is, some people can’t afford, the benefit or the luxury of leisure, you’ve have said that think that literature has think, write and speak allows the reader to think write and speak clearly I agree with this but there is other ways


which we can, there is other ways that we can actually educate children such being speech in drama classes , read uh reading classes it does not necessarily have to be about the analysing of words


because this will allow you to think to write and to speak clearly at the same time you've brought up a third point being it humanises us literature humanises us again there's other ways to humanise us


community involvement projects for example watching videos, of what our documentaries of what's going on in third world countries these are some of the ways or avenues that actually allow us


to be humanised instead of just rely on the subject of literature, the fourth point that you have brought up are books like your white tiger book which represents the the india the indian system or the book that you have referred just now which


tell us about the chinese system again this, there are other ways that we can get this information these books, have, this authors who wrote the books have their own personal bias


and we cannot rely on them to give us a fair picture we cannot rely on them to show, us what is really going on because of your own political stands because of, what


so, where where should we actually look into, you know because, these all these will not, really help in the working, environment because analysing into the meaning has no place in the working environment funds in schools as I said just now could be better funded in speech in drama classes could be better funded in other aspects of


the STEM and furthermore english is just a language is used as a form of communication, there is uh no need to really look into the meaning of the of the words of the sentences okay I'm done thanks


okay I think now is the open debate so I I think you have said just now that


from third world to second world I just like correct you for that second world refers to a communist country so the direct translation is third world to the first world but, thing is you do not need it is it's not in literature is not needed for a country to progress up from third world to the first


let’s take china for example, they have been injecting so much money into STEM and they have relied less on literature let’s let’s and let’s take singapore one of the modern day miracles


the education policy developed by <P1>philip yeo</P1> and <P1>goh keng swee</P1> actually, it emphasize a lot on STEM so they have the singapore government and the singapore education system has not


been focusing on literature, they have not been focusing on expressions of a free free speech instead they've being grilling, the citizens and the children of the future sorry the workers of the future with science


aspects of technology and engineering and emphasis on mathematics this is actually proven right by the latest , if I'm not wrong the OC, OCAS score, singapore has actually ran the first


in both science and maths but they're nowhere near the top for english and reading so, again to develop a country literature is not needed, literature is nowhere, nowhere the priority for a


developing country you have said that books ah also a form of communication there's so many other forms of communication in the twenty first century books, have honestly reached the deadline, ya


again you’ve said that the the practical value, the practical value which the voters want if you're living in a democracy, or, uh people who are still climbing up the countries that are still climbing up from, third world to first is still the bread and butter issues they want to know whether they can make a living


they want to know if they can earn money they want to know if they can live, but does literature does literature actually give them does literature actually help them earn money does literature actually contribute to the


economy and to their own livelihood, does it increase, their standard of living, unfortunately it doesn't what you need and it has been tested and proven method is a, industrial is industrial base uh manufacturing base to push and to the economy you have also indicated that


no you can spread culture through books, and everything that I agree and yes there's so many films that have come from books, but they are already they're already translated to moving pictures they and that is where the legacies lie


there's so many movies, that have actually won awards but have, there are books actually won any award, which is more beneficial in today's day and age, I mean we don't we don't even see books


coming being published often now, we even even bookstores are closing down, but what is still booming is the moving pictures industry, that is where the new money is books again have it has it‘s expired


okay I understand that certain social issues actually take actually come from books and everything lah I mean just look at communism and nazism it it it started from books and not not saying that the foreign worker is


wrong, but there are also many ways that he can he could explore let’s let's just take the black lives movement for example the legacy of george floyd is does not comes from books is not memorialised in books is memorialised by the people themself by the protests


oh okay I think I'm supposed to stop , yeah


part two debate topic two


thank you for introducing this topic for me I completely opposed whatever you just said, the a country is built on it‘s culture is built on it‘s heritage, you’ve said that uh you know a a country's culture and values are very important I agree with that is very important and where do we find this culture and values there are from our historical sites


this way you said the economic prosperity is the number one priority for any country, let let me introduce this tourist money, singapore, needs tourists money to survive china needs tourist money even in communist country like cuba


they need tourist money too every year many americans would cut over the sorry many americans come, many americans travel and visit cuba to, visit it’s fifties the it's fifties landscape it's olden cast everything so


china is using tourism and it's all powerful middle class to actually dictates it's policy


china has and when can cancel visas for sorry not cancel visas but to restrict movement of tourism they can restrict the movement of people into that particular country has a has a form of sanction, china has obviously


threatened to do this before, and this and this is obviously, you know will impact the economy of that particular country, no the uh economy can’t grow as much before and


the country can’t progress so without the tourism money, without tourists without these cultural sites there's no way to pull in, tourism there is no way to pour to pull in additional income for the country to fund its social policies to fund its economical economic policies there's no way for it to protect its sovereignty


ya thank you


uh ivan


yes thank you for the proposition point I think you have made a many good arguments but unfortunately there are all irrelevant the UK itself the royal family, it's the reason why so many tourists actually want to visit the UK many of them actually want


to see how the royals live when they think of kings and queens they think of the UK the united kingdom we still pride themselves as a kingdom they still have a queen and everything and the queen itself injects, money, from tourism


yes and and you’ve also said that memories of the past you know you shouldn't bring them up anymore, we should just let it be you know let's let's just forget about them then why are we still membering about the heroic deeds


of, of certain heroes involves why are we still ~member uh remembering #pearl harbor# why are we still remembering Nagasaki why are we still remembering Hiroshima, because these are things that we do not want it to happen again


after the US drop their two atomic bombs on japan, the world has entered, into a stage that, you know they know that they can't, recover, if if let's say an an atomic bomb or even a more powerful weapon nuclear or hydrogen bomb were dropped on one city it would completely destroy the country's economy it will completely destroy the country's population


so, there's these historical sites actually, allow us to remember and, have a reason why, this sort of events allocation cannot happen


and remembering the industrial revolution is also very important because that is where it started, we are here now we are talking or through video right now because of the industrial revolution and it's scientific discoveries without these there is no way that we will remember it before these historical sites


and, you know historical sites actually, it can and will lead us to understand our own heritage because heritage is one of the conditions for the maintenance of a communicable commutable, memory


and their effects so to preserve the heritage, you know you need to actually remember these memories and how and what better way you remember that historical sites and you know this can actually bind the people together if let's say in another country were to destroy if let’s say country A were to destroy country B's historical site


the the nationals of country B will rally will rally up and would be very angry and would definitely want to strike back because historical sites, is their culture, and no matter how far


your civilisation progress no matter how far you go on in a technological tier that is one thing that you can’t get rid of that is your past, yup I’m done on my part


ya I think well, if we just look at the nazis they had concentration camps for the jews their concentration camp of the they had concentration camp for their own political prisoners is not saying that we don't have such concentration camp now we do and that's why we know it is wrong


it is wrong for us to house these political prisoners inside without a fair trial is wrong we know is wrong and we we are brainwashed by it, you have argued that you know why there's still so much pollution why is so much pandemic why is so much racism


