she was told in Ireland that she couldn't end her pregnancy she almost killed herself


so I think we also need to consider not just I guess the health of the fetus but also but also the mother sometimes, holding on to a child does endangers the mother's life and uh at that point in time I also want to bring in the idea of uh of of pain and cruelty right so like what does it mean to kill a child or you know at at what stage does it become more cruel than others


so a lot some scientific research has also shown that that fetuses need to be at least into twenty four weeks to feel pain so uh prior to that they actually don't have the uh the brain cells


the cell connection that's actually strong enough to feel pain, so I will argue that actually before twenty four weeks the the mother should definitely have a choice on whether she wants to do that yes even though there's less pain uh it is still killing of a fetus but I think we also need to understand


err what the fetus is feeling at that point in time uh it definitely does change the change the equation especially when we compare it to the life of the mother who is uh which is equally as valuable ya so that is, uh that's the sum of my arguments


yes yes thanks for that ya uh I definitely agree with what you mention about opt in and opt out I think that there is to say that abortion should be banned totally and completely uh is out of the question for me and I think that uh is out of the question for you as well


ya definitely so you know it's about about which approach to to take right so opt in or opt out and and ya I definitely agree that you know to to to not ban abortion is giving mother's the option or the possibility


which we do not want you know which is to abuse that that privilege I think for sure it does happen which is why I think we should also uh consider leveling up on education and options as we mentioned earlier


the counseling uh about about children and then pregnancy continue to ramp up in the US I think uh that's really a good sign and uh absolutely necessary uh in the context of this debate in order to you know decide uh whether or not a child


err the life of a child should be taken away and I definitely agree that you know even though, uh the child may be a fetus it is nevertheless alive uh which is why I also you know compare the fetuses life to the mother's life I think they are of of equal value uh but we also need to consider the circumstances that you know surround


when a child is conceived you know so for example uh scenarios that we have brought up earlier like rape and child abuse there are many statistics about mothers who were raped who you know try to kill themselves when the option of abortion wasn't available


and I think we really need to question ourselves on whether that is the kind of world uh we want legally I think whatever we state in the law has a lot of social and moral implications and seeing that these methods have not worked you know we know this from uh suicide rates of pregnant mothers


we know this from the extent to which mothers have gone in order to remove babies you know so things like coat hangers that I mentioned earlier they are very much much present today and uh really I think the crux of my argument is to is to know that when you weigh both of these paradigms together because we have already


kind of walked through both of them you know we have seen worlds where abortion was banned we have we do see worlds currently where abortion is not banned you know and to cumulatively be able to weigh those impacts I think uh making abortion uh an option nevertheless is


a a a better one uh but accompanied with you know certain measures to ensure that uh that is not abused and ya so definitely child uh still alive and so I think consider you know more deeply the idea of pain right so a lot of


what uh anti abortionist argue is the fact that pain is is a huge factor you know for example after twenty four weeks uh a child should not be aborted because the child can feel pain even in in its fetus stage so I think that's something


for example we can give more weight to but if we look at prior to the twenty four weeks period it's also really important to consider the health of of the mother ya and and the fact that you know like when abortion is, is banned it's not even effective so far and there are countries that report that the even when you look at you know illegal kind of abortions like uh like physicians who feign themselves as physicians to do like that kind of fake abortions on on mothers the rates of these


still continue to prevail so something that we need to look into as well ya so if I can do a quick summary of what we talked about so we talked about where life begins I think that was a very compelling argument about about choice about autonomy about


the child's uh way of life uh deformities for example uh and also I think we eventually conclude that we do want the opt in or opt out opt out system


debate topic one, if arts can bring about positive social changes today, so one reason why I feel that arts can bring about positive social changes is because one of the identifier of a great city is the number of art pieces that it holds as evidence in Paris New York and London been recognised for their part in preserving


and promoting traditions associated with great art so because of this it is safe to say that art holds a certain power to be able to shape public opinion of a country, hence art has the power to inform and influence public policies and government decisions


by mobilising public support for social causes, so one example of this is with Kpop being used as a diplomatic tool with North Korea so on april first twenty eighteen red velvet and other bands like YB had a concert in Pyongyang


the of the the latest overture in Seoul'S decades long cultural diplomacy push which aims at softening ties with its closed off and nuclear armed neighbour north of Korea the theme of the concert is spring is coming to represent


south korea's wishes for spring to come over their relationship with north korea so this example shows art being used as a diplomatic tool that can shape public opinion, ya another example is also art being used in the vietnam war to for as a voice for anti war protests which helped to bring an end to the war so part of one one specific case is art being used through photography


