is too touch and go and this kind of thing does not guarantee wider societal good, and hence my point err to summarise my point my point is charity work should not be compulsory because it loses the meaning of charity work to , the wider society ya


okay so firstly I would like to say that charity work should not be made compulsory does not mean that people should not do charity work it means that people have a choice whether they want to, want to do charity work have a choice whether how much charity work they want to engage in have a choice of


what kind of charity work you want to engage in so it gives people the freedom of choice to choose and, okay linking back to your point you said that everyone have a chance to volunteer what kind of thing that can give some people the wealthier can volunteer money the less wealthy can volunteer time all this kind of thing but


linking it to singapore's context if charity work is made compulsory it adds unnecessary pressure to the students who don't understand the meaning of charity work so like, in singapore's context we err since primary school to secondary school we always engage in


various of uh compulsory charity work such as the sharity elephant such as the flag day such as volunteering in err old folks home all this kind of thing but, people are just doing it to fulfill the hundred hundred leaps point the five service point to fulfill


to get more points to minus two marks off your O level L one R to go to JC go to poly this kind of thing, people are doing it for themself they are not understanding the true meaning of charity work which is to genuinely feel so and give back to society out of the own kindness of your heart you are doing it


for VIA points and and this adds unnecessary pressure to singapore student who, don't understand the meaning but yet being forced to do something that they don't believe in and since we know that singapore's uh context is always a rat race and it's a very fast pace society students move fast


doing all this kind of charity work which is touch and go err kind of work where you visit old folks' home for one day but you never go back again you forget everything you, pretend to be happy and fold paper cranes but you are actually doing it that for the VIA points that comes after this kind of thing does not truly add meaning to the charity work and also


if you can say with volunteer time and volunteer all these and that's err that's where charity work should be, made compulsory to everyone and because everyone have the chance to volunteer what they can give but if charity work is being made compulsory have we ever asked the recipient of the charity work whether they need the necessary help


because if charity work is make compulsory there's certainly a lot of help available in the market all sorts of different help maybe like planting trees and like err, err even err going to the children's home all this kind of thing pet service all of these but some people


the the help that people's need always lies with them they can convey their needs to the organization to try to relay to the, people who want to offer charity help but it does not truly mean that the help they the charity work give is like


err necessary and it's timely to what they need some people may have a huge sense of pride who don't want to accept help but some people who who give who wants to volunteer charity work may also have a huge, huge uh sense of pride and want to like give as much money as they can like offer everything to make themselves feel better about themself if charity work


is made compulsory this disparity of what is truly needed and what is given would be enlarged and, it does not guarantee wider society good it may be people may be even more unhappy and to your point about government regulation and


to help to make charity work better and to make like everyone give adequate charity work to err to people and like, so like like child pedophiles will not be paired with child services all this kind of thing I'd like to say that the government can enforce but


can give their law but how, how well they can enforce the law is another thing there's a lot of things like, that the government err stated out the law but people still break like jaywalking or like, not jaywalking will cost you a fine but people still do it so like it's very hard to intrinsically regulate every single charity work that goes on in


society and this kind of thing, would not be the priority the government needs to go through right now so, charity work should only be done out of the goodness of the heart and not made compulsory because it gives people the liberty of choice


to choose to truly believe in a cause and truly give back and the government regulation is not err err kind of help that can last throughout the long run okay


okay so err linking back to your point firstly you said that for students if they don't, uh if the government don't make err charity work compulsory they are highly unlikely to go engage in charity work in the future and like which makes it very hard for them to like err actually do it lah so


firstly I would like to say that for charity work and in singapore's context to really build a generation who truly cares about others in the future we should, the the right thing to do is give them a choice and see whether they would do it themself making things compulsory would only it will actually make people like deter the person


from doing it err lol just like how your you when you are planning to clean up your room but mum tell you go and clean up your room you don't really feel like doing it anymore it's the same thing so the only way to truly build err, students and the next generation who really care about a genuine cause is always to


educate them give them the right set of tools and information that you should do this because there's people in need you should help but the choice lies within themself whether they want to do it or not because it's not about, whether how many people need help I should push this kind of push the students to help them it should it should be allowing them with the


giving them the knowledge that people needs help allowing them to internalize it and truly understand that yes people need help we should go and help it, and hence not making charity work compulsory gives them the liberty of choice to grow for students and also about your


point like it's okay for people feel good about themselves because it's a positive, externality yes I agree that err one good thing about charity work is allows people to gain confidence about what they are doing but, it it can land in the wrong hands where people merely conduct in charity work to prove themself


right about something that do they do not believe in okay , elaborating on the example is where people like donate to a cause just like the example I used to wash their name away to pretend that they are better than what they should be and hence to summarise everything charity work should be made


should not be made compulsory because it gives people the liberty of choice to choose whether they want to conduct in something they believe in, okay can


okay so , your okay so I would like to start off with the outline of my point I feel like err death penalty should not be abolished I would like to, state that the terms of the conditions are that death penalty towards murderer because generally in today's world the


death penalty is err usually used towards murderer and, secondly err the context of this argument is towards the whole world and not in singapore so in this context I would err outline my argument based on death penalty towards murderer and hence uh the three points I would like to say that


err because of retributivism and social contract theory and the fact that men are inherently evil we should, err always enforce death penalty to provide a greater societal good okay so linking back to your point that err people may be young they make mistakes and hence they should be given a second chance okay towards murder


retributivism the theory retrubutivism states that , we recognise individuals as rational decision making according to kant's argument, in the eighteen err in eighteen hundred err individuals are rational decision maker and they're able to make err choices as themselves so


if one person murders another we as a state we should dispense appropriate punishment to value the individual's life and also the perpetrator's life because, the perpetrator where they commit the the commit the crime in


with a clear head and knowing that what they want to do, and committing the crime with a clear head states that they're committed to the crime and they're ready to accept appropriate punishment, from it so death penalty because in the wider societal context death penalties are typically


typically give towards first degree murderers which are people who have a intention to kill and committed the crime in a cold blooded manner, and hence the retributivsm states that , they are rational decision maker and they make a choice and hence we value that individual's life as sacred and valuable and also value the perpetrator's life as valuable and sacred as well so we dispense appropriate


punishment to them to do any lesser would mean that we do not, view the individual's life as important and also we disrespects the perpetrator's life as being as not, being able to accept appropriate punishment for their own actions and also you say that to err to address your point you say that young people in general are are more


youthful err no that are more they are younger and they are unable to make a rational decisions for themself and causing them to make mistakes that they may have to pay with their life, and hence this is why the state law for a lot of countries is that if you are above the eight age of eighteen years old which is


legally you are able to make decisions for yourself then you are then you will be put on the death row for to accept the death penalty typically in a lot of countries youths are not liable to, liable to the crimes they commit and they will typically be put to rehabilitation and to give them a second chance and hence death death penalty is typically reserved for the most vile crimes that


that adults and clear headed adults commits and and this would, and hence the death penalty is used to dispense appropriate punishment to the people to the perpetrator, and hence it should not be abolished okay


okay so to clarify my point my point about being a rational decision maker would, have to link back to our free agent in society can take responsibility for their own choices and should be dignified to accept a punishment, proportional to the gravity of the crime they committed and hence it's not about having a clear headed of mind or anything it's about if you committed a crime that


that is really severe like taking one's life which is irreversible ever you should be able to accept, ~ppropriate proportionate punishment you should not be able to say [orh] I'm not thinking clearly right now I cannot I cannot take responsibility for my crime, because as a free agent as a rational decision maker you are always responsible for your own actions and


you according to a theory of retributivism you are able to, accept a punishment okay so err linking back to your second point you said that men are inherently evil and hence that it's harder for them to like


err make choices for themselves and it's hard for them to like, err take responsibility all these , okay I would like to I would like to change the point into, my my stance which says that due to the fact that men are inherently evil according to hobbes' argument that uh men's nature away from society solidarity


poor nasty brutish and short this necessitate for a criminal justice system strong and severe enough to to prevent, to prevent men's inherent evil from jumping out and committing crimes that is so severe to


that can harm the wider population and hence, the criminal justice system is to fulfill such a purpose with the enforcement of strict laws to protect the public by arresting law offenders and dispensing the appropriate punishment to them