I can argue that is because of the, this stuff has been institutionalised in our system, and if you want to talk about racism in the united states we can is caused by the police brutality is caused by still many people who still harbours the feeling


or wanting the old america back pandemic wise we have learned from sars that's why certain countries are doing a better job


learning from his, historical pandemics isn't accurate if you just take COVID nineteen and just compare it to it's nearest sibling if it is to say the sars sars and it is of a different


effective rate than sars sars is more severe, but is less effective, pollution wise, I think we are getting better the ozone layer up there


it is been already is is already is already healed up, and I would argue that because of our heritage we have learned from our mistakes and we have produced vaccines for diseases such as polio for chicken for chicken pox for hepatitis A because of all these


we have learned, for greener landscape ya, we have, just simply you know just looking at how bad pollution affects its certain historical sites we would know, just compare it two photos side by side


we’ll know how much human have desecrated our environment, that's why historical sites are very important and we cannot move on from the past, because we need the past to remember why we're fighting why we are progressing and why we cannot


forget, that's also why, that is also why certain countries have decided, to, have UNESCO sites, because these UNESCO sites will ensure that future generations to


come will remember their own heritage, yes I think now is the free the open debate


yeah and and thing is you have always said that pain is caused by the past but that is the point, pain is caused by the past, and, no that's how we remember that's how we make policies of our mistakes and you know heritage sites they are a monument to all of our sins they are monument to why we should do better okay thank you I think that’s all for debate two


part three debate topic three, so the statement investing in arts and museum is a complete is a waste of money I completely agree is a completely waste of money you know how much we have, spent in FY twenty nineteen two point one billion dollars and it can be spend elsewhere you can spend


depending on sovereignty it can be spend on education it can be spend on social programmes, two point one billion dollars spent on museums and into arts a complete waste of money especially in our capitalistic environment


these programmes have been leeching off and leeching off government support these programs and leeching off the people we should operate in a pure capitalist way and we should say no, you want you do it yourself


is a complete waste of money for the government is a complete waste of money we should be focusing we should be progressing our economy we should be moving forward, that's that's why it's a waste of money, thank you


oh okay so you’ve said that is of you know the reasons why because is of national interest is uh because you know culture, national interests, I don't think art is considered national interest I only I'd just like to bring up this straits times article


and a poll which they did they deemed, artist as the number one non essential occupation, it's a poll majority of the people agree with me , artists are non essential


and, I I see I don't see any reason why we should prompt them up, with with tax dollars that could be going to better social programs, this is this is very similar to saying look


defence has no is a waste of money because every because when we're in a very safe neighborhood or this is also equivalent to say look there's no need to prepare for disasters, culture wise there is many other ways to get culture than arts the culture comes from one thing


the people, if the people can progress, if the people can move forward, this will become our culture, the culture of of of our tenacity the culture of how we progress


and that is also our national interest isn't our economy our national interest isn't jobs our national interest isn't the defence and as the defence of the sovereignty of the republic a national interests, these are the essential


occupations these are the essential jobs these are the essential avenues which should the government should be exploring not arts and culture, arts and culture is, useless, a complete waste of money


thanks


okay I understand what you're coming from I understand that you know there are many sort of varieties of artists you know you've got your painters you got your singers you got your producers you got your moviemakers they're all non essential, all of them, non essential


I mean the straits times article clearly said that it's a polling done by people it's not essential, you said that you know at the museum give us leisure what about vices the alcohol give me leisure, you know gambling gives me leisure


you know even a trip down to the brothel also gives me leisure, these are the things that you know we do not need, arts and the and museums, just for leisure there's so many other avenues that we can we can explore sports for example


you know you just take a cycle down #east coast park#, where the sceneries all around us, that’s leisure, that is resting from from labour, you know it's it's you know let's unlock in the inner you know meaningful life


you know how I can unlock it money okay the arts and museums give me money no you can't I say we rather I say I rather spend jobs I say we rather spend the money on elsewhere we shift these jobs from out from the museums and from the art areas into areas which require the manpower


where we require manpower required manpower in the customer service areas we required the manpower in the hospitality areas these are the these are the places which we need the manpower not art and museums non-essential again, arts and the museums and artists are non essential


so you have also argued that no artists are making more yeah I agree with you know less if she's making she has a network of, three hundred fifty million kanye west I think probably one point five billion but where do their there's all their money come from kanye west for example he does not make money off his music


he doesn't make majorities money of music he makes his money of his yeezy's, his yeezy's brand his clothing brand that is where he's making money from not music, non essential, taylor swift she's a great marketer I mean her songs fantastic but her marketing skills her PR skills even better that is why she selling she's not selling her music she's selling her name she's selling she's marketing herself in a better way then


if all artists can be like her, then we wouldn't, need you know then how are we going progress as a society where there is science technology engineering and math but come into play nowhere they're non-essential


arts and the museums are not essential, thanks


okay let's let's take your entire rebuttal point by point you're said that the ST article first of all I want to clarify non-essential is also waste of money, non essential arts and their museums non essential so ST the ST article isn't an


opinion is a poll of one thousand people, are you try to tell me that this one thousand people their opinions doesn't matter, that these one thousand people who has said that the artist, are non essential


it doesn't matter I think these I think opinions every single man in this country matters and they should, and we should actually listen to them, in the poll as done because this will reflect, the general


thinking of the country at a time so, national anthem there's more and there's other ways that we can unite a country, the national anthem or even you know sell ourself on an international stage, the our economy for one our soft diplomacy these are ways that we can sell ourselves these are the way which people can recognise us not by the national anthem half of the


majority in the world doesn't even understand the singaporean national anthem because it's in different language from them, who can only understand indonesia brunei malaysia these are the countries can understand not essential


okay eh


arts can bring about positive social changes today but one debate topic one, uh do we start oh, I believe that art can influence society by changing opinions towards a certain matter for instance either thing that you can make us more tolerant and understanding towards certain matters especially if is one that we do not understand


for instance in the recent BLM movement err its something that I feel a lot of young people and even like people of the older generation that live in countries outside of the US or at canada such as us in singapore do not really understand since this is something that we don't experience like we all do experience


racism in our lives especially like how chinese privilege is quite prevalent in singapore but when it comes to, the black lives matter movement we don't really see it as black people are not really like they we they are not we don't really see them in singapore hence uh we might dismiss them as just another like racial riot just another like race and we do not understand the actual significance of it and even young people like us cannot understand them


what about people like our parents from the older generation when like they don't even support err other social concerns such as err for instance the chinese privilege issue and hence I feel that through, art we can help people who cannot understand certain matters to understand it through a simpler and more layman terms like going back to the BLM movement a lot of people started coming out with like infographics on right things especially I remember there was one that was targeted at asians because uh asians in general


some people even those that are living in like the US or canada they do not really accept or understand the BLM movement because they feel like you know like they're minorities but so are we so why is it that like their struggle, more important than ours because they do not understand the


significance of black slavery in historically in the US and that one, err infographic was translated into many different asian languages and I read online that a lot of young people have been showing it to their parents that do not speak english and it actually help them to understand especially since the media was portraying the BLM movement in a very different


light from what was uh essentially the truth hence I do think that art can bring about a lot of positive social changes towards, social issues such as such as the BLM or or even other issues such as bribe, art also creates empathy and it has been proven that it was one of the best ways to help society recognise injustice


err through visual and auditory mediums such as infographics and videos like I mentioned earlier with the BLM example and err one historical example is the migrant mother which is a painting by dorothea lange which help raise awareness about the great depression, during that time hence I believe that art can bring about positive social changes today


although I do agree that advertisements definitely play towards stereotypes and, is err more often than not err they do not like those negative stereotypes do not make up the majority and advertisements as a form of art actually do have their fair share of positive impacts on our society


like for instance advertisements can help to propel the country's economy like when consumers when consumers decide what to buy like for example if you take a very simple, you take a very simple product like soft drinks there are so many different brands for us to choose from like coke pepsi hundred plus et cetera and what is it that led consumers to choose a certain brand that they want


err aside from personal preference is also due to like advertisements and those definitely play towards stereotypes and they definitely do use like, marketing tactics or you know certain, story lines that they use to influence people but it's not necessarily a bad thing that causes harm as it just takes the it just takes the positive


err influences of those certain those certain products and highlights them for and highlights them towards the consumers and this actually will help to propel the country's economy as, according to the international advertising association advertising can also drive competition between companies such as uh for instance like I said earlier coke and pepsi and also encourage them to come up with new products to suit consumers' needs and on the topic of body image issues while that


while I feel that that might be true in the past , body positivity movements have been more and more in trend lately and a lot of companies have also been jumping on this trend and moving towards body positivity such as the dove campaign that was quite popular few years back I believe and also even brands like victoria secrets which were historically like more like


sexy lingerie have always been catered, towards like women with like nice toned bodies and it has always been kind of drilled into us that fat people or people with less than desired bodies cannot wear such, lingerie but I also believe that err


it has been changing recently as I saw a campaign once that was done by victoria secrets that was catering their products towards women of all sizes which I think is a good thing as it also like while advertising their products they are helping to promote, good social causes such as body positivity and while it is a fact that a lot of these companies they jump on to these trends because it's it is what is currently in that time it's what people believe


during this point of time and it also helps them to sell their products obviously because it shows that they are a brand that cares but, in their efforts of marketing their products they are also helping to promote these causes and err so I feel that whether or not they're doing this with a personal goal in mind whether they have personal gains


they are contributing towards a bigger cause and hence they are still, contributing a positive social changes hence I believe that in this sense art can bring about, positive social changes to our lives today