during the Vietnam war some photographers took photos of atrocities being committed in Vietnam and when this images were released in the press and seen by the public they sparked a lot of public outrage


which created a mass anti war movement and partly contributed to the ending of the vietnam war because the public was very against the war


ya so that is one of the reasons why art can bring about positive social changes


another reason why art can bring about positive social changes is because it is also an outlet for expression and carthasis which has long term effects of improving mental and emotional well being of people and society in general


art can be a healthy coping mechanism that people can use to deal with stress and negativity and it's a tool for combating mental health issues, for example art in today's society is often used as a medium to deal with mental health issues and art therapy is a form of expressive therapy that uses the creative processes of making art to help improve people's emotional and mental well being


psychology today states that it can improve symptoms of depression and anxiety and apart from art therapy adult colouring books are also in high demand today as proof of how art can be used to help mental health issues


a CNN report that report says that adult colouring books have a therapeutic potential to reduce anxiety and research that is conducted in two thousand and five shows that anxiety levels dropped


when subjects coloured mandalas which are round frames with geometric patterns inside, so they help in a way that is similar to meditation because it helps people to switch off their thoughts and focus in the in on the current moment and be present in the moment


so with four in with one in four people in the world suffering from mental health issues according to the world health report art's ability to help a person cope with his or her stresses is all the more magnified


hence to to reiterate the point art is able to bring about positive social change because it helps people to deal with mental and emotional stress and negativity, to move on a third point as to how art can promote can bring about social positive social changes is


in how art can help to promote social cohesion among different cultural and racial groups within a society, and by extension this will contribute to a country's social and political stability and a country's overall well being


so art can also be used as a tool to build a nation's national identity and foster unity among its citizens this is because art can strengthen a nation's social fabric by breaking down barriers between different groups


which is accomplished by art being used as a medium for expression as well as education as this allows people from different groups and backgrounds to understand each other and empathise with one another


according to a national population survey on the arts released by the national arts council more singaporeans said that the arts give them a better understanding of people from different backgrounds and cultures while more than half said


that the art enhance their sense of identity as well as sense of belonging hence this shows how art has a power to unify people also besides breaking down barriers art is also like I said before a unifying force that is used


to craft a positive national identity amongst people who come from different backgrounds, and there are many long term effects of social stability and harmony within a country that uh lay the foundations for prosperity and growth thus to reiterate the third point


art can bring about positive social changes by breaking down barriers between people and allowing people from different backgrounds to understand each other as well as by building a common national identity


K going back to the opposition's first point about how art cannot bring about positive social changes because it is unable to influence us in a concrete and physical way


unable to directly bring about social changes of like be it institutional behavioural or relational changes and how to summarise how art cannot bring about tangible change


I would like to posit that while I agree that art may not necessarily bring about immediate and direct social change it is definitely able to bring about positive social change sometimes indirectly or in the long run


so with regard to the specific example on section three seven seven A of the penal code it remains today that the that section of the penal codes still stand


however I would like to argue that perhaps it is because the change has yet to come and because of this I think that art has the ability to bring about positive social change by even though not immediately by


starting conversations about social issues which may not be in the line like yet and by and by doing so art is able even though art doesn't necessarily


deliver immediate social change it can deliver small changes in people's attitudes which over time and by accumulation of effort can


grow into changes in behaviour and changes in beliefs and relations and as the movement gains momentum and grows I think that, art is able to bring social change


eventually and which can in the end result in institutional changes ya, and , if I may circle back to the second point by the opposition about art bringing about negative social changes in today's society I agree opposition that art can be used to bring about negative social changes but


just because art could have potential to bring about negative social change I think it doesn't take away from its ability in equal measure to bring about positive social change I think that I want to establish I want to posit that art in and of itself is a tool and it doesn't


art itself does not necessarily directly result in positive or negative social change because it's merely a tool that can be used for either depending on the intentions of the people who create art or are behind art


and because of this it has potential to create both negative and positive change and I will argue that in fact the presence of negative social effects brought about by art by actors who have negative intentions like


the nazi propagandic art or maybe other forms of propagandic art in history I will argue that the existence of art used to create negative changes is more evidence and more proof of the need


for more art to be used to counter the negative effects of propaganda of negative art for example so okay I think to summarise what I trying to say that the existence of art been used to create negative


social changes, is is more evidence that we need more art to create more art to be used to create positive social changes to counter the negative users of art ya


debate topic two, so the topic is culture heritage and heritage sites have lost their relevance as a proposition I personal believe that cultural and heritage sites have lost their relevance and for several reasons