if not the man may succumb to their evil instincts and commit savage crime which could really disrupt the societal peace and to upkeep the moral order and the fragile social fabric due to this inherent evil, the extremely strict law such as death penalty is necessary to prevent them from succumbing to their natural instinct of evil and committing crimes this is why the criminal justice system


which have the death penalty inside is so essential in our society today because it prevents us, us humans uh which which are inherently evil to, to kill to to succumb to their natural instinct to kill to hurt to commit


crimes okay and hence empirical data in US they also shows that execution brought about lesser violent crimes throughout history which, proves the effectiveness of the death penalty as acting as a moral guideline and framing people's respect for the system


to prevent to ground them as civilized and law abiding citizens in our society today, and linking back to your another point of being that they are young and they are unable to take accountability of their own actions and they cannot


be be held accountable I would say that age is not a matter of , of producing of cultivating the instinct of evil since we, we are on the hobbes' argument that human are inherently evil there's another example in Britain where two ten year old kids brought err err err


kidnapped and err kidnap a three year old kid from a convenience store and brought him to the train, station hit his head with a with a iron rod and led him to the train train station the the railway to die, and that that incident shock a lot of people because it shows that age is not a factor in cultivating evil and since


age everyone can develop evil instincts from young, death penalty should be installed as a moral guideline to prevent them from, committing these crimes even from young to old to adult to elderly this is a guideline that prevents people from being evil and hence it should not be abolished


I can answer now okay, death penalty is largely given to people who commit first degree murder and if you committed it under other circumstances, such should be classified under second degree murder and hence death penalty should not be abolished my circle of argument around surrounds the fact that death penalty should be given to first degree murderers and


citing your example it does not fit in the criteria and hence I believe that err other forms of punishments should be given and if the jury and the law enforcements, deems that she is dangerous for society then she should be given the death penalty


first degree murder means they commit the crime under a clear head and they murder with a clear intention and there's a plan behind it since her one does not involve, the daughter committed the crime is called a crime of passion so it would classify under


it's a blur line between first and second degree but if there's other considerations before it social workers and other kind of law enforcement would step in to understand her situation, err clearly before dispensing punishment that's appropriate to the crime that she gave


because of the fact that I believe that death penalty should not be abolished for murderers it means that death penalty in itself must be retained and hence if it should be retained


if it applies to drugs and other forms of crimes it's up to the discretion of the own government to make their law more fair and more fair and just to people who commit crimes the fact that, so I believe that death penalty in general should be retained but whether death penalty should is appropriate appropriately dispense to the crime of that err drug


trafficking err incidents is up to the government to make their law more fair but, in itself it should be retained


okay so , okay so the reason err linking back to your point about drug trafficking the reason why drug trafficking is punishable by death because singapore the only talent we have is human resources because we are so small we are vulnerable that


the only talent we have is human resources if drug trafficking have, is always above how many grams of drugs that is not deemed as personal use is used to dispense to the wider society and hence it would be given the death, it would be given the death penalty because the fact that the drug trafficking is directly hindering our our most valuable resources in the nature which is human resource and hence singapore deems that


according to the context is severe enough to be given , the death penalty whether citizens agree with it or not it's up to own debate but this is the what the government has, outlined to be severe enough just like how , when it hinders with the human resource it should be given the appropriate punishment to


okay so you say that like it's about like meeting the demands, so but then I feel that sex work is just not it's not as simple as exchanging services for material compensation it boils down to a more severe acts of human violation


like who are the people providing sex work and how willing are they, like majority of the sex workers are not given a choice to choose like, it involve so much harm and trauma that it cannot be seen as a commercial business , like the one you said like amazon where exchange of services are based on willingness


okay so according to the united nations there are more than four million victims of uh sex trafficking globally children and mostly women so and this problem will only get worst if sex work legalised, so if there is more demand people would want to tap on this industry and profit from it


so how to profit from it they will just like err force people, from like rural areas and not so educated women and like lie to them that they have a they will have a better job but then they actually put them into this kind of like, err traffic them into like the countries with such demand and they cannot escape from it cause they don't really have much money and most of them will like take away their earnings


so that they will continue generating profits for them so , so my point is by legalising sex work people can now more openly demand for it and in order to meet this demand right sex trafficking will increase and


this was observed in austria which legalise prostitution lah so legalising sex work would inherently promote sex trafficking which has no grounds to be seen as not evil so, another group of people who engage in sex work are oftenly are often poorly educated and forced into err prostitution by the opportunity of err by the lack of opportunity


so this brings back to my point about willingness uh how willing are the sex workers even if you err, like legalise it that does not like, make them more legal to do what they are doing they are forced into it like err because


they have they are not educated they don't have err opportunities and all they are like being like trafficked so you cannot choose a job if you don't have a choice, and by criminalising and err


it's only by criminalising and cracking down on such exchange of services they can better provide help to sex workers like what you say that we can, like what you say they can like seek medical help and then we can provide err better err we can then provide better help to sex workers and open other opportunities for them


and also like sex workers uh, often abuse in the err during the transaction like they have like err, abusive clients so like do you think they will be willing to like engage in sex work so I don't think that err


sex work should be legalised in any way


okay okay so you mention that like err by legalising sex work right err the women will have a choice to like


like have a outlet to seek their justice okay so but I believe that like if you if you criminalise it not only, like the not only the person providing the service will be penalized the person and err demanding for the service will be


criminalised too so I think that like for the bigger, uh the bigger point of why we criminalise err sex work is want we want to like cut off this demand so that there will be no err no such, if no no demand then no business then women will be better


like we have I we can they have more opportunities to seek other better seeking jobs , and like beside selling their body so like and also like err, err can you mention your err second point again


okay so okay wait this like so this is what I say like if you criminalise it the person err


and like the whole industry will be, will be penalized and the point about doctor and other occupations is just not as relevant as sex works because, the because of the trauma involved in sex work itself and


like compared to being a doctor and then err, that in and you said that there will uh if you err legalise it the people providing the sex work will, hand in documents to the government about what service what kind of service they provide right but there will always


but as I said as I mentioned there's this problem of err sex trafficking which is illegal so if they so this, portion this sex trafficking problem will not get better even if you , legalise it because these activities are illegal and there is no way that err even if they provide this service they will hand in documents to the government


so it doesn't it doesn't solve like the deeper problem of like err human violation involved in sex work which is err sex trafficking, ya so I feel that err that if you are saying that


err we should legalise sex work so that people err the the authorities can better check what kind of service and regulate then you are not considering the point about sex trafficking and how , how what trauma it can bring for what kind of trauma can bring for the victims


okay so you said so you say that like sex trafficking is a another topic by itself but I feel that it is closely related to sex work cause it


cause that's what is providing the supply, and also like err you mention that sex sells and hollywood are constantly selling it but like as you said we are progressing as a world that there are there are more cause to like


to for like hollywood to be more like, like for women to like show less of their body and feminine like feminism is on the rise and like they don't want to sell their body and like err we should, and and so like uh women are sick and tired of being objectifying in movies and all that


so I feel that if you are promoting sex work we cannot we cannot err progress at the same pace of feminism about like, err women being err objectified because sex work is basically objectifying the the women which


are mostly the one who are engaged in such services and then err and sex work I don't think can be err, separated from sex trafficking which is what provide the supply ah ya what's what's your second point again


okay so wait so err you say that legalising sex work will err again what's your point


if like err I don't think that err giving more respect equates to , less crime towards them because I feel that err those who are buying this service


like uh like which are like which are like err the one abusing the sex workers even if legalising them they uh they will feel that, they will err respect doesn't actually will increase because err it is legalised just like err


how like if you buy some if you like eat at out a restaurant like most like there there are there will always be like err demanding customer who thinks that err customers are the god so, and the abuse will not stop towards them even if it is legalised so the best way to like crack down this kind of abuse towards women and like for the progress for the society to progress


err and like so and err women will be seen as equal is to stop sex work sex err sex works ya, are we


okay so my point is that charity work should be made compulsory for everyone cause we need to like identify what is the end goal of charity work so


it is I I believe that the end goal of charity work is to benefit those who are in need, (ppc) okay in so I give you some statistics so in twenty eighteen only twenty nine twenty nine percent of the population in singapore did volunteer work so this is the whole population of singapore in general including students


who are made to do compulsory , charity like VIA project so so if we minus off the the percentage for the, students to only narrow down towards adult the percentage of population doing charity work


will will surely decrease so the low participation rate of population should suggest that we need to conform people to do it cause volunteering provides many benefit, for the one for the people at the receiving end and also the people at the dispensing end so if I do charity work I can feel better about myself I see err