I also think that art can art can bring about positive social changes as it can allow people to gain a better understanding of other people's cultural backgrounds and practices, for instance like for many of us like singaporeans where we don't have a very developed movie and television industry we all grew up watching forms of art


that were created by people from other countries such as, western shows and movies I believe we all grew up watching that and those shows and movies are translated from their original language to various languages and spread around the world and this allows people from different cultural backgrounds and language backgrounds such as people living in for instance korea or japan where they do not predominantly speak english to also enjoy all these


and through enjoying the, art created by people from these countries we get to learn about their culture there and while it might be true that the portrayal of, the portrayal of people lives definitely cannot be hundred percent accurate when it's portrayed in art we get uh we get an idea of it and it can also spark people's interest and get them to encourage them to learn more about


the cultures of others for instance we used to only watch shows that were created by western creators but in recent years shows from like korea japan or even china have been increasingly popular and there have been westerners who also like start started to like watching k-dramas and even recently


parasite which was created by a korean director also won the oscars and was the first asian, movie to actually win an award in the oscars, and this actually helped to, spread the korean culture and encourage people to, gain a deeper understanding towards that culture and also how k pop has been more and more widespread recently and given its widespread popularity more and more people even westerners have been taking a greater interest in korean culture and korea as a country and this also boosted


the country's economy especially in the tourism industry as, when people started to take an interest in their culture due to k pop, and k-drama they would also want to visit the country and see these places that they see in those shows for themselves and it hence solidified korea status as a popular tourist spot hence I do believe that in this sense uh art can actually bring about positive social changes today


I disagree because on the topic of how like a portrayal in such films like for instance the korean films and dramas that we were talking about can actually lead to other people giving the country a stereotype I mean like yeah well that might be true it is also


like is in a way better because those films and movies are created by creators that are from the country they grew up, around the country and it is what they want people to see them as rather than and because of the way all of this like korean or even like chinese


movies and dramas are like taking are like becoming increasingly popular all over the world people get to understand their culture from their perspectives whereas in the past where the world was dominated by western by western media, all we see of all of these countries and cultures are through the eyes of westerners and portrayed like based on what westerners think of them which is like largely based on their own stereotypes and sometimes they can be inherently racist and even though even though like what


the like for example like for korean shows what the korean show might be a more picture perfect way of, portraying like how lives actually are as viewers we should know that what we see of what we see on fiction isn't like inherently reality and we should learn to discern that by the way err how is but the fact that is


presented by korean by korean consumer by korean creators for korean consumers and also people outside of korea is actually a very good start already compared to like what we had in the past hence I do think that, although it might not be perfect there is still is still a very good start that can bring about positive changes today


we can end the first recording right, oh sorry sorry okay


okay , part two debate topic two culture and heritage sites have lost their relevance


I believe that the preservation of cultural and heritage sites actually hinders our country's development and hence they have lost their relevance as these sites although they are very rich in culture and important history, they prevent the establishment of new structures and buildings hindering development this might not be very relevant in countries that have more


like disposable land space but in a tiny country like singapore that is so space scarce we need like every bit of land that we can get especially how, our government is still trying their best to build our country to greater heights and hence preserving a rich


cultural heritage sites actually prevents for better usage of the space which will help to propel the economy and although the government have been trying their best to conserve these historical sites while making better use of the space through efforts such as gentrification


which means that err while retaining the exterior of the building the inside of the buildings have been renovated to serve a more relevant purpose in today's society and I feel like while this can be a good initiative they actually err


like while this can be a good initiative this places actually lose their meaning due to gentrification as although, the exterior of the building on the monument is retained the building actually loses its original meaning as err for instance in #tiong bahru# I believe


a lot of old buildings have been redeveloped to serve a better purpose like for instance an old chinese medical hall might, be renovated to become a hipster cafe that can appeal to both young people as well as tourists and while this might be a good initiative I feel that it takes away the original meaning of


the site as before when they visit the site all they see is a very cool of vintage place there is quite different for young people might be instagrammable event and err people pay attention to nothing more than just like the interior of it and no one really


cares that does of what no one really cares about what the site used to be and even though it might guess it might encourage people to visit it but what's the point where people visit these sites and they know about these sites but they do not care more, to find they do not care enough to find out more about it once they leave these places and more often than not young people who visit these places or even tourists they do not really pay attention to the exterior as images look


err cool and vintage to them and just self like nothing more and hence the place becomes nothing more than a shell what it was which err gives it, and gives an adverse effect to conservating the heritage site that the government have been trying so hard to put that hence I feel that as much as we try to retain these sites even in our the rapid development of our country these culture and heritage sites have actually lost their relevance in today's society


although I do agree that, culture and heritage sites definitely contribute greatly to the economy especially for countries like you mention greece where their country's economy largely depend on tourism heritage sites stumbling add up as a tourist attractions can sometimes do more harm than good towards the country


while they definitely contribute largely to the country's economy this also results in the redevelopment of such sites to cater towards the needs of tourists and hence while they might serve to help the economy these sites actually lose its original, essence it's original cultural significance


for instance places of worship in singapore such as the #sultan mosque# and #thian hock keng temple# in singapore have become popular tourist attraction over the years like when tourist come to singapore, most of them will visit pretty standard places like other than maybe resorts world sentosa and singapore zoo they will also visit Chinatown they will visit #kampong glam# they will visit #little india#


and all of these places of worship that once served the religious people from these cultures to like help them to complete their religious practices end up becoming popular tourist attractions and they get, over influx with tourists, and so in a bid to market themselves to tourists the religious practices of the people having greatly disrupted as all these spaces started start to have more


a newer renovations maybe like new err artifacts or new , like things instilled to help people to learn more about the culture like catering towards tourists basically and while this might serve, the economy and serve the tourists the religious practices of people becomes disrupted as this sacred places of worships become greatly commercialised and in essence these places loses


their original meaning a heritage sites turning into popular tourist attractions can also result in dire and irreversible consequences even if these places itself haven't been touched, for instance overpopulation of visitors have been causing damages to historical sites


all over the world one very clear example would be the #machu picchu# in peru which was once a very beautiful site there is in danger of collapse today due to wear and tear caused by the overpopulation of visitors as they get a very high influx of tourists over the years


and the #machu picchu# is not the only famous sight that has been, facing such a fate as other sites such as the #great wall of china# and the #cinque terre# in italy had also been subjected to slow but very significant damages, that are caused by foot traffic and basically high visitor count


and even if, these places these naturally built places do not are not affected by foot traffic the overpopulation of tourists also exposes these site to vandalism and littering as all these historical places should be treated with respect but not every visitor


would see it the same way and they might end up destroying the site and hence hindering its preservation hence by all these, sites, all these heritage sites preserved end up doubling up as tourist attraction, they also end up getting damage due to in a bid to help contribute to the country's economy and hence I do feel that heritage sites turning into tourist attraction can sometimes do more harm than good and is in essence a double-edged sword


err while I agree that like, cultural heritage sites being preserved definitely like help us to like in theory it does help as it brings us closer to our cultural identity the fact is that like not everyone will see it that way and to be really honest most people especially those from the younger generation might not see it this way like


like going back to primary school days where we used to have field trips our teachers will bring us to places like Chinatown or #kampong glam# #little india# and we will see all of these uh heritage sites like we will get our chance we'll get our chance to go and visit all of these sites but the truth is not everyone


all of these sites out there for us to visit at anytime we want at our disposal and a lot of these sites such as like uh the peranakan museum our national museum they are actually free for singaporeans because like as much as they serve as


a tourism site to boost our economy where like of course like for tourists they have to pay a fee and a quite a high one to get in but for singaporeans is actually there because our government wants us to, our government want us to like go close closer connected to our culture like you say and help us to understand our identity but the fact is that most people do not even go and visit these places in


like our daily lives like no one will actually really think of like oh today I'm going to visit the museum because I'll learn more about my culture and the fact is that sometimes err, these places exist only for tourists to visit and the locals don't actually like make it a point to go and learn more about their own culture their own heritage their own identity through


like visiting these places learning more about uh like the significance of all these places which is quite ironic in the sense like they are there to help us there are there to help us cultivate a closer bond with our own culture identity but in the end it is not us who based err


it's not us who pays err attention to it it's not us that take interest in it but people who are tourist and we also tend to like you said earlier we also tend to start to pay attention to other peoples' culture because we find it interesting rather than our own and hence uh as much as


cultural and heritage sites become more and more significant in terms of like tourism towards the people that actually should learn about this culture those are the people that like their ancestors they are from this culture their ancestors lived through all of these things


people like us we do not really tend to view with importance anymore and even as much as, our government tries their best to help us as much as all of these heritage sites are being preserved there are being like made so available to towards uh singaporeans those young people most of us do not actually like pay any heed to it and it


only serve to like it only serves it it's purpose in theory and in actual fact when you see it put to work it doesn't, really like give it doesn't really produce the results that we that we want hence I still think that uh culture heritage sites has become less and less relevant in our society