one reason is due to modernisation and urbanisation and this example I think is very strongly applicable to singapore's contexts because singapore being a very small


country has very uh limited space and because of this problem of land scarcity many cultural sites have ended up losing their relevance as they give way to urban development


as modern facilities are built over traditional heritage site and transform the traditional landscape and architecture around such cultural site to the extent that they are no longer recognisable


or maybe they are no longer there and because of this the sites which once were where cultural heritage landmarks stood no longer hold the cultural significance they once had


either because they have been replaced or because maybe they are now situated within urban facilities and they are they just they are no they are not the same as they used to be, so part of this is because given singapore's recurrent problem of land scarcity there is a lot of regulations by local authorities to decide on the purpose of land allocation from different purposes via commercial or residential development


as all available land has to be used to create a hub that will improve singapore's economy and this comes at the expanse of cultural preservation, so the push for modernisation has placed a lot of emphasis on economic prosperity and development


over the intangible value of cultural preservation and because of this cultural and heritage sites that do not generate as much financial revenue and economic activity as compared with shopping malls or airports


are usually usually have to give way to other forms of developments hence singapore's land scarcity is one reason why cultural and heritage site have lost their relevance and are built over by more


urban establishment another reason as to why culture and heritage sites have lost their relevance , is because some sites which represent a nation's dark past and remind us of the atrocities that have been done no longer represent uh current society's views and perspectives


so because of this they is as society's views and perspectives changes these sites are no longer relevant as they reflect the perspectives of a past society and they are not current anymore


for example in the US with the ongoing black lives matter movement statues all over the world have been defaced and some examples are bronze sculptures that commemorate the eighteen century British slave trader Edward Colston


statues that venerate as well as statues venerating Christopher columbus and confederate leaders in Boston Miami and Virginia so I believe that such cultural sites to summarise my point I think that such cultural sites


lose their relevance because as the times change and as society's perspectives and uh opinions that are current change these cultural sites become


they are they become things that symbolise something that is no longer views and opinions that are no longer held in society that are dated and that are that are no longer current hence they lose their relevance


so my third point is that, cultural and heritage sites also lose their relevance in today's society due to commercialisation, in order for cultural sites to remain profitable and economically viable in many cases they have to be able to generate revenue for maintenance and upkeep like for example in the previous


first point I mentioned how a lot of culture sites are being built over and replaced by more profitable sites however in this instance some cultural sites and heritage sites which remain


are only able to do so by becoming commercialised so due to this many cultural sites and shops have become commercialised in order to survive and in doing so they lose part of their original essence


in the sense that they used to be places of cultural significance but now they are for profit attraction and this means that they are no longer serving the purpose, that they were originally built for one example is with places of worship becoming tourist attractions


this can be pilgrimage locations or just places of religious worship for example it's commonly said that in europe only tourists go to churches and churches are traditionally places of worship where


religious activity is conducted however they are becoming tourist attractions hence it may be said that sites like this are no longer relevant because they no they are no longer serving the original purpose


that they were made for but instead they're becoming tourist sites which serve the purpose of generating revenue for the local economy so people no longer go there to worship and to pray but instead they go there


to sightsee and the local community benefits from it and it's able to uh and the reason why these sites are able to continue existing and surviving is because


they are able to generate revenue from losing from from becoming commercial attractions another example is chinatown in singapore, so chinatown being one of singapore's largest historical district and a unique ethnic quarter for chinese immigrant populations


during as early as the nineteen century it's a very important cultural site however today it is more well known for its uh for being a a hub for chinese cuisine and for


its many popular hotpot and Mala stores and many of the a lot of the traditional architecture and landscape of the chinatown area has transformed with many traditional shophouses being replaced by


malls and modern facilities, another example is the area of #geylang serai# which is also like chinatown traditionally one of the oldest malay settlements in singapore but presently it is


more well known for being a red light district, in current context hence to reiterate my point a lot of cultural sites tend to lose their relevance in the sense that even though they are still existing in the form that they were when they were built


they no longer serve the same purpose the original purpose that they were built for and instead they become commercial areas that are profit oriented and that exist for the purpose of making money


although part of it is so that they can continue existing


to circle back to opposition first point about cultural and heritage sites having relevance because they uh are able to contribute to a country's economy I think that while I agree that


such sites can contribute economically I think that this requires us to define what relevance means and in turns of being economically relevant I agree that


such sites are economically relevant because they are able to contribute to country's economy however I do not think that I disagree that such sites can be considered culturally relevant when they no longer represent the the current culture of a country especially