I I gain a better scope of like what, err the populations are doing and also like the one receiving help they will also benefit in terms of the help that are given so given that there's such obvious opportunity err obvious benefits to


err err charity work and volunteering we should definitely make it compulsory , let me illustrate to you lah we can all agree the importance of savings right, like it can help us plan for better retirement and tide for tide over economic hardship especially during this COVID period we see like the importance of having


err savings as many people are err retrench doing this this err during due to the pandemic, so can see that such obvious benefits to savings so, but although everybody recognise the benefits of savings and volunteering but they might not do so as they want to fulfill their immediate wants which is like just like


err just like charity work many recognises the benefits it has for the society but they do not do so because it requires commitment and action on their side and like just like people recognises the , benefits towards saving but err


but they don't do it cause they want to buy whatever they want right now so if people cannot cannot be trusted to do err what is, of their best interest and the best interest of the society in general the greater good so the government will obviously have to step in to enforce err compulsory charity work


just like how the singapore government enforces compulsory saving in the form of CPF so , I believe that these two are similar just like err, obvious benefits that it err has for the population so given such obvious uh benefits right


we should definitely enforce charity work


okay so err you mention that err, if charity work is made compulsory people who are in need also need to provide the err provide the charity work so they might feel that they, err do not have to capabilities to provide such err work but but I feel that


is err everyone can always contribute doesn't have to be monetary can just be your time err so, uh there's no such thing as err nobody can cannot like, uh not able to contribute enough and also since I said that charity work should be made compulsory I believe that it should be regulated by the government just like how they regulate err


like primary students ya err, err err in tertiary secondary and primary education err like through VIA projects and what kind of projects they can , take out so like if it is make compulsory the government can make err can also like regulate the kind of services that err


the adult population can do so which is err which is more feasible that which is a more feasible form of enforcement so that okay so that people who , err are in need can provide the services that they can the can provide the help that they can err for the other people and those who are in a better position


err can help can do even more like in terms of monetary , so like this problem about like the people who are in need also need to help they might feel overwhelmed will be solved through like the regulations and also about the intentions


err you mention that if people don't it with err with good intentions, like err the person that you mention that like do it for like to to err for child pedophile so you must you and you said that uh the intentions must be


err intrinsic so that people like will be more err will be more willing to help and the help will be more necessary err more helpful but then uh I feel that, since like as like like my point about the government regulation about charity work so it since the government has such clear information


err about the population so they would, like so they would know like those with criminal offence of uh any pornography or pedophile uh intentions will not be err sent to help those children , and ya so so this is the benefit when it comes to err making it compulsory so that government can regulate it and


better match the the target audience of the people and also err if you say that if the people must do it with good intentions but, if it's and so that real help can can occur but how many people have those kind of intentions and the time


and the willingness and the discipline to help others, so so this is so like small percentage of the population so and if there is all these uh like


uh so few people engaging in err charity work that will I don't think there will be like a huge change or like err, meaningful change for the people in need, so this is this goes back to the err objective and of uh making charity work compulsory is to benefit


most of the people and the greater good and the government can do so better, through if we made it compulsory ya


okay you mention that err, you will lose autonomy of err the choice of charity work that you can you will be able to engage if you if it's regulated which I do not think so you can choose how much you wanna, err top up into your CPF and also how much you want to take out so like and also like there's a lot of autonomy I believe that err


if err you just have to ask for it and , and you will have the chance to do it and also you mention that err like the students don't understand the real meaning behind it , but if you if you don't give them opportunity too they will never


they will never err engage in charity work just like you see how much how many adults are engaging in charity work so these adults are having children who are in schools and if the if they're, parents don't set an an example to volunteer to do charity work their children will likely not volunteer at all and


charity work will be very out of touch to them they will not cannot grasp the idea of, charity work so what the what the government is doing now is basically like in schools making it compulsory so that students, when they uh engage in this kind of err charity work they they know that such a concept exist and they like choose what they are doing to help they will they will


they will err be able to like continue this kind of work in the future and find meaning to it and I do not see like the, problem with err them err the problem with, doing charity work for your own good to feel good because that is


that is a benefit and it can err greatly help those people who have like, err who feel that they are not in they are not useful and so if you, if you can be of help to other people through this like compulsory charity work then you will feel err more meaning to your life this is what charity work brings about so you can it


as long as the end goal is to benefit to benefit those who are in need, err another benefit an external externality the positive externality is that if you feel good about yourself there's nothing wrong with feeling good about yourself it boosts confidence and all that , earn all that thing so so I don't see a problem with


err your motivation, of doing charity work being yourself because the end goal the the positive impact you generate will be there, so ya so I don't see it as a problem for intentions to be for yourself ya


okay so I believe I personally believe that death penalty should be abolished for a few reasons that I'm gonna state below so uh in singapore people can be on death row for drug trafficking and murder


so these crimes are usually committed by young abled bodies who has still a long way to err in their life so, err I believe that people who are sentenced to death are relatively young and they had they deserve a second chance in their life to be guided to the correct path


so if you err and so by giving them death penalty you basically deny the chance for them to change to to be guided in the right way err deemed by the society , and


ya so if and also like what I say they do not uh they deserve a second chance so if, err people are given wrong sentences and err sentenced to death penalty basically they


you they those innocent people will never have a second chance in their life so basically we are, err abolishing death penalty you are giving second chance to more people and more innocent people who are wronged for their crimes and also


just like what I say those err people who commit these crimes are relatively young so there might be external reasons as as to why the crime was committed were they pressurised to do so were they influenced to do so, were they like guided misguided by people


because they were too young to understand anything so, and these are err external reasons that the law failed to, err will not consider in giving death sentence they just see


the action that they produces which is murder drug trafficking but they don't err really go back and uh where they don't really consider , at as to why they were forced they were they were doing this so if if they were misguided


it's high err high chance that if it gives them prison time and like during this time they have err, a better chance to be guided and, err think about their crimes they'll err they'll err do more good to the society than just err killing and just like ending their life because they were misguided


they didn't have a chance to be guided in the wrong way so that's why I think that err they deserve, err by abolishing death penalty we are giving second chance to more people to younger to young people who are misguided and then they can


through their jail terms instead of death penalty they can when they come out of the to into the society they can err provide more good to the society and, basically made up for the crime that they have committed ya


okay so so you say about like khant's argument about people should be able to make err rational decisions right, okay so what about what if I bring out locke's argument who say that people are inherently evil and err like they will


do like like in like, in human style so that is so that err so there is a need for government that's why a government is in place to regulate such behavior and I, and in order to like regulate I think like jail terms is the best lah and and also like


you say that like eighteen year like err in most country err you are saying err death penalty should not be abolished in most most country , but like actually like most country are progressing to towards err err abolishing death penalty because death penalty was like


like an older like a very barbaric way and old like ancient way of punishing err punishing err, criminals and ya so where the ~lation systems are way like not as developed as


err modern times where we have like better we have like jail we have more jails and like they are like in that can err punish they can keep more criminal in bay so basically like, uh in the olden days these are these are things these like the jail the development of jail are not as


are not as , make the development of jail are not as advanced as today's time so they have to resort to err, kill like giving death penalty which is we and times have changed so


everyone are actually progressing towards abolishing death penalty even singapore as we deem like having super strict laws they are also like , K he uh like like mister also say that justice can be tapered tempered with mercy where appropriate so


err death penalty we should have uh should be err given more lax and then ya so and you mention that eighteen year like, for most countries they they only


give death penalty to people who are eighteen year old and are deemed more rational but this as like what you say they are deemed more rational they are deemed so this is like a perceived, argument so how do you know that this person even if he's twenty one years old he is uh rational


if you are like err trapped in a estranged childhood and you have err your during your whole time like err you do not have the, right company the right environment you'll always you will be trapped in this misguided form even till you are twenty one so


age I don't think err determines whether you are rational or you're not rational, so the and we have to find the cause of such irrationality and and err not just


not err not give them another chance to be rational again in the right environment ya