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


I believe that the progress of a society is best reflected through the arts as art serves as ~mentation and recollection of past and present events, in our society and art is a reflection of society as the art, which includes like various branches such as painting music literature dance and even like television films and television shows and films and movies which are like which I believe everyone in our society these days would consume


are actually all under the bigger umbrella of art and as society expands and grows art changes to reflects it's new development and reflects our history and documenting the crucial components of our lives like, for instance like some of us might like watching classic shows or shows from the past and through those we can see like the way of life of people back then we can see like


their values it reflects their values and morals and sometimes we'll watch shows that they might not necessarily be historical but they're old maybe from ten or twenty years ago we might realise that the way of thinking and their moral compass does is not aligned with


like, our own from today from the twenty first century and it's so hence I feel that watching shows from the past is a way of letting us instead of judging those people from their time it's a way for of us for us to learn their way of life back then and hence uh art is a documentation of


err pass and present events which, which uh helps us to reflect, the progress of society the arts can also be used to transform the way we learn about the world and with the progression of technology for instance universities are beginning to incorporate virtual reality into some of their art and history lessons


to make things more interesting so that students like, for like through this students can see a painting for example or visit a historical site virtually like so it is can be done in a more tangible way and they do not actually have to be at the historical site there and then to learn about it like and this serves a better purpose than us seeing like for instance if I see a picture of


mona lisa on my computer screen I might not feel anything because I'm not actually there but through VR like you can through like VR or augmented reality you can feel like you are physically there even though you are not and you can be anywhere in the world and this will provide a new sort of new experience for people to learn about


art and learn about history and expose people students to the physical aspect of what they're studying and hence create a more exciting and comprehensive matter of education which also sparked students' interests and hence err, the progression of society is best reflected through the arts


err I didn't agree as much as, I as much as art created does not represent society as a whole it portrays the beliefs of an individual that's living in a time where certain events occur and hence historians and people in the present can use this to derive the views of individuals towards the happenings during


the time period like what you said about art being created very personally and art err that is created by one only represents people, uh that individual and people from the same social economic background and not, everyone while that might be true err I believe that is quite clear as usually when people create art that is are meant to be very personal it's not like they do not do it in a bid to deceive or


in a bid to deceive people to think that it represents society and more often than not it is not done to represent other people or other people struggles but merely to portray their own struggles and to tell their own story through the form of art in which people can use this to understand the lives of


people like people like him or her are people from the same, social economic backgrounds and hence I do think that viewers or people from err should have should and probably have the


like they should know to discern whether they should know to discern whether this represents err, a person as an individual or a collective society and they should be able to decide right from wrong and whether such art is such art that supposedly represent people as a whole is biased or not cause our art is also a very easy way for people to keep track of significant events through


forms of art created personally like you said, err this is also sometimes done intentionally unintentionally like for example someone might be creating a form of art to represent their own struggles and is meant for their own a personal


viewing and such but in, times to pass like maybe in a hundred years these can become historical very valuable historical artefacts and disseminated throughout the world and hence people can use these to judge err and discern for themselves the ways of life of people back then like for instance the diary of anne anne frank


is a very have become very popular throughout the year even by being republished as a book and when it was written I do not believe that, it was written for the eyes of the public at all as it was after all her own diary however as time passes it this became a very useful piece of artifacts


for historians and even normal people like me and you to discern, about the lives of people back then and I believe that this can be the case for, most if not all pieces of art that is created like maybe maybe in our society now it might not serve much relevance by in times to come it can be very useful for people to learn about the way of life of people like during our time


and also while art like this only reflects the the beliefs of an individual rather than a larger collective it also shows the thought process of an individual living in a time period like I said earlier and is very raw and personal I feel and these can serve as a useful source for answer of inference for historians


for instance many forms of art in the past such as writings uh poetry and painting and such are factually inaccurate but they regardlessly all serve to help the people from the present like people in our time piece together information to derive their understanding of


people from their time like during history class in secondary school or for some even during JC like in the section we are given sources that be it writings or paintings and or even like cartoons or infographics they're all forms of art


and when written in that time they served a different purpose but in our time for us as history students or as historians we use that to discern we use that to discern the way of life of the people back there and while some if not all sources are biased and


factually inaccurate we can use those sources to compare and contrast and cross check cross check, to decide for ourselves like what's the truth and without all of this, pieces of art even if they might be factually inaccurate we will not be able to do this in the first place as we do not have any representation at all even even if like accurate or not


we do not have any representation at all of people from that time as we if we do not use art to document our progress if we do not use art to like document the progress of society then what more can we use to


to show like to show the lives of, people now and even in the future because like even if we do it through like writing they are also a form of art so, I do believe that art exists whether you like it or not in every part of our society and our lives and


it's up to viewers and people who see it to discern for themselves like whether they should believe that particular that particular piece of art or not hence I believe that the progress of society is best reflected through the arts even though like, this might not be the most accurate portrayal at times


while this might be true I believe that the problem lies more on the creator itself rather than art as a medium and hence like creators have a responsibility to ensure that the work that they put up do not possess show negative influences on the viewers


like as what you said about how western mainstream music normalizes a life of luxuries and also like films with fully grown women playing the roles of sixteen-years-old and such like while I do agree with that this does not represent like art as a medium it is rather what, creators themselves choose to put out and they do have the responsibility to ensure that what they choose to put out to


what they chose to put out to influence viewers do not like have such strong, negative or it influences or influences that like goes against peoples like morality or moral compass and although I do agree that


the media tend to portray certain aspects of life in a very over glorified manner and viewers should also learn to discern for themselves fiction from reality and recognise that not everything that they consume will translate into their daily lives, like like how PC


like people living in life on luxury and staff in mainstream music or even like how people get a very you know very nice romantic fantasy in movies and TV shows series that we like to watch that we enjoy most of us


are able to discern fiction from reality and because fiction is a way for us to relax is a way for us to sort of live a different life for that that tiny moment where we are watching when we are enjoy it because if fiction is, so in line with reality then what's the point of fiction anymore why would I want to watch a show why would I want watch a movie when I can just look at my own daily life and reflect you know so I believe that most viewers and if they do not they should


know how to discern fiction from reality and recognise that not everything that they consume will translate into their daily lives, as like I said earlier forms of art, like films and music are created with the main purpose of providing entertainment and hence is understandable that certain aspects will be played out or exaggerated for the sake of viewers enjoyment


art can bring about positive social changes today part one debate topic one


as much as positive issues can be brought up for discussion I feel that there are also many


negative ideas that can be disseminated through mass platforms as well I think this is what we all know as propaganda the more popular term so actually arts make for a very easy platform because there are many variations of art there's film there's images there's design there is fine arts like painting and


it's also disseminated through very wide mass platforms like internet or television and it's very easy for let's say for example governments and or companies to drive and instill their own, personal vendetta or their messages and its also especially simple for young audiences that are perhaps more vulnerable or less aware to take in these messages without fact checking or thinking twice and that also works for you know the older generation that maybe are not as


knowledgeable or you know about like internet and like high technology stuff so I think that it just depends on the context and I think that it's very easy for them to take in this you know forms of art without really checking because we're so used to consuming media and media definitely pushes forward a lot of the arts


and we are so used to consuming it everyday to the point that we are very desensitized by a lot of the images that we see and it's just very easy to just assume it's true rather than taking the alternative route to, either fact check or you know like ask around like !hey! is it actually true but actually