because culture changes with time these sites belong to a different historical time and no longer represent current culture, and to go to the to opposition second point that such cultural sites are relevant in helping to educate us and remind us not to repeat past mistakes while I agree that such


cultural sites can be relevant as educational material and as cautionary tales about mistakes that should not be repeated I would also argue that , that preserving certain cultural sites can be dangerous and that they are no longer and that culture sites representing dangerous ideologies are not necessarily


relevant to today because they represent they represent beliefs that are outdated and that are dangerous to society and can potentially be used to revive certain dangerous


beliefs and ideology and as opposition said that every cultural site has a important story to tell I would want I would want to emphasise that not all stories should be told because


preserve because giving value significance to some cultural sites can help revive dangerous ideologies such as for example nazism for instance


uh even cultural site which represent which represent nazi ideology could be used by extremist to revive the ideology and as a justification


for such ideologies hence, if to call this sites uh relevant would be to put dangerous ideologies on a pedestal and would be harmful for society lastly even though culture to


address opposition's point about cultural sites bringing a sense of identity to groups I will argue that they can be a source for nationalism which can be dangerous to a society's


social harmony


on the other end uh I would like to posit that art is unable to bring about positive social changes today, , to begin with I have to define social change uh as something that involves alteration of the social order of a society it may include changes in social uh institutions social behaviours or social relations


firstly art cannot influence us in a concrete and physical way it cannot directly cause a change in our social institutions behaviours or relations, arts can serve as a tool or provide platforms in order for social change to be exacted but it cannot directly bring about positive social changes when compared to unlike medical creations which could directly affect our behaviours


or institutional laws that could enforce changes in today's society, the arts do not have the power to directly bring about social changes uh and one example will be for example the failure to repeal section three seven seven A of the penal code


this is something that only institutional changes , can change and no matter how many art pieces are created it is of today uh still standing


uh, so to summarise my first point arts cannot arts cannot influence us in a concrete and physical way, and thus it is unable to bring about positive social changes today


uh my second point is that arts can bring about negative instead of positive social changes today, well arts can bring about positive social changes today it also has a power to do the opposite and result in negative social behaviour


a significant example would be art that glorifies violence there are many , famous examples but one would be of the hieronymus bosch the garden of worldly the garden of earthly delights by hieronymus bosch and it shows his vision of hell which is


depicted uh with glory uh images and , uh acts of violence, additionally uh another example would be art that encourages sexism and discrimination


there is a popular instagram artist with almost one million followers her name is Sakimichan and she has been the subject of harsh criticism for her unrealistic portrayal of women's bodies in her modern day art pieces


many of her critics claim that it encourages a misguided and , misguided idea of how women's bodies should look like and this result in negative social behaviours such as the imposition of unrealistic physical standards on women


uh one last example would be uh nazi propagandic art that was created with ill intention and motives in order to brainwash the masses in order to gain power, and to summarise uh my second point


uh posits that arts, instead of bringing about positive social change uh, can actually bring about negative social change in today's society


my third and last point will be that well some art form can be more influential than others in terms of bringing about or enacting positive social change not all kinds of arts are able to do so, for example the critically acclaimed film parasite by director by south korean director #bong joon ho#


was held as a powerful masterpiece that highlighted the widening inequality gap in today's society, as compared to that a random sprayed on graffiti on a sidewalk or doodle by a toddler might not have the same amount of power or impact on society


or have the power to bring about positive, positive social change but they can still be considered as art, and to summarise my third point is that some art forms


while some art forms do have the power to bring about positive social change not all kinds of arts are able to do so, and thus I believe that arts cannot bring about positive social changes today


uh I I think that what proposition is trying to say is that the fact that art has the power to bring about negative social changes also suggests that it has the power to bring about the opposite which is positive on social changes


going back to proposition's first, first point about how art has the power to shape public opinions uh as well as be used in uh diplomatic as well as used to improve diplomatic ties


I do agree that art has a power to influence public policy and government decision but also that uh it has be, uh it uh but also that it has the power to do the opposite uh as seen from uh satire art uh satire pieces may uh criticising different uh different countries during for example the world uh during world war two


where we see satire comics drawn , to criticise , uh opposing nations and which which leads to , uh negative feelings for negative diplomatic uh relations uh and


as for proposition's second point suggesting that art, , acts as an outlet for expression and catharsis I would like to posit that while art can be can be a way uh of helping people to cope healthily and to deal with stress and negativity this


an individual's stress level and happiness uh does not exactly, uh or directly result in social changes