okay since like you say that people can like at such as young age can be err developed the evilness in them I also feel that, kindness and like it can also be developed, so if you just give them a second chance which is what the death penalty strip them off so I feel that


everybody has err should be given a chance to be guided in the right way, like and also like you raise an example about the two ten years ten year old murdering and I also have an example about like this err estranged mum who


who like err have been constantly distinct her her daughter as like being mentally ill and have a lot of illness and like, making her sit on wheelchair for ever uh for all her life


and like err basically just utilizing her daughter to gain err sympathy so when her daughter, like cannot take it one day she decided to kill her mother so do you think like this is justified


do you think she should given be she should be given death penalty, ya do you think she should be given death penalty


can I just err ask what constitute err first degree murder, isn't that what the daughter did


so you are saying that death penalty, should be should be should retained should be retained for first degree murder then uh for in the case of singapore , death penalty should be err death penalty is also


instead of for those who drug traffic drugs then what do you think do you think that err death penalty should be should be still be should should still be err in place for them


so but I believe that if death penalty this idea that err death penalty is, should be implemented and err, it doesn't it gives like other crimes


a chance to be prosecuted to for err on death row to be err, so this whole idea of death penalty should just be abolished so that no government can use this as an excuse to prosecute their own err


opponent or like for , reasons that majority deem as, err as deserving of a death penalty because if you institute this idea that death penalty should be allowed for first degree murder


then those who those who are victimized by death by drug trafficking second degree murder that third degree murder they would also think that err, their the crime the crimes that they are suffering should err should be the the criminals that commit this crime should also be


given death row because of this retributive instinct that most of the people have so this this total idea will uh will just indicate towards more other to all other crimes also


part one debate topic one


uh okay for uh so for right now I do not think that uh the age of internet and uh in this age like the TV and newspaper have become like totally irrelevant uh yes uh in that


it is it it is true to a certain extent that we do uh our lives are dominated by the internet right now but that does not mean that TV and newspaper have totally became like, uh not a part like totally lost its place in our lives because right now uh even the even though the TV and the the TV it the TV and the newspaper are still using uh they are using the internet to leverage like all their


on on like uh their their reach to the public so we see that you know even though uh right even though we might not physically be watching like using the television uh device to to to watch shows


but the but you know the TV still has its reach towards us via the internet uh like we still can watch dramas we still can watch shows via uh that we watch on TV on netflix or on


or even on uh uh uh like mewatch you know provided by mediacorp and and and these different platforms that uh so so you know uh like, even even for the newspaper you know we still check we still have the straits times we have like today online uh or for for singaporeans on our on on our phones that we can easily access via the internet so


not we don't like the newspaper and the TV should not be just limited to a device like or or or a piece of like paper or or a screen but you know even after, like apart from these things that the the the uh they can still leverage on the internet to they're still leveraging on the internet to reach us and we still use them very enthusiastically and


very often so I will think necessary like even yes in the age of the internet yes uh uh we do not necessarily use these devices as much but it does not mean that they totally like lost its their place, in our lives


okay but but uh for like but but honestly like okay so in uh uh there are also statistics that show there is like data and it's actually more effective to read the newspaper physically rather than using


uh uh reading it reading the news online so you know we see that uh even for uh , like in our schools today the instead of asking the students to to to read the news via like the internet or you know or or or or via straits times online you know the schools actually still give their their students newspaper subscriptions to read


through the newspaper because uh it it it it's actually proven I don't have the like total like the percentage but it's proven that you know when we read uh whatever we read like physically it actually absorbs better and is more like is it we actually like


remember it retain the information more easily when we read something physically rather than just uh reading it online because like online there's so many distractions that we might not necessarily like take like we might not necessarily take in the information like correctly ya so uh


like it's actually more effective to read the the physical newspaper therefore it it might actually be be be uh, be better to say that the that that the newspapers are still relevant in our lives because like they can never ever lose that sense of like novelty or you know of that that that sense of like


like concreteness that the that the physical newspaper provides ya and that's the same with the television with the TV as well even though we can watch like our shows like on our phones and whatever it, it the best uh the I think the best thing about the TV is that where it's at home you know your whole family can watch it together and it's like on the television and so it's like it brings people together as well not just like on the phone like we are very like we just watching it on our own but


uh when we when we when we watch it on the TV like together it actually brings like family siblings friends together as well so yeah television and newspaper have not totally become irrelevant and it still has many a lot of use and meaning in our lives


uh okay


okay uh I have uh I will concede that point where you said where you you brought up the point that uh that there's a increased amount of censorship on TV and newspaper which you know uh leads to a distortion of news uh but uh


however you know now in this age especially we have this issue uh that we've never faced before it's called fake news and like I'm sure you know what fake news is and uh fake news is actually being spread I'm sure we know like most commonly on


social media and via the internet and so you know even for like for for ourselves I'm sure that you know we we we don't really uh trust what we see on social media until, until we uh we we see it like on the news on TV or on on the newspaper you know because like that is where our our concrete


like information and uh like like that's where we get our own concrete information and we and we deem that as like as as more trustworthy yeah and so uh because the internet is so like we are so susceptible to like fake news


like via the internet I I think that like like the internet actually brings up more like like more repercussions to like sharing news and whatever because you never know whether it's like real or fake but the newspaper actually provides like


kind of the the newspaper and TV are more reliable and more uh like more uh uh like trustworthy ah so so you know it provides us with more like uh uh uh, it it better information and like clearer information that like helps us to that that that like helps us to like be more informed like


and yeah so so I I I would say that the TV and newspaper have not become irrelevant because yeah you know they are more like reliable in that sense compared to the internet which actually has a lot of like a a lot of like fake news and like different opinions lurking around


yeah


okay I'm not that I'm not saying that it's totally like if it doesn't appear on TV and newspaper it's totally irrelevant because like the TV and newspaper, uh like we still have a a like a time limit to the news that they can share or even for the newspaper it's not like they can publish like an infinite amount of pages you know there's still like a limit that they have to adhere to so it's not it's not


it it's it's not uh totally possible to pay attention to to to to pay uh like adequate like not adequate pay like uh full attention to so many different social issues that are actually happening around the world but okay apart from like


the news uh that we've been talking about like just news on internet and TV and newspaper uh let's like talk about like entertainment as well so like you know even , I'm sure that like uh all of us uh I'm not sure if all of us are aware but you know recently like uh the straits times like during our circuit breaker period like they they held like they had a colouring contest like on on the on their on their newspaper so like every every single day they they release like


like a drawing like a kind of like a colouring template like on a page on on their newspaper every day and people can colour it in when they are bored at home during circuit breaker have they have nothing to do and they can like just, yeah they they they that provided them with like some form of entertainment right like I I I I actually saw like online that there were so many people doing this colouring thing because you know they could win prizes uh through it


and so you know uh uh and you know that's that's the one thing for the TV the for the newspaper you know they they every single day they have like sudoku and whatever templates that you know people can do at home and also like, to to like kind of cure them of their boredom especially like in this season of like staying at home all this quarantine period and so you know it can it provides us with some form of entertainment you know if you actually have uh the on the internet you know the the the platforms of the like these platforms cannot do the same


on the internet they only can do things do these like physically or even for the television all uh like like what I said earlier you know the television is not doesn't just provide us with like news or shows but you know we can play like uh people still play games on the TV people still uh


uh uh like even right now there's there's such thing as smart TV you know so the the the the that that, so so even in the age of the internet the TV has actually developed and and like itself into something that is so powerful that right now even through the TV we can access like youtube or netflix and so you know the the television or even the mass media they still


or even like like uh something that like mediacorp has been doing lately is that you know they have much different quarantine uh uh uh programs that they broadcast via the TV so uh they they even now broadcast their radio shows on television so


like that that is so I I think like that is very like powerful that right now even uh uh the radio can go on television and like reach its people through the television so not I think even during this period it actually proved to us that TV and newspaper have not become totally irrelevant


that they still like have a place in our lives and they provide us with like some and it's like at the end of the day the the internet can develop so much but people still like us as like humans and society we still like seek some form of like solace or like, uh like we still we still find comfort lah in in reading newspaper and like watching the TV yeah so ya


okay but uh like I think for myself I think that for the internet would wouldn't have existed if we didn't have like TV and newspaper so TV and newspaper are like the foundational forms of media before the internet came into place and so you know if