we just take it in quite mindlessly and governments are also able to push forward their ideas in a way that is more subtle because its disguised in a way of you know arts which is you know images films and even advertisements that perhaps seem


quite harmless because you know it's just like a bunch of images some are even like in the forms of cartoons like you know info-graphics and stuff and I think that recently because of this COVID situation as well what I was aware that was that the government actually, fined a couple of people that were spreading false infographics around and false information that we're kind of like portray in the form of art


so ya obviously those information was inaccurate and thats why the government had to step in and take measures and for companies wise they're able to tackle this true images that have subliminal messages so for example aside from advertisements like products and stuff


for example children television shows have also prove this to be true with a lot of various subtle insinuations of, for example sexual and or inappropriate content basically content that we don't want younger audiences to be taking in at such uh you know young tender age but because like these forms of art do it in a way that is so subtle and it seems so


seemingly harmless and a lot of times parents are not at home to monitor what their children watch as well so I think that this is something that could actually adversely affect, the society as a whole


and since history there's actually been grand works of art that glorify evil or I guess murderers governments for instance for example there's propaganda art as mentioned earlier for the nazi party which we all know as you know hitler back in the days and it's probably the most obvious twentieth century european example


and ya it's just very it's more in your face back them whereas now it's a lot more subtle because we have reached a point where, they are not really allowed to be very in-your-face about this kind of things so it may seem less harmless now but to be honest the effects that it has on the society probably does not differ as much from the past you know for example very in-your-face kind of campaigns or images and messages


so like for example the propaganda art for the nazi party right it actually insinuated a lot of mass collective negativity and unhealthy mindset and outlook towards life he managed to get a lot of people to you know vote nazi and yeah it was jsut


not a very good time then and I think that the arts and the media also played a part in propelling this kind of mindset forward, and a lot of brainwashing occurred during that time as we have all probably learn during our history lessons and I would say that the arts actually did play a huge role as it


aided the dissemination of a lot of these mass negative messages and you know in current days too we actually have advertisements as mentioned earlier from big companies that also use the, arts as, a platform to drive their own form of propaganda be it through you know subtle messages or very like


obvious images for example they get people to feel a certain way about their body image through, for example images or very slim and fit models that make people feel that that is in a way a norm that they do not fit into which is very inaccurate because most people don't look like the models that we see on advertisements and you know like TV shows and I think is that these


advertisements and TV shows are catered for the average, looking person or the average person in general so why are they using these images of very inaccurate portrayals of so called you know like women or men to kind of get you to


feel a certain way and you know in a way this adversely allows them to gain profit off of your vulnerability and your low self esteem because of the way that they use, arts to push forward the message that they want you to receive and that's why I feel that


the arts, does not bring about very positive social changes today


agree in what is said about helping the learning of the cultural backgrounds and stuff I feel that it's actually often hard to prove the accuracy of what is portrayed in art as


mentioned before it's not something that is very easily censor you know be it through firewalls or through monitoring from the government because they are mostly disseminated through the internet and internet is very far and vast and it's just very hard to kind of like take control over it too much and this could actually lead to inaccurate portrayals of


country's culture and beliefs like what you mentioned about parasite I do agree that it was able to help those you know like the awareness of korea as a country and maybe as a tourist spot, but I do think that these things are ultimately forms of entertainment and I don't feel that people should take it so seriously that they feel that's a complete accurate portrayal of what


a country's culture or background is as there could be stereotypical representation of these cultures rather than you know more accurate ones and this could actually result in miscommunication or misunderstandings between people of different countries or nationalities


and the thing about this stereotypical representations is that because we are watching it from a standpoint where we don't really know for example korea as a country so even if there were stereotypes that were being portrayed on TV because it's like such a popular korean movie it even won like an oscar it's very easy for us to just take it as oh


like maybe this is really what like korea is like for you know everybody but maybe that's not the case it could be very stereotypically represented or even some elements of it could be exaggerated or played out and we wouldn't even know that because we're not actually from that country itself and


for example the misunderstandings between people of different cultures I feel like if it's on a personal level it may not be that big of a threat but for example if it were to grow and cultivate further into like a whole societal misunderstanding I think that that could actually pose as a threat you know towards like


different countries are different cultures and there could be some sort of social discord which is something that we do not want and for k pop I do agree that it has boosted the country's economy but, in turn I do think that because you know this like globalization in a way like not just k-pop but also western media western mainstream films and music it actually takes a toll on


people's understandings about their own culture for example like countries where their own local arts scene is not as much portrayed on mainstream media as compared to you know america korea like even china like you mention where a lot of their films and tv shows are probably on you know like netflix


or view or you know even like, free to stream apps like youtube and stuff you know a lot of their content is on there but because for example singapore I feel like our arts scene is probably something that's not very mainstream so as we keep consuming these like global other external influences like korean movies korean films and stuff it could actually lead to us


you know like maybe we're learning more about someone else's culture but we're actually internally, learning less about our own culture because we spend so much of our time trying to chase like korean dramas and american films american drama that we really kind of lost essence of what


is unique to us and what like singapore has to offer in singapore's own local arts scene and that's why I feel that as a whole arts don't actually bring very positive social changes to our society


I think we are done with the first debate topic


oh , , okay I'll just say something, err so for what you said about the, step in the right direction I do think that what you said is accurate I think that is a good step for them but I do think that if you were to look at it as a whole I still feel that there's probably a lot more


misrepresentation out there than there are accurate ones because if it was accurate it wouldn't really be on like a very like serial created TV drama because that's a little bit too overplayed and exaggerated so ya


part two debate topic two


agree in what you said as much as singapore is scarce in space the government like actually does make effort to retain several cultural and heritage sites such as the #battle box# which is actually an underground command center


in the heart of err singapore that was built during world war two the #sultan mosque# the #sri veeramakaliamman temple# and #thian hock keng temple# so these are actually sites that are preserved and conserved to help actually with, a lot of like cultural identity and to help people learn more


and also obviously for propelling the economy so these sites that the government has preserved actually served as an active driving force of tourism, and in turn has actually boosted the economy in various ways so there are also historical sites that have been revamped into trendier areas like what you mention while still keeping elements of the history alive that do their part to attract not just tourists but younger singaporeans themselves to visit citing what you mentioned about


younger singaporeans or younger people going to visit and not really like caring about what history the site has to offer, I feel that being a in a way revamped historical site where they change it to something that's more attractive towards younger singaporeans actually helps bring them there in the first place because if you wanna talk about just normal historical sites


yes there are people that visit there but they're mostly tourists and yes they help the economy but maybe cultural-identity wise it's not as strong for singaporeans ourselves so I feel that when you make it into something that's a little bit more hip, and a little bit more trendy not saying that you have to like remove the historical part of it completely I feel that a lot of these spaces do still keep elements of the history alive and actually does it's part to at least bring younger singaporeans there at least once they're at that place they do get the chance to learn and to realize !hey! this place was actually


you know blah blah blah it was actually the you know like the, for example like #kampong glam# and stuff so yeah I think that once it gets them there it at least gives them the chance to want to learn about it because, to be honest young people to get them interested in like history and cultural stuff it's not very easy and if you don't at least have like a driving force to send them somewhere they're probably never going to have the urge to want to learn so I think that just bringing them there is a very good step in the right direction already and I think one example of this place is probably