if uh uh like, ya I know the TV and newspaper are totally just still useful in our lives as you they they they like what I said earlier I think my the my favourite part of TV is that at the end of the day when I when I get to watch like the TV


is I get to watch it with like my family and my friends so you know all of us can like , like it brings certain some form of community also like via the TV and you know uh uh uh that that's something that you know the the internet has actually made us more cold towards one another like the like the internet has actually made us more like uh


uh like like kind of alone and like socially uh like just just focus on ourselves and more like selfish people but because we just like the internet is just us and like being it's just us and that browser and it doesn't form like like it doesn't like uh


generate that sense of like community that the television that physical community that the television and the newspaper can bring lah ya so I think like and and the the TV and newspaper in conclusion like they are just uh still very useful to us and they still have that


kind that that they they still like bring people together and like are very important in uh a social sense and like even in like uh yeah that that intent, yes that's fine that's fine


part uh part two debate topic two


all right up to you if you want to, you want to start or do you need time


okay so you talked about how identity protection is important because you know there's a lot of there's a lot of repercussions if we don't protect people's identities but, let me like post to you this uh like like scenario like not this scenario but I mean like like like make you think about this issue ah so right now we have this really widespread issue that we didn't have like twenty years ago like on media and it's called like


and it's uh and it's and it's a and the problem is uh with like cyberbullying so you know uh uh even for uh and this happens a lot mostly amongst like our young the young people and uh youth , so what happens is usually that uh people can just post like anonymous things so now right now we have a lot of platforms where people can actually set like post things anonymously


without any uh regard or concern for the people that they are posting about on the media so there's like there's platforms like , uh tellonym or even like uh uh uh say at or uh AskFM or even like on on on on platforms like Reddit and all you can just have like a random


username and and just post things anonymously and I think that's the danger of like the danger of posting things anonymously is that you don't need to that is that you don't care about someone else's feelings and you don't care about you know how they like uh you just it it is it's it's for you to just like


like you can just share what ever you want without with with little regard for like the people around you and that causes like people to be hurt and to fall into like depression and in it like to to like to take all these anonymous opinions against them very seriously and I think something


uh uh the the problem with anonymity also is that uh ya you know that that that it it just raises this like danger of like we see there's so many like uh kids and youth they're teenagers they're taking own they're taking their lives because like of someone that


because of anonymous people just sending them like mean things via the the internet or via social via the media lah in general so you know uh uh uh tha~yes it is important to protect people's uh identities online but


I also think that like uh it also raises like a chance for like if we don't if we don't if we allow people to remain anonymous it raises like that risk of like like online perpetrators like they can just uh , yeah you know they can they can reach like people they the their their their ability to to cause harm to people is much more


it's it's much more worrying lah yeah


okay uh so yes anonymity like you said is mainly for protection right so uh like would the in the point I raised earlier on that there is much harm that uh where when anonymity is being played on social media but for


for stuff like like uh for like in your case where you said that anonymity is it actually helps to protect uh like whistleblowers and uh people who are coming out like uh on on certain truths but uh like


like I think anonymity also reduces the reliability of someone's opinion so uh even like for like for example you know different yeah different people have different degrees of of reliability right like like for example like we might trust


like when it comes to medical issues we trust a doctor or like when it comes to uh issues on justice and law on crime we we we trust lawyers on their opinion but like what if you know someone can just send in like in the in the case of anonymity people can just like


, like like uh like take out whatever rule they want and like just and and and you know they they just like I would say they can just like when they share their opinion like anyhow anonymously you know some people might take it like it it might cause like a lot of like uh


like it might be be it might their opinions might mislead people because not necessarily like their opinions or what they say is true but because they're anonymous like people don't really know whether they're reliable or not you know so like when you're anonymous like it kind of reduces that


like reliability also because you don't you like like, you don't know who you're listening this you're you don't when you don't really know who you're who you're getting this information from like you can't really trust right, that information lah ya so this more I think it's more it like it's it's actually better for people to uh to to to for people to not remain anonymous because like you know that that increases their reliability and also


like prevents like the case where you know people can just like when people receive like , people are being misled by the information that they get from like these anonymous people ah ya


okay uh I think that yes there's that problem there's that issue with freedom of expression that uh is that did yes you know with anonymity yes freedom of expression is limited to a certain extent but too


uh uh but but we need to acknowledge as well that anonymity actually provides like social order, so eh no that that not remaining anonymous actually provides social order so you know if we allowed everyone to just become anonymous right they could just like share whatever opinions they have like even the most like


and then it could lead to a lot of like it could like lead to a lot of like uh different views like in like, it in in society as well and when there's so many different views like it cause a it causes a lot of like chaos like it could cause like political chaos or even it could mess up like social order where you know people won't be able to like uh they they because you know they that


like when when everyone is anonymous you know they can just share whatever they want and without with little regard like for society or with little fear of like backlash and then like like if everybody just share what if everybody just say whatever they want you know it it will just cause a lot of like mayhem


and like it will it it might breed it might cause it it will cause a lot of like problems for society as well lah so I think like like for the sake of the better good of society it will it is is like people should not remain anonymous cause it just breeds a lot of polarity also between like different opinions yeah


(hmm) okay I feel yes it's there's that yes like generally like the point that you've tried you're tried to raise is that anonymity provides protection and uh freedom of expression but uh just like


I think anonymity also like reduces that sense of like personal connection that we have with people like can you imagine that you go online and everyone's anonymous and like you don't you don't know who you're talking to you don't know who you're engaging with discussion on like on Reddit like if you if


like I knew the people that I was trying to engage with or trying to talk to you know that that form of personal connection and that form of , yeah you know that that that that it will be easier to like connect with people but in in the form of in in when when there is anonymity you know people cannot like


uh connect or people cannot relate to each other as much as like with that anonymity because like like you know we we we we don't even know like who the person we're talking to are you know we're talking to a bunch of like


absolute strangers that are not even that that that we don't we that we literally know nothing about and so you know it it that's the danger of it you know that that that ya it just it it it it it causes people to be more like


like how like apart like how it it grows it makes people grow it makes humans grow apart from each other and like another another thing as well is that you know I'm I'm sure I'm not sure if we all know but there's this like there's this uh


like issue going on in korea right now and it's like called the nth room, so what that room is right is that like it it it was so basically this uh twenty something year old guy he was actually threatening girls like anonymously on telegram chat rooms to release like uh


private videos of themself to like young girls so you know these these videos in these girls like in fear of you know whatever , whatever the guy was threatening them with you know they all released their private videos to him and the different administrators in the group who were all anonymous and because they didn't know like


what information that guy held about them or like whatever and they were still young so they didn't want to like just like like they they didn't want to uh just, yeah you know like go and report to the police so you know that will I think that is a that is a very huge problem and and because of that you know it actually went undetected for like two and a half years before he was


being like exposed and now he's getting uh uh action taken against him but you know if if imagine like if if he was not allowed to remain if this man were not allowed to remain anonymous like wouldn't this like issue be


be exposed earlier and also like like it would have caused it would have like allowed like it would have protected many many other girls lah yeah that fell into this ring or into this into this into into the hands of these predators so


ya I think anonymity is actually very dangerous because like especially for like in this case of like you know uh uh uh like it it it it it allows for like the spread of like you know child pornography and all that you know uh without


like you know with with with with like without any like like like people can just like share whatever without any regard like for the lives that they are actually like causing harm to so I think that is like very very dangerous, yeah so like in uh to wrap up like uh for myself I think that anonymity should not be


anonymity in the media and in our in the in social whether social media or even like on the news traditional mass media I think it's very very dangerous because like it it it, there's that case of like cyberbullying you know it causes a lot and it it messes up social order and also like it also uh like like allows like predators to like lurk on the internet as well which I think that is not and and it also draws people apart so I don't think it's it's it's very useful to us yeah


okay


part three debate topic three


okay I in response to that like for yours here you talk about the problem of privacy and uh you know how uh people they have that yeah you know that it can cause a lot of harm you know if when when these corporations store our data but


why do like yes this issue has actually been going on for many many years but you know people still give their like uh their rights to they still give social media the rights to store and use their personal information why because like social media still prevents presents us


many more like benefits that, outweigh all these like all like like all like all these problems with like uh data storage and whatever you know and and and I think as well because you know like the the social media they they uh


like they it the data they've been storing our data but it hasn't been causing much harm to us like uh, like with it's not like we are we have uh we like we have become like uh uh like uh uh uh like like we've been like like preyed against or anything you know there there there's there's been there there hasn't been really much repercussions for us as well so I think that like the problems that that come along with this is not


very major or not very worrying at worries would that is not really a cause of worries for like most of us so social media , it doesn't really matter whether social media still has the like is given the rights to store and use our personal information and uh another point that I would like to raise is the point of convenience so uh I'm sure that we've all had uh one time where you know instagram has like on our on our engagements on instagram or on facebook uh they have uh


they have asked us like do you want to store your password or do you want to connect your instagram with your facebook or your instagram with, your your your contacts you know there's that there's that uh there's that option right and and so you know actually it provides like this new level of convenience for us because like if you have if I have if I if I if I have instagram and then I connect my instagram with facebook


you know uh facebook is like like it once once I post on facebook I can post on instagram like it's done it I it's like seamless you know the process becomes even more seamless and it's so much more it it provides us with like so much more convenience that we probably cannot uh find if we actually like


uh uh if they didn't have the rights to store our information lah and and so you know as well like if, if I give social media the access to my if I give like instagram or or or or facebook access to my contacts or like snapchat or whatever if I give them access to my contacts you know it will be easier for me to reach like my friends like I do not have to go and like search for


uh theirs like their their their username and like try to like and for example if I try to find like uh like a a a a friend of a certain name you know and that name is so common there's so many people that are named like that name around the world if I try to find that person it might take forever but because I have their contact


you know it's so much easier for me uh and because I I link up my contacts to , uh that to my social media platform it's so much easier for me to find them and to like contact them so I think it's very like more it's much more useful when like when we give social media like the rights to store and use our our personal information it provides us with this form of like convenience lah and it's very useful to us


okay I think uh for for you I think there's that problem where you know like you raised up that problem where we don't know what our information is being used for we're unaware of you know what the how our information is being sold


but I I think like our information storing our information can actually be used for the better good like we see that when instagram and uh uh twitter and snapchat and all these different social media platforms that we are familiar with you know where they store our data and they sell these data to like


data analytic like groups or like even scientists you know it actually provides a us with a lot of insightful uh insightful information about of us as humans like you know if instagram didn't like store our data like oh you know how many uh


how many users like like this post every day or whatever you know we won't be able to to like like, like we don't get to we we we we will be like you know uh where where where they do all these things you know we get to familiarise ourselves with the different habits that like humans have and you know we see that there are so many studies like around the world of like the use of social media and and and all that you know and and and and this is only possible because like these social media platforms they store our data and they analyse it


and so like I guess like this data when they're when they use it right and they analyse it like properly it actually uh uh like they actually use it like for uh for, like the better good lah it provides a lot of like insight and like it gives us a new perspective as well on on on how we use social media and like helps us to see the bigger picture so I think which I think is very very uh useful to us and like


and another thing as well is like you know it actually provides like selling or using our data actually provides us with more like user-specific recommendations so uh for I I I think like there's this there's uh, like for example if you go and like try to like surf the internet and buy


like something uh like for example I'm trying to buy uh something from this online store know like that every single time I go to instagram or to the on my browser you know those uh the advertisements for that online store will appear and it actually provides like it it it actually like like like


like instead of recommending me things that are irrelevant to me it actually uh like when it's by storing all these like data on what I look for or what I I search for uh online you know uh like these social media platforms uh actually provide me with more uh uh uh like


like like with with yeah with with more with like like with more uses like things that are specific to me and like more catered to my preferences which I really appreciate and and for example even youtube you know if you like based on your past storing your video history or your search history they they recommend you things based on that


and and and that and for example if I try to find like a video on how to cook like eggs but you know I have to go and find I have to go and look for it like high and low for the specific video that I want but but but you know youtube makes it so much easier for me by storing my data and recommending like


videos for me on my explore page which is like catered to me and me only which I like so it's more like personalised like the things that are catered the things that I see are more personalised and like yeah they and and I get to like yeah I get I get to like have like uh like my own


uh uh uh like like it's it's it's like it becomes more like for me ah ya ya so as social media I think should have the rights to store data


uh , okay but I think it's not right to say that I think it's not right to say that uh that social media should like I yeah I think I think it's I think it's not right to say that uh we did not consent because like every single time we uh we


we sign up for something like instagram or facebook or whatever you know what is that thing that appears there's terms and conditions right and they actually and there's privacy policies and whatever that we have to agree to and that is like and and and so you know it and and actually we have agreed to it but, uh uh most of the time like we need to read right but I guess it's it's it's it's based to that the user's discretion on whether or not they want to read and find out how their data is being like used so like if


like it it is we cannot say that you know these social media platforms have not provided us with the with the with the option of like like have not like have not sought our consent like on how to use our data because they already have and


we need to be like mindful enough and careful enough to to check out you know how they are using like our data before we before we ya like like like like instead like so so it's on our part


like this they have already done what they need to do and it's just on our part ya


okay yes there is that risk of data breach that social media platforms cannot control and yes that is a problem but uh one thing that I want to raise about the like


the benefits of social media is that uh benefits of them storing our information is actually in a from a business perspective I think that like by storing my users my followers information uh it actually provides it actually really really helps my business so as a business if if I was a business user like


social media will actually give me a clearer view a clearer perspective of my connectedness and my reach to my followers so by by storing like information like oh you know the number of likes that or what kind of what kind of things what kind of stuff that my followers want


like I'll be able to reach them more easily and it actually like uh on a business stage it actually really helps like the industry because it like it increases the level of competitiveness as well and like uh like healthy competition within , uh the industry and it also provides like small businesses with like uh with with with like cheaper and more effective options on how to on on on on how to reach like consumers so like usually like in in


in in a in a business sense you know there's like usually some big corporations that are like ruling right and like smaller group smaller companies that are being started up especially like during this time a lot of small companies are being started up but, because now small companies can leverage our social media and uh and the and and the and and all these like statistics and like and and and uh and data that they have right you know like they are able to like use it for their benefit like to to to to expand their businesses and uh yeah this leads to like


like better uh like like a a more competitive industry ah like smaller businesses are given like more affordable options like uh online advertisements and and and whatever to to to grow themselves I think that is very helpful for them


yeah part one, yeah part one debate topic one


okay ya so so the first debate topic is in the age of internet TV and newspaper have become irrelevant and I agree to this point so uh let me ask you a question is that what is the first thing you do or you grab when you wake up in the morning


so for most of us is to check our phones see our text messages and check our emails next go to media social media to find out like what's happening in the latest news and all that kind of stuff so ninety percent of teenagers are now actually educated via social media


also known as the internet where they find a lot of news that are circulating on facebook twitter youtube or even instagram right now so that's where they actually spend and and that's because that's where they actually spend most of their time at their free time scrolling through the internet yeah


so hence therefore I say that the in the age of the internet and TV and in the age of the internet TV and newspaper have become irrelevant


ah


okay ya so for me the statistics it has shown, so in the age of the internet TV and newspaper have become irrelevant still and that's my point so for the statistics that I have found is that social media has become a main source of news online which


with more than two point four billion internet users daily and nearly sixty four point five per cent receive breaking news from uh facebook twitter youtube snapchat and instagram instead of traditional media ya so


in in a survey fifteen fifty percent of internet surveys surveyed that they said that they hear about the latest news via social media before even hearing it, about it at a news station and many like internet users will see breaking news on their feed and go to the news sites to learn more about it


so , the survey has also found that fifty seven per cent increase in traffic to news sites with mostly referred from social media so, yeah so use uh the statistics there for


that supports my point


(mmhmm) okay ya so like you covered education which I guess that point I agree on but I think when it comes to raising like social awareness and different movements the internet has brought it, ah more like uh more better than how TV and newspaper has covered it so recent like the recent news and cases of raising awareness of the black lives movement I guess you probably have heard it before also


uh and seen it on social media so basically , it was because of the death of the late mister george floyd and whatever is happening in the country of yemen right now are all, issues raised on social media first before television and newspaper has covered it or at least in america in that sense so if it wasn't for someone who posted or tweeted the video on