#haji lane# which is located at where I mentioned before the #kampong glam# district, which is the present day home of like the natives malay and muslim community that is centred with #masjid sultan# and it's actually an attraction that attracts not just tourist but like I mention young singaporeans you know young girls young boys they go there and spend time there


also like international photographers and et cetera so actually if we think about it it doesn't just help the economy but also help spread like worldwide awareness of our culture because most of these photographers actually come from you know maybe like, Africa united states and stuff so when they take these photos and when they post it online and everything it actually helps spread


the awareness of you know singapore's culture and actually attracts further tourism towards our country so yes, and in economically speaking cultural and heritage sites actually are still very much relevant and can contribute to a country's economy like I mentioned earlier although like what you said there is definitely a need for redevelopment and involvement of


not just a country but you know singapore as a nation but not very big so we definitely need to keep moving, forward and evolving so governments actually do do that, but I feel that they also put in the effort to sustain the several cultural and heritage sites that we have, not singapore but an example being UNESCO the world heritage list where it features you know historical sites that actually still garner millions of visitors yearly so you can just you know imagine how much that translates into tourism and how much that translates into you know the economy boost so for instance right greece it's actually a country that has


many cultural and heritage sites, and tourism is actually seen as their life jacket in terms of economy and, the kind of like money that's helping you know greece grow as a country so it's actually their biggest foreign earner and it's the mainstay of an economy that has actually contracted twenty seven percent since late two thousand and nine and that's really quite a big number so I feel that even if you don't talk about you know greece a country that has like


an abundance of cultural and heritage sites each country has their own culture and each country has their own cultural and heritage sites and these are the places that are unique and they're different in each country and that's what actually makes, them a unique selling point because if you think about it every country has shopping malls and every country has like you know like fun places to visit and stuff they're all pretty much


standard in a way you know like big shopping malls for example that it'll be aeon even at #changi airport jewel# yes it attracts people but ultimately when tourist come to singapore they want to see the traditional element a little bit more I feel for example like Chinatown you want to see like


#little india# and places like that #kampong glam# they want to look at these places to see what singapore was like you know before the modernisation and before the involvement citing that this is what actually helps singapore maintain it's unique selling point not just the tourists but you know for younger singaporeans as well and that's why I feel that


cultural and historical sites actually still are very much relevant in our time now


I feel that aside from


the economy and tourism cultural and heritage sites actually still hold a very strong significance in cultivating once cultural identity so aside from the economy aside from you know the money earn the tourism garner I feel that it really helps in helping to set


a sense of belonging of an individual into a society so the sense of identity that you actually gained from these heritage sites not only help you know one to explain to others you know what my identity is or what his identity is but actually helps


an individual understand him or himself better or the culture that he come from he came from because like I said earlier it's very easy to kind of, forget these things because we are in a very fast paced time right now where you know like technology is becoming so advanced and everyone is just like busy doing their own thing they're working they're schooling is very hard to kind of


stay close to our roots at times because of you know globalisation globalisation as well, so I feel that when you keep these historical sites it actually really helps to, sustain that important culture in any country so in line if you know cultural identity like these historical sites actually


lead people down the road of looking at you know what our ancestors have done in the past and especially the mistakes that they have committed back then or you know like the great exploits that they have done to this world, you know not just the good things but also the bad because we want to be reminded to not commit these kinds of mistakes again serving as you know a lesson from the past


for example kranji memorial landmark actually honours men and women from britain australia canada sri lanka india malaya netherlands new zealand and you know et cetera who actually died while on duty during world war two and this reminds us about the devastation of


you know the war and the amount of you know pain and suffering and trauma that you brought upon the people of that time even though we didn't live through it but there are still in a way our ancestors and we are still connected to them because it is still our culture and it's just very easy for us to forget that, because we have these historical sites there to remind us I think that's that's why it it remains significant to us and it's just remind us how we should avoid committing the same mistakes that our ancestors have made in the past


and you know like regarding the world war two we don't want to ever let there be a time where we feel that war can be an option to resolve conflict, sometimes you know with you know politics and everything getting a bit too heated we never really know what might happen in the future but because we have this historical sites to ground us and to humble us and to remember that no like et cetera et cetera happened in the past we shouldn't commit this kind of mistakes ever again and


they also serve as a way from all walks of life and cultural backgrounds to actually learn about each other's cultures and create a more, accurate and I will say better understanding and yeah just better understanding towards each other towards different cultures and making the world just more cohesive as a whole


because I wouldn't say that you know sustaining these historical sites bring upon you know world harmony or anything cause I think it's very relevant in this day and age that, it's not very it's not very strong lah to be honest so I feel that these kinds of heritage and cultural sites what they can do is help us understand each other better and you know it's like baby steps in a way where you learn to understand someone else's culture you learn to understand why someone does why what he does


I think that once you gain that sort of connection with another person's culture not just your own it helps a lot with your understanding and your view towards, not just culture but life in general and being open minded and realising that there's too much more to life than just you know technology than just


work than just school there's a whole lot of culture and heritage behind us and our friends that we don't even know so I feel that these kinds of cultural and heritage sites really need to still be here to remind us that there's so much more to life than just the


the modernisation of everything and the globalisation of everything yeah


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


agreeing with what you said about the creative activities being you know documented through the arts you know over the years and history I don't actually believe that it's what best reflect society as a whole because if you think about it back in the days may be the creative activities that they did for example like


fine arts you know like painting and stuff maybe they do actually portray what society was at that time, but I think we can all agree that with time that has passed and like what I said earlier about everything becoming so modern and so fast paced and a lot of things have become very


they don't feel like we don't we don't really feel like we are connected to people as much as maybe the people in the pass were so I think a lot of people have become very individualistic over the years as well so what I would say is that a lot of creative activities in modern day is actually


done by you know various individuals but rather than you know reflecting what is in society they actually just reflect a lot of their own different thoughts and beliefs and they don't represent you know collectively one society as the arts is something that gives individuals a lot of space some may even say that is too much space


to express themselves to be creative without any constriction without any barriers and that's what actually creates very very varying different forms of art, that don't actually correlate with each other so I feel that a lot of it is that it's just portrays mostly individual thoughts and values which can be very different from you know another individual maybe completely opposite as err opposite


beliefs opposite values opposite political beliefs but they may be in the same like, society with they may be you know err holding the same culture than we, you know the same race same nationality but they may think very differently and I think that this is especially so in


current times when there's the internet and everyone is exposed to, so many different things you know like not everyone is on the internet surfing the same kinds of content whereas back in the days maybe people are or witnessing the same things at one time because there wasn't this like space of escapism for the those people so that's why maybe back then the arts do portray society but now


it is a lot more individualistic is a lot more like me myself and I what to I want to express what do I want to you know show to the world, and additionally these are still you know the arts is still very qualitative representations and they don't actually give a very factual or


accurate reflection of how much society has grown and progress throughout the years especially in modern times as for what you mentioned about the, virtual reality being used in art and history classrooms I believe that this part actually focuses more on the advancement of technology you know perhaps


computer technology rather than the element of arts itself because if you think about it it is the virtual reality that is enabling the students to kind of like in a way go back in time to see the past and the virtual virtual reality is what creates the more fun and engaging method of education that you mentioned


so I think if you think about it the advancement of computer technology probably actually reflect society more I wouldn't say it's what best reflect society but maybe it reflect society a little bit more than what arts, does because, the advancement of technology also ties in with you know economy is if the economy is growing if the economy is you know boosting up it could probably correlate to advancement of technology we have more money we have more money to invest into technology into better know services for our people


yes, and actually I feel that the arts do not actually serve a very accurate portrayal of a collective society as there are many different forms of art like mentioned above with film images fine arts and et cetera, and they are actually disseminated through many different platforms as well it's almost impossible to keep up already because there's the internet there's TV there's radio


there's broadcast journalism there's you know like print it's just very hard to keep up it's very hard for almost many things to be fact proven and hence this does not always serve as the most accurate portrayal of society and you know whatever progress that society has made as a whole as a majority of


non profit driven art it's actually created both, for very personal reasons or on a personal level as mentioned before these forms of art don't actually serve to express, you know a society's thoughts a society's beliefs or ideals but mostly just the individual and their own achievements and developments that may not even correlate with whatever the society has become because it could be just their own personal like success their own personal achievements


while on the other hand profit driven art, for maybe more of the masses as compared to you know something that's more personal is usually created with at least a certain amount of vendetta and or motives and in fact this you know some of these forms of art that are created very personally


then they are actually disseminated through very public platforms right so there could be a bit of a misunderstanding there for you know like I'm expressing my own personal beliefs but because, I transmit it through a very mass like platform for example like social media and I'm from a certain like such a cyber background and from uncertain like


social social economic background, what if my thoughts and beliefs are conceived by the public as that collective society thoughts and beliefs and that is something that actually poses as a threat to you know not just personal relationships but like a societal threat because it's something that could actually sow discord between people and especially in singapore


when we are you know a racially so called uh more like racial company company country as compared to other countries where there's like one dominant race but in singapore there is you know four races even though the majority is the of course chinese, but we do live in you know in a harmonious like racial country so I would think that something like this could actually have the potential to sow discord between people which is something that I don't think anyone really wants because no one wants to disrupt the harmony and I feel that that's why I don't think that the


arts actually show a very accurate portrayal of, a collective society and on the other hand it could also be an inaccurate portrayal of collective society instead