and uh spread the awareness no one would have known because the TV and newspaper are mediated informations from the government hence it would have been censored yeah so I think like cause TV and newspaper are


like under the government's control they have a, a high amount of censored censorship so a lot of times like things like this won't be able to be covered on TV and newspaper so ah


that's why I feel like in the age of the internet with TV and newspaper being like very censored it'll it has also become uh irrelevant


okay yeah I agree on the part of fake news however cause the internet is so like vast and wide there are a lot of official sites that they can cross reference from so they can if like if they go through a fake news and they see many people will go on google and they search and then they will see a


few articles and then probably cross reference it before taking the information in however when it comes to TV and newspaper does it mean that if the TV and newspaper doesn't cover it it means it's fake news cause let's say


the censorship of the government for example in america they doesn't they don't really like cover like black lives movement or like even police brutality does this mean that both these things are fake news or ya so hence I feel like


hence once again I feel like cause TV and newspaper has a have a great level of censorship in the age of internet where you can search you can find like many things on TV and newspaper have become irrelevant


ya okay, ya I agree to that point but ah so I think the age of the internet like internet itself also have entertainment also like they have apps like like say sudoku colouring all that they can do on


via the internet via different applications that maybe developers have developed for quarantine , entertainment itself and I think without the , I think


ya okay


ya, and my closing point is like what you said TV is is slowly becoming uh more dependent on the internet so uh for me I think in the age of the internet as TV as the years pass us and as our technology advances


TV has become more dependent on the internet however five years down the road ten years down the road will you will you be able to see a physical newspaper, uh people reading physical newspaper cause in my opinion I don't think so and hence I feel like TV and newspaper have become irrelevant in the age of the internet


part two debate topic two, okay yeah so


so just that right we're not gonna are we discussing, like, okay I yes we just start and see how it goes okay so


people have the rights to remain anonymous when portrayed in media and in my point I I'm agreeing to that statement the first thing the first point I wanna talk about is identity protection and what happens if we don't protect identity


what what happens we don't have identity protection so I wanna share with you an example that happened in south korea so all residents of south korea have this some have something called like resident registration number which is similar to our


identification number but it's like more like it's more their private and personal information so it's basically used to identify, in various private transactions such as uh banking and employment however in two thousand and six hundreds and thousands of RRNs which are the


resident registration number were leaked and, were leaked from various consumer databases then cybercriminals used these RRNs to create false accounts in a game called lineage which


as a part of a money laundering operation so the worst part of this is that the RRNs weren't stolen by the hackers , but instead it was actually sold by the company employees with database access so if you think having like your credit card numbers compromised would be bad enough at least cause like credit card issues can be


rectified and the numbers can be changed without too much hassle however RRNs have to go through like like like a long procedure to change and it's not easily changed and, one incident like this can cause like a huge inconvenience to the to many people that's why I feel like identity protection is very important hence people have the right to remain anonymous when portrayed in media yeah


I agree to that point however I feel like with platforms like ask FM tellonym and all these kind of things it's known for it's known that you can be anonymous to post like mean comments and stuff like that so I think people would take


a precaution and they would like like it it wouldn't be a surprise to them if like someone anonymously sent them a hate comment and stuff like that but , yeah I agree to your point that like a lot of people like keyboard warriors they will post like mean comments and bullying and stuff like that however


anonymity also can uh play in the later latter position where it it is also a important role in freedom of expression one of the most amazing things about the internet is that it actually give voices to those who are actively being silent


and this allows them to speak without fear of of repercussion so for example whistleblowing is an extreme version of this this is where like anonymously released details and evidence can be used to keep people accountable for their words and actions and without anonymity the the


the revelation of the high stakes of high stakes secret will always come with a dangerous consequences so actually anonymity can protect like someone who's gonna release like uh information that might be highly like a high highly secretive


, thing so for example uh I would say the recent release of the anonymous group on twitter where they few years back they they revealed something and then they went silent for a long while and then recently they come back they came back with


revealing a lot of like high stakes secrets with which which is related towards the the corruption of their government and of the US government and all that kind of stuff so


that's why I feel like anonymity can it can play both ways it can play as a uh, like uh in a in a negative form however it also can be portrayed positively by protecting someone's uh identity ya so that's why I feel like people have the rights to remain anonymous when portrayed in media


(mmhmm)


okay yeah so like you said with anonymity like there are a lot of things that uh might be unreliable that's why I feel like it's a common sense where people like take anonymous comments with a pinch of salt where


if someone says something anonymously you have to do like research uh like , yeah so you have to like do more research and check whether the source is reliable and such like that however


however I still feel that people have the rights to remain anonymous when portrayed in media cause without anonymity there's not much of freedom of expression I'd say so like let's say if I'm hor


if something happened to me at, home or like whatever and I don't want my identity to be released , I would want to be anonymous like I wouldn't want my identity to be released in that sense


so ah so that's why I feel like people have the rights to be to remain uh anonymous when portrayed in media yeah that's why that is also why reddit is a popular platform because many people seek , advices or like they ask question there anonymously without wanting people to know like why they are like without wanting people to know who are they and


why they are asking that question if you get what I mean so yeah that's why I feel like the most important thing about anonymity is it protects like your personal information uh and your identity hence people have the rights to reveal uh to remain uh anonymous


when portrayed in media


(mmhmm) on your point you said like how if they're anonymous they can just say whatever they want however if let's say the whole internet or like whatnot is not like there's no such thing as anonymity


people will still say like whatever they want so I think when it comes to like , people's uh opinion or like them causing a social order I think it's like like natural cause that's like internet as a platform and the platform is like open and available to everyone


hence I don't think anonymity actually is a huge cost or like a huge problem to like what you said social order cause with or without with with or without people would still like just see but then


once again anonymity protects someone's identity it protects someone's personal information also so and it's like a sort of like human rights I feel so people have the rights to remain anonymous when portrayed in media yeah


(mmhmm) okay so for my closing statement I agree to what you say with how the negative effects that come along with anonymous but then once again I would say that anonymity can be used in the other in a more positive thing also in a in a way where people


where people wanna bring up corruption in the government or like people at a higher higher like when there's a when there's a need to reveal a higher stakes secrets anonymity can play a part in that , ya so once again the example will be the recent uh release from the anonymous group they revealed many of the wrongdoings of their own government and the corruption where their uh current president is


corrupted for and they revealed a lot of like high stakes secrets where if they're if they're they came out unanonymously they wouldn't this wouldn't have been , like known or found so therefore I feel like people have the rights to remain anonymous when portrayed in media cause it provides identity protection and it


also helps people to protect their personal information ya


part three debate topic three, okay ya I'm starting okay ya so social media should not have the rights to store our personal


or and use our personal information so like you guys know there's a rise of cyberterrorism uh and this is because now right now social media and the internet itself have been , with most of us store more of our personal information up on social media and uh the internet and what cyberterrorism is is the covered convergence of cyberspace and terrorism and and refers to unlawful attacks and threats of


attacks against computer networks and information stored there in when done to intimidate or coerce a government or its people in furtherance of political and social objective ya so like I like to highlight that it says that


the information stored therein and a lot and I would like to raise an article which is the facebook sued over claims, facebook sued over claims it's tracked users activity which says that facebook is being actually sued by a guy by a group of users over the claims that once they log off facebook still track their


uh online activity and this has to do with uh whether, this has to do whether with whether or not facebook actually deletes tracking cookies once users log off their site so if cookies are not deleted users activities can be tracked when they surf the internet so like I said social media should not have


the rights to store and use our personal information cause that's privacy that's human rights and with , them storing it up on the internet we wouldn't know when the next like cyberattack could happen and


yeah and that's how like that's how also uh people use it to blackmail against other people so, like hackers use it to blackmail like governments and people like my like rich people or like whatever so that's why I feel like should social social media should not have the rights to store and use our personal information