I think


I think regarding modern day portrayal of society there are lot of unrealistic ideas that are crafted through arts for example images films and music I think what you said about the historical ones do make sense because you know back then there probably wasn't a more


better solution to document things even though it may not be very accurate but now when there's so much other options I feel that there's still a lot of, mistakes that are being made for example very unrealistic ideas crafted through movies for example we think about the movies that you watch on netflix and there are probably the shows that you know like even very young audiences watch and they


feature very like fully grown women playing the roles of you know sixteen year olds and this is mainstream television so it's not just, something like that's on the internet it's something that's viewed by a vast majority of people and like what are you going to explain to your sixteen-year-old next time in the future for example or if anyone has like children or just your friends who


look at themselves and wonder why they don't look like that when on TV there are fully grown women who you know they have nice hair they have, perfect skin they have a nice body and there are actually real life thirty years old but maybe on TV they're playing a sixteen year old I think it's just a very unrealistic ideal


to push on the people and if this is the sort of art that we are documenting as our history for the future next time then I can safely say that's a very inaccurate portrayal of, our society right now and there's also well for example, mainstream music like if you think about rap music they normalise life of you know luxuries heavy alcohol consumption drugs and more and not just glorifying it but then make it seem that it's the norm where as you know like not just if you don't talk about the alcohol and the drugs you know living a life of luxury living in a big fancy house having


you know driving a nice sports car then make it seem like it's something that so easily attainable something that is so normal but for the average you know salary man or the average student that's listening to music like this definitely they can tell that it's not accurate and, even if okay for example if they can tell that it's not accurate at least that's good at least they're able to discern it like what you've mentioned but for those people that are not able to discern it maybe they don't have the same experiences as other people maybe they are


a lot more vulnerable to just receiving information what who is going to teach them you know and they may not even believe people they're telling them that because something that is disseminated on such a wide platform is telling them otherwise, and for those that are able to discern it they know that this is not accurate they know that this not what real life actually is what society actually is right now it's just a probably a very small percentile amid a top few percentile top five to ten percentile of the world


actually have like you know amazing bodies amazing cars amazing houses, where as the rest eighty percent are just very average people and the thing is that they're not really able to, maybe they can feedback it online social media a lot of people are you know performing like activism on these kind of things but the truth of the matter as that mainstream television mainstream music mainstream


even I would say design art advertisements they are still going to keep portraying images like this because it is still what has worked for them time and time again even though I would say they are, you know maybe like smaller networks that are trying to change it up a little bit but at the end of the day it still what it is and if this is what it's going to be documented into our history for the future I think that that's a pretty inaccurate portrayal of society


err so my points are the, I'll just state my three point since she already covered ya so organ trading is a commercial transplantation where there is a profit that's outside of the current national medical systems, so my first point would be that organ trading harms existing voluntary donation programmes which singapore already has in place and my second point is that it can promote greater social injustice and my last point is that yeah it doesn't result in a significant


economic benefit of what people dream of when they think of organ trading, ya, uh I think Jenna can start with her arguments now


ya ya, no I think you should be arguing about your points first instead of like rebutting my points you know what I mean


okay I'd like to prove that uh firstly the one about organ trading harming existing voluntary donation programmes right there's research done that in country after country, there's like this phenomenon where financial incentives will actually crowd out the voluntary donation because governments have no need to develop


infrastructure and public support for a decrease donation when organs can be obtained from like poor people you know, like for example there's this like iran which is the only country that has a government sanctioned program of paying donors they also haven't eliminate eliminated their waiting list so there's no proof that just because there's organ trading that that list can be cleared a lot faster


and when kidney sellers were surveyed a year or more after the removal of their organ they report a lot worse health and regret having sold a kidney and they advised other people in their situation to not do that to not sell the kidney just for more money, so singapore actually already has a similar opt out policy and like with the HOTA act which has already increased singapore's donations since its opt out most people wouldn't really make the effort to opt out and of the program yeah


so I think what we can do in state right is actually educate more Singaporeans about this act and encourage discussions with families about end of life and organ donation despite the taboo nature to ensure more compliance when one's when one is declared brain dead there's this doctor with who is a pathologist in singapore


and and faces a lot of objections and challenges putout by family members due to the lack of education because actually the the donors that're initially potential, donors yeah they become unsuitable because, there's only a twenty four to forty eight hour gap before the organs are not viable for transplantations but because are not a lot of people are very aware of this HOTA act so a lot of families put up violent objections against the


organs being transplanted after one is dead especially cause it's a taboo topic people don't talk about it so they don't know what their family member wants, after they passed away ya so I think what's important is that we increase education on this topic instead of having organ trading yeah


and there's also this recent systematic review and meta analysis by the american psychological association which found the hypothesis that offering financial incentives for our blood does not increase the supply, cause the effects of payment may differ for blood and organs but I think we cannot discount the value of this study


cause people who may have otherwise donated an organ might have refrained from doing so if there's a connotation with financial interests instead of moral value, so even though people will have may have wanted to donate at first because of this financial, connotation maybe they wouldn't want to donate anymore


cause they'll feel like they're doing people feel like they're doing it for the money instead of for moral virtue, and with regard to social injustice actually it's not that the rich can buy organs more easily , I feel like because if human organs are turned into a commodity then they will most likely be obtained from the poorest and most vulnerable because


like they are the ones that are most likely to sell their organs to get money which promotes greater social injustice like, yeah there's this study published by the national library of medicine which shows frequent of reports of abuse fraud and cohesion of paid kidney donors which raises serious concerns about the consequences of organ trade like now you say that in singapore things are more well regulated


but after awhile I still think that is the poorest people that will actually volunteer to donate organs to earn money cause they see as a easy way to earn a lot of money to get themselves one of that or, to like ya climb the social ladder or something so it targets the impoverished and vulnerable donors which leads to greater inequality and injustice


and also , according to the world health organisation selling a kidney actually doesn't really result in the significant economic benefit of rich people really dream of because most of the time is this associated with a decline in general health


like there are a lot of unforeseen medical problems that can happen such as an in which will result inability to work so the people fall back into more debt after donating their organs, ya and according to the US department of health and human services there are unknown effects of stress on the remaining organ for (ppc) those who are living especially cause they only have one left like currently there are still insufficient studies to determine the long term effects of organ donation and studies are still ongoing so


because, this is not really confirmed is very hard to tell whether like (hmm) people will have a decline in health, when they rely a lot on just one organ yeah and in addition that healthy donor is also exposed to the risk of and recovery of the unnecessary major surgery like all of the times a surgery most of the time is not a guaranteed success even in singapore with such high


like medical facilities with a lot of good medical facilities, so even in singapore ya the risk of surgery is still something that people should consider cause there are a lot of surgical complications involved, in organ trading and like donating ones organs like infection bleeding blood clots and even death in severe cases


yeah and there's this study also by the national center for biotechnology they proved that eighty six percent of the sellers reported a declined health after kidney removal, yeah and we cannot assume that like regulated markets are equivalent to well regulated markets


ya I guess you can talk


yeah


okay wait I need to say something in singapore right even though there's no such thing as a organ trading even in organ donation like people do pay for the cost of health care like laboratory tests donation operations follow up visits and like indirect costs such as loss of earnings by self employed workers


so like this cost already made sure that donors are not worse off financially after their give as opposed to improving like their financial situation, ya you can continue, like in singapore even when organ when there's organ donation right like


the cost of the organ donation actually like people I think the singapore does pay for like all the health checks and blood test and like follow up visits for the thing so it's not like the people are gonna be worse off after the give of donation you know they just won't be


financially they just won't improve their financial situation


the cost I mean they also do pay for loss of earnings by self employed workers or those who are daily wage workers


ya but instead of lifting the ban why not you just include the insurance plan together with their current organ donation like add that we already have like what's the what's the need to lift the ban