(mmhmm) so on that point of convenience I agree however when there's convenience there's also a greater risk and a higher level of uh chances to be potential to be hacked or attacked so if


like so one thing I've realised or like I've seen is that there's a rise of spam messages that are not just uh entering our emails cause emails are okay like like however it's like spam messages directed to our


phone numbers our whatsapp and all that and why is it so it's because online platform social media and they are via via internet have been like selling and giving away our personal information and you won't even know and you like you probably don't even know that they're doing this but


they actually gain money from it and , and like having the thought of knowing that people have like your number like random people have your number , like it it makes me or like it actually question like how secure is the internet is and how secure is our personal information out on internet is yeah so there's also suicides that has happened due to the leak of


be it customers or like even people's information like the leak of their private information because of , social media like how social media having like their information and all that people hackers will be was able to like hack


and then use that information to blackmail people and stuff like that hence uh there are a few suicides that happen uh one I would say is the late miss ashley madison who whose her customer details are reported theft


actually taken their lives according to like bullies in canada so ya like I've said like once again social media should not have the rights to store and use our personal information because there's people can invade our privacy


there's a invasion of privacy and we actually don't know what like our personal information other than storing it there is used for, yeah


{mmhmm}


, yeah I , okay I agree on that point however I think what you're pointing out is not on personal information however it's on like the user's activity and like the analytics based on what the user


like their activity on the social media not much on their personal information ya cause for what I know spotify tracks the user's , yeah their their activity on the like social media like instagram itself you say like they sell our uh our what our activity to like other


platforms so that they get like better analytics but I think what you're talking about is like, their our user activity like what we like what we share and what we what we save and all that kind of thing but however I'm talking about like personal information so


I think that social media still does not have the rights to store and use our personal information cause once again personal information it's private it's like where you live , your your phone number and things where if it gets leaked it doesn't just harm you but it harms like your family members people around you also so it puts not just you but the people around you in danger also cause


ya they live with you and stuff like that so current laws I personally feel that even right now the current law should should actually keep up with technological advances uh by protecting personal information up online


and , yeah like how can we guarantee that our information up online are safe on the internet like, like we like yeah we put like yeah we put it up on instagram we put we agreed we put our information up on instagram and all that but however like how do we know that it's safe and how can we guarantee that


our information are not being sold are not being like sold without our consent ya so ya, so I feel like social media should not have the rights to store and use our personal information


(mmhmm) like I agree on your point there are terms and condition however social media I guess now because there are terms and condition and they themself probably know that no one is gonna read the entire like whole like four pages like of terms and condition and stuff like that and


ya they put it so small no one will like go see but I think social media should not have the rights to store and use our information because , like there's no like guarantee that they can protect our personal information or privacy let's say a hacker hack and then get our personal information where we stay and all that and then start like


uh start like attacking or like releasing and selling this information online we'll not know like how bad can like this situation can uh go about so I feel like if the social and there are cases where like


people information get leaked and then , they like get back blackmailed because their information like cause a unwanted person has like their like holds their information and their private information so how can


if let's say social media wants and it's a need for them to have our personal information how what can they do to like make it, how what can they do to guarantee us that our personal information are not leaked you know what I mean so once again invasion of privacy is very like key and essential cause everyone won't want like the whole world to know where we stay


who like what are numbers are and stuff like that so social media should not have the rights to store and use our personal information,


okay yup so I think like what you said like you covered businesses right however I'd like to let you know that there is a recent not recent sorry there there was a hacking of sony in two thousand one two thousand eleven where


like personal data names names addresses and other personal data for of about seventy seven million people with accounts on it's playstation network has been stolen and uh like what you said it it might have it might help


businesses with their it might help businesses with their , way of getting to the customer however when however like issues like this may be different like because this is like a breach of privacy and security to like the to like the customers I would say


and the hackings of sony in two thousand eleven actually show that organisations can also be vulnerable and even encrypted information can be exposed so I think this this issue itself and this like article itself has


uh proves like my point of how social media should not have the rights to store and use our personal information and yeah so that's my point


part one debate topic one


okay however I feel like schools should, not consider subjective and non academic factors for admissions for a very simple reason because from err administrative standpoint I feel like this would be something that is very difficult to coordinate by the schools so like


it's very hard to have the same standards for different schools so how do schools actually way and balance out the, number of sports to allocate to students by academic achievements and a number of sports to allocate through non academic qualifications


the reality is that is err very difficult task to accomplish so may not be fair across the different schools and the landscape of our current education system is such that one, uh at the end of students' journey in a particular school they have to go through major examination such as the PSLE in primary school GCE O levels in secondary school and GCE A levels in JC junior college and so on so as a result the system


still places a substantial emphasis on being able to achieve a good academic performance in this final examinations as such I felt like it would be, simply unfair for a student who has put in like so much effort in this


hard uh like put in so much effort and hard work over the years to achieve such good results in final examinations while another person can just simply uh showcase their talent to get into a certain school,


when when our education system has placed an emphasis on this major examinations for such an extended and long period of time with the focus on sieving, sieving out the indigenous who have err the potential to succeed in the real world in the future accepting individual who


who have err poorer grade, on this examinations but have non academic talents defeats the purpose of having such an examination so the system in singapore has succeeded in producing talents for decades so I feel like I feel like


that broadening our stands I feel like broadening our stands on students acceptance into schools would detriment the system and also like cause an imbalance in the system that's why I feel like should schools should not consider subjective and non academic


factors for admissions


okay I agree that like tuition fees are very expensive but also we have to see like the percentage of people going for tuitions maybe maybe it's not that significant ya and another reason why I feel students uh should only be accepted into schools by merits


of academic performance is because of the standard of governance in singapore, so as you know singapore the singapore government has always believe in the principles of meritocracy which is to have a society governed by people based on merit so the harder you work


the more you get the less you work the less you get so taking our acceptance of students into institutions on subjective majors such as like non academic factors CCAs will go against this entire system of


meritocracy so by allowing non academic factors to determine a student's acceptance into a school we are opening the door to potential corruption so what like example if you have like CCA


err like if you have trials to err to like grade the students how their how good they are at like maybe example basketball so how do you there is like no standard like maybe the coach on that day


he feel like like he feel better about this student compare to another student so it's like there's I just feel like there's like err imbalance like is very is a very subjective point like it's very subjective for


schools to to accept students based on like nonacademic factors, and also rich students can is actually buy buy their way into a school uh building their portfolio artificially


and depriving a student who have work his way into the school to hard work and good good performance at his examinations so example will be like if, okay if you say like in the field of art so like the richer students maybe they can like they can like force the portfolio like say this person went to like some contest but actually he uh he or she didn't


and whereas a student who work hard, at examinations would be deprived of going to into a school so so we should instead maintain academic achievement as the main platform for acceptance into school to ensure a fair competition


between students such that , those who are truly deserving of entering a school earns their way in so they work hard in their examinations , rather than accepting students in spite of their performance on examination in a way this is this also undermines the very purpose of examination if you are able to proceed to the next phase of our lives like secondary school or a JC in spite of


lousy results and like unsatisfactory performance of in our test so why should we even continue with them so there's no there's no reason err like it just defeats the purpose of having examination lah if we are


if we are considering this subjective and nonacademic factors for admissions


(mmhmm)


(mmhmm), (mmhmm)


okay another reason why I feel like the academic achievements should be the sole consideration in accepting a student into a school is because of the potential segregation there're student who enter through non academic method could face


because I've heard stories from my friends like they go through the DSA direct school admissions then they are they are able to uh go for trainings first so like my friend from JC like she enter she start training even before school started so when they are able to get into the school first right then


then they are able to, like have their own uh click already they will had did the DSA student would be segregated into one class of their own so different schools have different type of scores to be hit to allow entry into the school


and I feel that through entering by DSA into a school where a students' academic standard maybe far from average standard in the school apart from segregation that some schools do in separating the DSA students into a certain class


this may also take a hit on students emotionally emotional and physical physiological well-being so they may feel like they're not as err they're not as academic strong as others


so they may start to actually question their ability and then they compare to themselves to other students in the school so I feel like this will affect their well-being err significantly, and there's something there's something that I personally seen in schools in my schools in the past where some DSA students are even discriminated against against like and they're often stereotyped and then


like for example in my JC like the, all the volleyball players are DSA students and they're stereotype to being uh students that are high highest potential retains retain retains students ya so I feel like such a system


may be very detrimental and have negative effects on a student's livelihood and happiness and this is not very optimal for youth and we should go against it although like the three points that I have mentioned are valid


I feel like err academic should still be the main still should should be the main focus of admissions into schools whereas like other non academic factors can be like err supportive reason or like


help the student to be err to not be so stressed about studies, ya


part two debate topic two