ya but like what I said earlier like the extra monetary benefit only those who are vulnerable and poor would be the ones who want to trade their organs for money like why would the rich people do that you know


ya but as in isn't that kind of like exploiting in a way it's like you just lift the ban so that the poor can donate you know


that's correct but this is within singapore and within singapore anything like such thing rarely happen so you cannot compare to poor countries like that


ya so like okay for example if you lift their ban and aren't you like contributing to the problem instead


okay I think we're out of time do we pause the recording as in do we end the recording, okay


part two debate topic two


okay I guess I'll rebutt yeah so my stand is that a drug should not be developed to allow humans to live forever so I think the first problem that will arise is overpopulation , like would earth really be able to handle a population of people with unlimited lifespans it's not about just living longer is about living forever


so imagine like even if just, like a small number of people maybe like one percent of the earth, decide to take this drug that's already a lot of people out of the current seven point eight billion people in the world so there will be a huge increase in demand for resources like food water and fossil fuels


and currently like even though we don't even have this drug right and according to the worldwide fund every year earth overshoot day gets earlier and earlier than the previous one, earth overshoot day is basically like when the consumption of our resources on this planet overshoot


uh wait that our planet is able to generate it so in two thousand and nineteen on july twenty nine which is like the earliest one ever calculated in, history like comparison if you wanna compare in one nine seven one this happened in december twenty one


so as you can see the increase in population from one nine seven one to two zero one nine has already already been so huge and it has caused such a big problem with like climate change and overpopulation so I feel like if we develop this drug right we're putting ourselves further into debt while also threatening the future


like even recently all the global conflicts are also increasingly filled by the desire for oil and natural resources we are already short so short of such items right, why would you want people to live forever and then consume even more resources, ya for example there's a standoff in crimea russia and ukraine right


and we have seen how the which is an energy corporation in russia they repeatedly raise the oil prices for ukraine and try to like fight criminal by military means so there's already a lot of devastating effects of a lack of resources on earth


and I feel like it'll only get worse if that this drug is developed, ya and secondly you said your point about , people being able to chase their habits hobbies or like doing whatever they haven't done in a longer life yeah I disagree with that because I feel like love living forever doesn't equate to happy or healthy or longer life


just because you will live forever doesn't mean that you will have more time to do whatever you want I feel like humans are not sociable so even when you have more time right you will still want to keep doing something and something and something like it's never ending list you know like when you have a lot of money you still want more and more there's no end to it so


I don't see a point in living forever because when you do that like I mean after all even you live forever you still need to work or else how you gonna get money right unless a lot of people donate to you or something yeah so if you have to keep working when you're old and like when you live longer doesn't mean that you are going to be healthier


like you can even see like our ninety year old grandmas they are like so old and frail all they can do is just like sit there or like lying in bed in home you know right imagine you live to like one thousand years old how frail are you going to be how you gonna work how you gonna support yourself like, even you have a huge like family or something


then what are you going to do with your life just sit there the whole day and watch TV right you can't even chase all that dreams that you wanted to when you are younger just because of your physical state yeah and even now when people are living a lot older than they are in the last time right


like there's this geriatric research who from the university of glasgow and she already proved that even though more people are living longer compared to thirty years ago now, they are still living in poor health for a larger portion of their life maybe from like seventy to ninety as compared to like


twenty nine to thirty or something you know when they died earlier last time ya and also if people live forever right, I feel like there will be a lack of jobs cause there's this technician how are people gonna rise up their ranks if there's always this person like old person over there like let's say you are still able to work you know like young people cannot


progress and find jobs if there are so many other people working already like there's already this problem so I feel like it will get worse in the future if such as drug is reinforced ya is made and also another point is that


I feel like if you have virtually endless days like forever is a really long time to think about and you'll put a huge psychological strain on us cause like I feel like life just wouldn't be special anymore you won't have an incentive to make life count everyday because what's the point right you gonna live forever anyway people are gonna be so bored with their time like


they won't know what to do so I feel like uh there will be a lot of increase in issues in mental health and maybe prolonged unhappiness and anxiety include including suicide rates cause, if you can live forever then how are you going to die just kill yourself like I don't know yeah and people will be a lot less motivated to do anything special since they always have tomorrow to do it so I feel like people have a very diminished sense of purpose and lack of drive to live basically


especially after they get to a certain point maybe in the start you like relish the thrill of it like oh !wow! I'm so old but after a while I feel like they will get boring cause you won't have anything to do ya, you can argue against these first


ya but as in those who take it they will face the problems that I say what


what about the overpopulation and I feel like you are making a lot of assumptions with your argument as well like you're assuming that there will be other technology or that you know when you split their drug then you can live for like five or ten years, but you don't really know how true is that as well you cannot just assume from this statement that just because this drug is developed that


other technology is developed to make other people live a, when they're older they can stay live like relatively healthy lives and are mobile you know


ya but I also feel like this is like this doing research for this is so superfluous you know we already have so many other things better things that you could research on like, cancer we still haven't really found a cure for that you know, like, I feel like more money can be pumped into better research than developing this drug to for people they live forever I also feel like because this drug will be very difficult to develop because


uh forever is like yeah like I said it's a very long time to to have such a powerful drug, so I think if this drug is actually made there will be a lot of, like there will be a have a heavy price tag to it due to the difficulty in making it and maybe like the novelty surrounding the drug as well


so actually if you compare between like the first and third world right, there's already a life expectancy difference of about thirty years which is pretty long ya so I feel like there are a lot of problems of ill health in underdeveloped nations and actually it's also related to how the developed nations use their political financial and scientific power like


I feel like we could be doing better research to help improve the current state of our situation and like people living on earth instead of, developing such an unnecessary and superfluous thing just so that, you know a few small percentage can take this drug and then maybe live forever which we try to first like


fix the global inequality that already exist and put more research and money into things that a lot of people are currently struggling with right now but there's still no absolute cure for it, ya, you can argue


I said this is a waste of money because you could put the money to better use


okay but then what about the money inside here though wouldn't it be can it be use for a better purpose like it need money to develop this drug right, then how is it not mutually exclusive the money that you put into this drug should be put into other drugs instead


ya but as in the developing this drug doesn't solve any problems what, right, so like what's the point of developing this drug you know there's no like huge benefit that outweighs like why we should actually develop this drug


yeah there's such a exactly that's such a minor problem compared to the current problems that people are facing already you know


ya but I disagree because it's not really just my personal outlook on life is like, I feel like is not very personal that not uh like not being able to live forever will be such a huge problem in your life you know I just I don't understand how people will see it that way because


I don't know I feel like there are a lot a lot of other problems now like for example in Yemen there's like the starvation crisis you know maybe like more money can be put into that into like seeing what the what's the issue there and how we can maybe help the people there instead of like developing this drug so that people in like rich first world countries can live forever


like do you see that comparison I feel like there's no need to develop such a drug just because is like not really essential in our lives you don't really need it and I don't see how someone would say that's a need like food and water is a need but living forever is not a need yeah so I don't think you can really see it that way


okay I know where your discussion is leading say something cause if you may say that it's gonna be very cheap in the future then maybe a lot of people will take it right then that will be lead to the problem of overpopulation which I already mentioned earlier and earth cannot just hold so many people


ya


okay but I feel like right, ya but for example if we ya so if we actually developed this drug and people do are able to live like in other countries not country sorry other planets


but then like I feel like if this is never ending right, and for example you say the drug because cheap so a lot people will take it then there's a lot of humans living forever so like ultimately will still make use of all the planets on the earth, or like at least those that are livable in cause I think some just no matter how much the R&D and research you do I just think it's not possible to live on like the sun you know cause the temperatures are just so hot there ya so I think as in I feel like like in this way then we just abusing the resources that are given to us on earth already cause


instead of just like trying to improve what we have and the situation that we have we're abusing even more and like coming out of this drug so that people can live forever and maybe on other planets and maybe like you know destroy other planets like how we are ruining earth


ya lah but like what I said even if like it's just one percent out of seven point eight billions is already a lot and seven point eight billions is like the current population assuming this drug is developed like, a lot of years later I think the population may have been higher by then already ya so you even if there's just a very small percentage of people taking it like it will still be a lot of people


it will ya I feel like it'll still contribute to the problem a lot


uh I think time's up already shu yan


part three debate topic three